ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
ELECTION LAWS
Based on the Lectures and Outline of Atty. Jocelyn Valencia1
INTRODUCTION/ GENERAL PROVISIONS
SOURCE OF POLITICAL POWER/
PHILISOPHY:
Article II Sec. 1 of the Constitution: The Philippines is a
republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.
LAWS GOVERNING ELECTIONS
A. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Article II, Section 1: Declaration of Principles
o Section 1 (foundation of the democratic process),
o Section 13 (vital role of the youth in nation
building)
o Section 23 (state encourage non-governmental,
community-based or sectoral organization (party-
list),
o Section 26 prohibition on political dynasties as
may be defined by law)
Article III Bill of Rights
o Section 4 (freedom of speech and of expression);
o Section 5 (No religious test shall be required for
the exercise of civil or political rights);
o Section 8 (right to form associations for those
employed in public and private sectors);
o Section 16 (speedy disposition of cases before all
judicial and QJ or administrative bodies)
Article IV on Citizenship (qualification of candidates
and voters);
Article V, Suffrage.
Article VI Legislative Department (composition of the
members of the HR, qualifications, term of office,
party list, vacancy, composition of the HRET and SET;
Article VII Executive Department (qualifications, term
of office, limitations of term, manner of canvass and
proclamation, composition of the PET, vacancy;
Article IX-A (common provisions for constitutional
offices) &
Article IX- C: COMELEC (composition, powers and
functions of the COMELEC, the body created by the
constitution to conduct any electoral exercise as well
as uphold and safeguard the integrity and sanctity of
the ballot in order to achieve its objective of holding
an honest, orderly peaceful free and credible
elections);
Article X General provision on Local Government
(requirement for alteration of political boundaries);
Article XVI (General provisions) prohibition against
partisan political activities or prohibition on the
appointment or designation of a member of the
armed forces in the active service to a civilian position
in the government;
1 The order of topics in the outline was modified minimally
1
Article XVII amendments or revisions to the constitution
B. OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE BP 881 basic law on elections.
C. AMENDMENTS UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION:
UNDERLIYING RA 6646 (Electoral Reform Law of 1987). Sec. 2
thereof re-enacted the OEC when it provided that the
first local elections under the new Constitution and
all subsequent elections and plebiscites shall be
governed by this Act and by the provisions of the BP
881, otherwise known as the OEC of the Philippines,
and other election laws not inconsistent with this Act;
RA 7166 (An Act which provided for the
synchronization of the National and Local Elections of
1992;
RA 7904 (An Act Governing the conduct of the 1995
Senatorial and Local Elections;
RA 7941 (Nov. 26, 1991) An act providing for the
election of party-list representatives through the
party-list system;
RA 8189 (June 11, 1996 Voters Registration Act of 1996
providing for the General Registration of Voters &
Adopting a System of Continuing Registration;
RA 8295 (June 6, 1997 Proclamation of Lone Candidate
in Special Elections);
RA 8436, An Act Authorizing the COMELEC to Use an
Automated System in the May 11, 1998 National and
local Elections and in subsequent National and Local
Electoral Exercises. (Sec. 11, impliedly repealed Sec. 67
of BP 881 being inconsistent with Sec. 11, which
provides that elective officials running for any office
other than the one he/she is holding in a permanent
capacity, except for President and VP, shall be deemed
resigned only upon the start of the campaign period
corresponding to the position for which he/she is
running);
RA 8524 (Feb. 14, 1998 An Act Changing the Term of
Office of Brgy. Officials and Members of the SK from 3
years to 5 years amending Sec. 43 (c) of RA 7160, the
Local Government Code of 1991;
RA 9006 Feb. 12, 2001, An Act to Enhance the Holding
of FRECRE through Fair Election Practices. (Sec. 14 of
RA 9006 expressly repealed Sec. 67 of BP 881 and
rendered effective the provision of Sec. 11 of RA 8436
insofar as the applicability of Sec. 11 on the matter is
concerned).
RA 9164 (March 19, 2002), An Act Providing for
Synchronized Barangay and SK. Elections, amending
RA 7160, as amended.
RA 9189, An Act Providing for a System of Overseas
Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of the
Philippines Abroad.
RA 9225 (August 29, 2003), An Act Making the
Citizenship of Philippine Citizens who Acquire Foreign
Citizenship Permanent, Amending For the Purposes
C.A. No. 63, as amended
RA 9244 (February 19, 2004), An Act Eliminating the
Preparatory Recall Assembly as a Mode of Instituting
Recall of elective Government Officials.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
The basic law on elections and these amendments are
designed to improve the law and to protect the integrity
of the elections in order to achieve the objective of holding
an:
HONEST,
ORDERLY
PEACEFUL
FREE AND
CREDIBLE elections (HOPE-FRECRE).
D. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (RA 7160)
RA 7160 The Local Government Code of 1991 for
1. Recall of local elective officials;
2. Qualifications and Disqualifications of elections of
local elective officials;
3. Local initiative & referendum
Applicability
Shall govern all elections of public officers and, to the
extent appropriate, all referenda and plebiscite.
(Section 2 of the Omnibus Election Code)
Further strengthened by Sec 2(1) of Art. IX-C, the
Constitution empowers the COMELEC to enforce and
administer all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum and recall.
The COMELEC is mandated to apply the OEC and all
other statutes on the subject governing election laws.
(Section 36 of RA 7166).
MODES OF POPULAR INTERVENTION
I. ELECTIONS/ SUFFRAGE
(i) ELECTIONS DEFINED
Carlos v. Angeles 346 SCRA 571 (2000)
ELECTIONS is 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.
In the context of the Constitution, the term election
may refer to the following:
(1) Conduct of the polls,
(2) Listing of voters,
(3) Holding of the electoral campaign, and
(4) The casting and counting of votes.
The winner is the candidate who has obtained a
majority or plurality of valid votes in the election.
Romualdez v. RTC 226 SCRA 408 - The right to vote is a
most precious political right, as well as a bounden
duty of every citizen, enabling and requiring him/her
to participate in the process of government so as to
ensure that the government can truly be said to derive
its power solely from the consent of the governed.
(ii) ESSENCE OF ELECTIONS
Sunga v. COMELEC 288 SCRA 76 - Plurality of votes is
the essence of an election or majority rule. A public
office is filled only by those who receive the highest
number of votes cast in the election for that office
which is a basic tenet in all republican form of
government.
2
FACTS: Trinidad and Sunga, were candidates in the
mayoralty race in the Province of Cagayan. Trinidad won
while Sunga garnered the second place and when Trinidad
was subsequently disqualified, Sunga claims that he should
be proclaimed.
ISSUE: Whether Sunga should be declared winner.
HELD: The SC ruled that it would be extremely repugnant to
the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right
to suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired the majority
or plurality of votes be proclaimed winner and imposed as
the representative of a constituency, the majority of whom
have positively declared through their ballots that they do
not choose him.
Rulloda v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154198, January 20, 2003
the winner is the candidate who has obtained a majority
or plurality of valid votes cast in the election. For, 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.
(iii) BASIS OF PLURAILITY OF VOTES
Mitmug v. COMELEC 230 SCRA - The majority or plurality of
votes is determined by the number of registered VOTERS
WHO ACTUALLY CAST THEIR VOTES OR THOSE WHO
ACTUALLY VOTED AND NOT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF
REGISTERED VOTERS. There is no provision in our election
laws which requires that a majority of the registered voters
must cast their votes. All the law requires is that the
winning candidates must be elected by plurality of votes,
regardless of the actual number of ballots cast. Therefore,
even if less than 25% of the electorate in the questioned
precincts cast their votes, the votes has to be respected.
(iv) CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTION LAWS
Election contests are REASONABLY AND LIBERALLY
CONSTRUED as it is imbued with public interest to give
way to the will of the electorate and ascertain by all
means the real candidate elected by the people. 2
Reason: to promote the effective and efficient
implementation of the objectives of ensuring the
holding of an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and
credible elections and to achieve a just, expeditious
and inexpensive determination and disposition of
every action and proceeding brought before the
COMELEC.
In applying the rules of statutory construction
however, the provisions of election laws are divided
into THREE PARTS NAMELY;
1) Those which refers to the conduct of elections required
to be observed by election officials ;
The rules and regulations for the conduct of elections
are:
Mandatory before the elections, but when it is
Directory only after the elections most particularly
if innocent voters will be disenfranchised by the
negligence or omission of the elections officers
(who will be liable either criminally or
administratively).
2) Those provisions which candidates for public elective
office are required to do and comply with;
3) Those provisions which covers procedural rules
designed to ascertain, in case of dispute, the actual
winner in the elections.
Cases:
2 Sec. 3 Rule 1, COMELEC Rules of Procedure
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
Benito vs COMELEC 235 SCRA 436 - the proclamation
of Benito as mayor-elect by the Municipal Board of
Canvassers was not a valid proclamation.
The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest
number of votes dies, or is later declared to be
disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he
was elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate
who obtained the second highest number of votes to
be declared the winner of the elective office. Election
contests involve public interest, and technicalities and
procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if
they constitute an obstacle to the determination of
the true will of the electorate in the choice of their
elective officials. Laws governing election contests
must be liberally construed to the end that the will of
the people in the choice of public officials may not be
defeated by mere technical objections. Technicalities
of the legal rules enunciated in the election laws
should not frustrate the determination of the popular
will.
3
Punzalan v. COMELEC April 27, 1998 - Section 15 of RA 6646
as amended by Sec. 24 of RA 7166, requires, in addition to
the preliminary acts for the conduct of vote as provided
under Sec. 191 of the OEC, the Chairman, to affix their
signatures at the back of each and every ballot to be used
during the voting. The failure on the part of these election
officials to do their duties will not invalidate the ballot for
to rule otherwise would disenfranchise the voters and place
a premium on the official ineptness and make it possible for
a small group of functionaries, by their negligence or their
deliberate inaction to frustrate the will of the electorate.
It may however constitute as an election offense imputable
to the said BEI Chairman.
Bautista vs Castro 206 SCRA 305
The absence of the signature of the Chairman of the Board of
Election Tellers in the ballot given to a voter as required by law
and the rules as proof of the authenticity of said ballot is fatal.
This requirement is mandatory for the validity of the said
ballot.

Bince v. COMELEC 242 SCRA 273 - Laws governing

Marcelino C. Libanan v. HRET a ballot without the BEI
election contests must be liberally construed to the
chairmans signature at the back is valid and not spurious,
end that the will of the people in the choice of public
provided that it bears any one o these other authenticating
officials may not be defeated by mere technical
marks, to wit
objections.
a. the COMELEC watermark; and
b. in those cases where the COMELEC
Maruhom v. COMELEC 331 SCRA 473, it was ruled that
watermarks are blurred or not readily
laws and statutes governing election contests
apparent, the presence of red and blue fibers
especially the appreciation of ballots must be liberally
in the ballots.
construed and that in applying election laws, it would
be far better to err in favor of the popular
The provision of law which candidates for office are
sovereignty than to be right in complex but little
required to comply with are generally regarded as
understood legalisms.
mandatory and failure to comply would be fatal to the
candidate. Example, rules prescribing the qualification of
Pea v. HRET 270 SCRA 340 - While statues providing
candidates (such as age, citizenship or residency
for election contests are to be liberally construed, the
requirements cannot be cured by vox populi vox dei),
rule likewise stands, that in an election protest, the
deadline or filing of certificate of candidacy or limitation of
protestant must stand or fall upon the issues he had
period within which to file an election contest.
raised in his original or amended pleading filed prior
to the lapse of the statutory period for filing of the
LIMITATIONS TO THE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION (WHEN
protest considering that compliance therewith are
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION POLICY NOT APPLICABLE)
rendered mandatory for candidates.
1) When the amendment to pleadings in an election
Fernandez vs COMELEC GR No. 9135 April 3, 1990
contest will substantially change the cause of
action, defense or theory of the case;
While Section 24 of Republic Act No. 7166, otherwise
2) When the amendment will alter a final judgment
known as An Act Providing For Synchronized
on a substantial matter;
National and Local Elections and For Electoral
3) When the amendments will confer jurisdiction
Reforms, requires the BEI chairman to affix his
upon the court when none existed before;
signature at the back of the ballot, the mere failure to
4) When it seeks to cure a premature or non-
do so does not invalidate the same although it may
existent cause of action
constitute an election offense imputable to said BEI
5) When the amendment is intended to delay the
chairman.
proceedings of the case.
Nowhere in said provision does it state that the votes
contained therein shall be nullified. It is a well-settled rule
that the failure of the BEI chairman or any of the members
of the board to comply with their mandated administrative
responsibility, i.e., signing, authenticating and
thumbmarking of ballots, should not penalize the voter
with disenfranchisement, thereby frustrating the will of the
people. (as cited in Punzalan vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 126669.
April 27, 1998])

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
TYPES OF ELECTIONS
1. REGULAR ELECTIONS is an election held on such
dates established by law at regular intervals. Whether
national or local, it refers to an election participated in
by
a. those who possess the right of suffrage,
b. are not otherwise disqualified by law and
c. who are registered voters.
Paras v. COMELEC 264 SCRA 49 (1996) SK election
is not considered a regular elections because the said
elections are participated in by youth with ages
ranging from 15 to 21, some of whom are not qualified
voters to elect local or national elective officials.
2. SPECIAL ELECTIONS
a) In cases were postponement and failure of
elections are declared by COMELEC 3
b) In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the
Senate or House of Representative at least 1 year
before the expiration of the term4, the COMELEC
shall call and hold a special election to fill the
vacancy not earlier than 60 days nor longer then
90 days after the occurrence of the vacancy,
However, in case of such vacancy in the Senate,
the special elections shall be held simultaneously
with the next succeeding regular elections.
c) In case a vacancy occurs in the offices of the
President and Vice-President, no special
elections shall be called if the vacancy occurs
within 18 months before the date of the next
presidential elections 5
OTHER FORMS OF POPULAR INTERVENTION
II. INTIATIVE
RA 6735:
INITIATIVE IS DEFINED AS THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE TO
PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OR TO
PROPOSE AND ENACT LEGISLATION THROUGH AN
ELECTION CALLED FOR THE PURPOSE.
Initiative is resorted to (or initiated) by the people
directly either because the law-making body fails or
refuses to enact the law, ordinance, resolution or act
that they desire or because they want to amend or
modify one already existing.
There are 3 systems of initiative:
a. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition
proposing amendments to the Constitution;
b. Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition
proposing to enact a national legislation; and
c. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition
proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city or
municipal or barangay law, resolution or ordinance.
INDIRECT INITIATIVE is exercised of initiative by the
people through a proposition sent to Congress or the
local legislative body for action.
3 Sec. 5,6,7, BP 881
4 Sec. 4, 7166
5 Art. VII, Sec. 10, Constitution
4
III. REFERENDUM
REFERENDUM is the power of the electorate to
approve or reject legislation through an election
called for the purpose. The law-making body submits
to the registered voters of its territorial jurisdiction, for
approval or rejection, any ordinance or resolution
which is duly enacted or approved by such law making
authority.
Referendum may be of 2 classes:
a. Referendum on statutes which refer to a petition to
approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed
by Congress; and
b. Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to
approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance
enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative
bodies.
SBMA V. COMELEC 262 SCRA 492 (1996) not only
Ordinances but also Resolutions are also appropriate
subjects of a local initiative.
WHO MAY EXERCISE: It is exercised by all registered voters of
the country, autonomous regions, provinces, cities and
barangays.
REQUIREMENTS:
1) To exercise the power of INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM:
National Law or Law passed by the legislative assembly of
an autonomous region, province or city:
a. at least 10% of the total number of registered voters,
b. of which every legislative district is represented by
at least 3% of the registered voters thereof,
c. shall sign a petition for the purpose and register the
same with the COMELEC.
d. The percentage requirement is likewise applicable
and is deemed validly initiated to a referendum or
initiative affecting a law, resolution or ordinance
Law passed in a municipality
a. petition is signed by at least 10% of the RV of the
municipality
b. of which every barangay is represented by at least
3% of the RV voters therein.
With respect to a barangay resolution or ordinance
a. signed by at least 10% of the registered voters of said
barangay.
2) a petition for an INITIATIVE on the 1987 Constitution,
a. must be signed by at least 12% of the total number of
registered voters,
b. of which every legislative district must be represented
by at least 3% of the voters therein.
c. LIMITATION: Initiative may be initiated only after 5
years following the ratification of the 1987
Constitution and only once every five (5) years
thereafter.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
PROCEDURE IN THE CONDUCT OF INITIATIVE AND
REFERENDUM:
1. The COMELEC, shall schedule a special registration of
voters at least 3 weeks before the scheduled initiative
or referendum.
2. After determining the sufficiency of the petition, the
COMELEC shall, within 30 days, publish the same in
Filipino and English at least twice in a newspaper of
general and local circulation and set the date of the
Initiative or Referendum not earlier than 45 days but
not later than 90 days from the determination by the
COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition.
3. The Election Registrar shall verify the signatures on
the petition on the basis of the registry of voters,
voters affidavits and voters identification cards used
in the immediately preceding elections.
EFFECTIVITY OF INITIATIVE or REFERENDUM
1) The national law proposed for enactment, approval or
amendment approved by a majority of the votes cast
as certified by the COMELEC, shall become effective
15 days following completion of its publication in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines.
2) The proposition to reject a national law approved by a
majority of the votes cast, shall be deemed repealed
and the repeal shall become effective 15 days
following the completion of publication of the
proposition and the certification by the Commission.
But if the majority is not obtained, the national law
sought to be rejected or amended shall remain in full
force and effect.
3) With regards to the proposition in an initiative on the
CONSTITUTION approved by a majority of the votes
cast in the plebiscite, the same shall become effective
as to the day of the plebiscite.
Santiago v. COMELEC 270 SCRA 106, COMELEC cannot
validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement
the exercise of the right of the people to directly
propose amendments to the Constitution through the
system of initiative. The power of the COMELEC to
issue rules and regulations is limited only to what is
provided under (A) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the
Constitution, or (b) by a law where subordinate
legislation is authorized and which satisfies the
completeness and sufficiency standard tests.
In this case the petition to propose amendments to
the Constitution particularly the lifting of the term
limits of public elective officials was not validly
initiated as it failed to comply with the signature
requirement for initiating an Initiative (Petition signed
by at least 12% of all the registered voters where each
legislative district is represented at least by 3%) . The
COMELEC never acquired jurisdiction over the petition
as jurisdiction is acquired only after its filing the
petition being the initiatory pleading.
5
SBMA v. COMELEC 252 SCRA 492 (1996).
FACTS: Sangguniang bayan passed Pambayang Kapasyahan
Bilang 10, Serye 1993, expressing therein its absolute
concurrence as required by RA 7227 (Bases Conversion and
Development Act) to join the Subic Special Economic Zone.
On September 5, 1993, the SB submitted the Kapasyahan to
the Office of the President. Petitioner SBMA seeks to
nullify the respondent COMELECs Orders denying
petitioners plea to stop the holding of a local initiative and
referendum on the proposition to recall the Kapasyahan.
To begin with, the process started by respondents was an
Initiative but respondent COMELEC made preparations for
a Referendum. In the body of the COMELEC Resolution No.
2842, the word referendum is repeated at least 27 times,
but initiative is not mentioned at all. The COMELEC labeled
the exercise as a referendum, the counting of votes was
entrusted to a referendum committee, the documents
were called referendum returns, the canvassers
referendum board of canvassers and the ballots themselves
bore the description referendum.
SC DISTINGUISHED INITIATIVE FROM REFERENDUM:
Initiative Referendum
Initiative is a process of Referendum consists
law-making by the people merely of the electorate
themselves without the approving or rejecting
participation and against what has been drawn up
the wishes of their or enacted by a
elected representatives, legislative body.
The process and the Voters simply write
voting in an initiative are either yes or no in
more complex. the ballot
The Constitution clearly includes not only ordinances but
also resolutions (which pertains to an act passed by a local
legislative body) as appropriate subjects of a local initiative
in accordance with Section 32 Article VI of the Constitution.
IV. RECALL
RECALL is the mode of removal of a public officer by
the people before the end of his term of office which
shall be exercised by the registered voters of a local
government unit to which the local elective official
subject of such recall belongs. 6
Garcia vs. COMELEC 227 SCRA 100 (1993) The peoples
prerogative to remove a public officer is an incident of their
sovereign power and in the absence of a constitutional
restraint, the power is implied in governmental
operations.
MODE OF INITIATING RECALL (RA 7160)
Limited to a petition commenced only by the registered
voters in the local unit concerned.7
Section 70: The recall of any elective provincial, city, municipal
or barangay official shall be commenced by a petition of a
registered voter in the LGU concerned with the following
percentage requirement:
(1) Initiated by a written petition for recall duly signed before
the Election Registrar or his representative and in the
presence of a representative of the petitioner and a
representative of the official sought to be recalled, and in
6Sec. 69 of RA 7160
7Section 70 and 71 of RA 7160 is now amended by RA 9244, otherwise known as
an Act Eliminating the Preparatory Recall Assembly as a Mode of Instituting Recall
of Elective Local Government Officials.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
a public place in the province, city, municipality or
brgy. as the case may be, shall be filed with the
COMELEC through its office in the local government
unit concerned.
(2) The COMELEC shall cause the publication of the
petition in a public and conspicuous place for a period
of not less than 10 days nor more than 20 days, for the
purpose of verifying the authenticity and genuineness
of the petition and the required percentage of voters.
(3) Upon the lapse of the said period, the COMELEC shall
announce the acceptance of candidates to the
position and prepare the list of candidates including
the names of the official sought to be recalled (as he is
automatically considered a registered candidate and
entitled to be voted upon (Sec. 71 RA 7160) but who is
prohibited to resign while the recall proceeding is in
progress (Sec. 73).
ELECTION ON RECALL
Upon the filing of the resolution or petition, the shall
set the date of the election on recall not later than 30
days for city, brgy. or municipal officials and 45 days
for provincial officials.
EFFECTIVITY OF RECALL
only upon the election and proclamation of a
successor in the person of the candidate who received
the highest number of votes cast during the election
in recall.
Should the official sought to be recalled receive the
highest number of votes, confidence in him is thereby
affirmed and he shall continue in office (Sec. 72).
LIMITATIONS ON RECALL
an elective official may be subject of recall elections
only once during his term exclusively on the ground
of lack of confidence.
The recall cannot be undertaken within 1 year from
the date of the officials assumption of office or one
(1) year immediately preceding a regular election
(Sec. 74).
Garcia vs. COMELEC 227 SCRA 100
FACTS: Garcia was subject of recall for loss of
confidence which was initiated thru Resolution No. 1
by some mayors, vice-mayors and members of the SB
of the 12 municipalities of the province who
constituted themselves as a PRA. Garcia filed with the
COMELEC a petition to deny due course the said
Resolution on the ground that it failed to comply with
the substantive and procedural requirements laid
down in Section 70 of RA 7160. COMELEC dismissed
the petition and scheduled the holding of recall
elections.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari urging
that Section 70 of RA 7160 allowing recall through the
initiative of the PRA is unconstitutional because (1) the
people have the sole and exclusive right to decide
WoN to initiate recall proceedings, and (2) it violated
the right of elected local public officials belonging to
the political minority to equal protection of the law.
HELD: Recall made its maiden appearance in our 1973
Constitution. It was mandated in Section 2 of Article
XI entitled the Local Government. The Batasang
Pambansa then enacted BP 337 (Local Government
Code of 1983) where Section 54 of Chapter 3 provided
only one mode of initiating the recall elections of local
elective official that is, by petition of at least 25% of
the total number of registered voters in the local
government unit concerned.
6
In response to the 1987 Constitution, Congress enacted RA
7160 the LGC of 1991 which took effect in January 1, 1992
where congress provided for a second mode of initiating
the recall process through a PRA and there is nothing in
the Constitution that will remotely suggest that the
people have the sole and exclusive right to decide on
whether to initiate recall proceedings.
Paras v. COMELEC 264 SCRA 49: SK elections is not
considered a regular local elections for purposes of
recall under Sec. 74 of RA 7160. The term regular local
elections is construed as one referring to an election
where the office held by the local elective official sought to
be recalled will be contested and be filled up by the
electorate. It is confined to the regular elections of elective
national and local officials.
Angobung v. COMELEC 269 SCRA 245, the petition to
initiate recall proceedings must be filed by at least 25% of
the total number of RV and cannot be filed by one person
only. The law merely stated that the recall be initiated by
a petition of at least 25% of the RV and did not provide
that the petition must be signed, considering that
process of signing is statutorily required to be undertaken
before the ER.
Malonzo v. COMELEC and the Liga ng mga barangay March
11, 1997, Malonzo questioned the validity of recall
proceedings initiated by the said Liga composed of Punong
Barangays and SK Chairmen. The SC upheld the validity of
the recall proceedings and stated that while the Liga is an
entity distinct from the PRA, it so happens that the
personalities representing the barangays in the Liga are the
very same members of the PRA, the majority of whom met
and voted in favor of the resolution calling for the recall of
Mayor Malonzo.
Jovito Claudio v. COMELEC et. al and PRA of Pasay v.
COMELEC 331 SCRA 388 (2000),
Two issues were settled in the matter of recall:
1. On whether the word Recall in par. (b) of Sec. 74
of RA 7160 includes the convening of the PRA and
the filing by it of a recall resolution and
2. On whether the phrase Regular Local Elections in
the same paragraph includes the election period for
that regular election or simply the date of the
election.
Facts: Claudio was the mayor of Pasay who assumed
office on July 1, 1998. Subsequently in May 29, 1999, of
the 1,790 members of the PRA 1079 adopted the
resolution entitled Resolution to initiate the recall of
Claudio as Mayor for Loss of Confidence.
Claudio and two others, filed oppositions alleging
procedural and substantive defects among which and
more importantly anent the issue at hand, that the
convening of the PRA took place within one-year
prohibited period.
Held:
First Issue the petitioner claims that when several
barangay chairpersons met and convened on May 19,
1999 and resolved to initiate the recall, followed by the
taking of votes on May 29, 1999, the process of recall
began and that since May 29, 1999 was less than 1 year
after he had assumed office, the PRA was illegally
convened and all proceedings held thereafter,
including the filing of the recall petition in July 2, 1999
were null and void.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
The COMELEC on the other hand, maintains that
the process of recall starts with the filing of the
petition for recall and ends with the conduct of
the recall elections and that, since the petition for
recall was filed on July 2, 1999, exactly one year
and 1 day after petitioners assumption of office,
he recall was validly initiated outside the one year
prohibited period. Both petitioner and COMELEC
agreed that the term recall as used in Sec. 74
refers to a process. They however disagree as to
when the process starts for the purpose of the
one year limitation in par. (b) of Sec. 74.
RECALL as used in par. (b) of Sec. 74 refers to
the election itself by means of which voters
decide whether they should retain their local
officials or elect his replacement. Sec. 74 deals
with restrictions on the power of recall. On the
other hand, Sec. 69 provides that the power of
recall shall be exercised by the registered voters
of the local government unit to which the local
elective official belongs. Since the power vested
on the electorate is not the power to initiate
recall proceedings (such power is vested in the
PRA or in at least 25% of the registered voters
under Sec. 70), but the power to elect an official
into office, the limitations in Sec. 74 cannot be
deemed to apply to the entire recall
proceedings.
In other words, recall in par. (b) of Sec. 74
refers only to the RECALL ELECTION, which
excludes the preliminary proceedings to initiate
recall such as the convening of the PRA and the
filing of a petition for recall with the COMELEC, or
the gathering of signatures of at least 25% of the
voters for a petition for recall. Considering that
the recall election in Pasay was set on April 15,
2000, more than one after the petitioner
assumed office as mayor of that city, the SC held
that there is no bar to its holding on said date.
As to the Second Issue petitioner argued that
the phrase regular local elections in par. (b) of
Sec. 74 does not only mean the day of the
regular local elections which for the year 2001 is
May 14, but the election period as well, at 45 days
immediately before the day of the election. Thus
contending that beginning March 30, 2000, no
recall election may be held.
Had congress intended this limitation to refer to
the campaign period, which period is defined in
the OEC, it could have expressly said so. If we
follow petitioners interpretation, it would
severely limit the period a recall election will be
held.
Manuel Afiado et. al. vs. COMELEC 340 SCRA 600, the
issue is WoN an elective official who became Mayor
by legal succession can be the subject of a recall
election by virtue of a PRA Resolution passed or
adopted when the said elective official was still the
Vice-Mayor.
Facts: Miranda became the substitute candidate for
his father, for the position of Mayor. Joel emerged as
the winner over his opponent Abaya and he was later
proclaimed with Navarro as Vice-Mayor.
Defeated Abaya filed with the COMELEC a Petition to
Declare Null and Void Substitution which later was
amended seeking to declare the certificate of
candidacy of the father, Jose Miranda, as null and
void. The COMELEC ruled that the Certificate of
candidacy was not valid, hence, he cannot be validly
7
substituted by his son Joel, as a mayoralty candidate in
Santiago City.
While the Petition of Joel was pending with the SC, the PRA
of Santiago City convened on July 12, 1999 and adopted a
Resolution calling for the recall of Vice-Mayor Navarro for
loss of confidence.
After the Supreme court denied with finality the Petition of
Joel, Vice-Mayor Navarro assumed and took oath as new
mayor of Santiago City.
COMELEC denied due course the PRA Resolution as moot
for the reason that the assumption by legal succession of
petitioner as the new Mayor is a supervening event which
rendered the recall proceedings against her moot and
academic.
The SC referred to the Resolution itself which specifically
referred to the recall of Navarro as Vice-Mayor for her
official acts as VM. Even if the PRA were to reconvene to
adopt another resolution for the recall of Navarro, this
time as Mayor, the same would still not prosper in view of
the limitation as prescribed in Sec. 74 which provides that
No recall shall take place within one year from the date
of the officials assumption of office or one year
immediately preceding a regular elections. Navarro
assumed office on October 11, 1999 and recall elections can
only be initiated between October 11, 2000 to October 11,
2001 which is now barred by the May 14, 2001 elections.
Evardone v. COMELEC 204 SCRA 464 (1991) the Court
rules that loss of confidence as a ground for recall is a
political question. WoN the electorate or the municipality of
Sulat has lost confidence in the incumbent mayor is a
political question.
V. PLEBISCITE
PLEBISCITE is the vote of the entire people or the
aggregate of the enfranchised individuals composing
a state or nation expressing their choice for a
proposed measure.
It is generally associated with the amending process of the
Constitution, particularly on the ratification aspects and is
required under the following:
a) Section 4 Art. XVII with reference to amendments or
revisions to the Constitution which may be proposed
by congress upon of the votes of all its members or
by constitutional convention 8
b) Sec. 10 Art. X relating to the creation, abolition,
merging, division or alteration of the boundaries of any
political unit.
8 Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed
by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by
the people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of the total number of
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least
three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section
shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
oftener than once every 5 years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier
than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or
revision. xxx
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go 8
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
Sanidad v. COMELEC 181 SCRA 529 the Supreme Court HELD: The creation of Napico cannot be considered as moot
declared as unconstitutional the restriction imposed and it is most proper that the P be declared null and void in
by the COMELEC on media relative to discussing on air view of the pending boundary dispute between Pasig and
and print the features of the plebiscite issues in the Cainta which presents a PREJUDICIAL QUESTION AND MUST BE
creation of the autonomous region for the Cordilleras DECIDED FIRST BEFORE THE P FOR THE PROPOSED BRGYS. BE
and held that Plebiscites are matters of public CONDUCTED.
concern and importance and the peoples right to be
informed and to be able to freely and intelligently
make a decision would be best served by access to an
unabridged discussion of the issues.

Padilla Jr. vs. COMELEC 214 SCRA 735, the COMELEC

resolved to approve the conduct of the plebiscite in
the area or units affected for the proposed
Municipality of Tulay-na-Lupa and the remaining areas
of the mother Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte.
Majority of the electorates in the units affected did
not favor the creation of Tulay-na-lupa.

Petitioner Gov. of Camarines Norte in a special Civil

Action of Certiorari seek to set aside the Plebiscite
contending that it was a complete failure and that the
results obtained were invalid and illegal because the
Plebiscite as mandated by COMELEC Res. 2312 should
have been conducted only in the political unit or units
affected (which is the 12 barangays and should not
have included the mother unit of the Municipality of
Labo.

HELD: With the approval and ratification of the 1987

Constitution, more particularly Art. X, Sec. 10, the
creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of
the boundaries of any political unit shall be subject to
the approval by a majority of the votes case in a
Plebiscite in the POLITICAL UNITS AFFECTED and
reiterated its ruling in Tan v. COMELEC 142 SCRA 727
(1986) that in the conduct of a Plebiscite, it is
imperative that all constituents of the mother and
daughter units affected shall be included. The term
political units directly affected was held to mean
that residents of the political entity who would be
economically dislocated by the separation of a
portion thereof have a right to vote in the said
Plebiscite or the plurality of political units which
would participate in the Plebiscite.

Tobias et. al. v. Abalos Dec. 8, 1994 (En Banc), the

exclusion of the constituents of San Juan to
participate in the Plebiscite for the ratification of RA
7675 relative to the conversion of Mandaluyong into a
highy urbanized city notwithstanding that it involved a
change in their legislative district was upheld for the
reason that the matter of separate district
representation is merely ancillary to the conversion of
Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city.

City of Pasig vs. COMELEC/Municipality of Cainta

Province of Rizal, Sept. 10, 1999, the issue as to the
propriety of the suspension of the Plebiscite
proceedings pending the decision of the boundary
dispute between the Municipality of Cainta and the
City of Pasig was raised.

FACTS: The City of Pasig passed on Ordinance creating

barangays Karangalan and Napico. The Municipality
of Cainta moved to suspend or cancel the respective
Plebiscite due to the pending case before the RTC of
Antipolo for the settlement of the boundary dispute
and prayed for its suspension or cancellation until the
dispute is decided by the RTC. The COMELEC
suspended the holding of the Plebiscite for the
creation of Brgy. Karangalan but rendered the
creation of Napico as moot as the same was already
ratified in the Plebiscite held for the purpose.

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
COMELEC
NATURE AND POWERS
1. COMPOSITION AND QUALIFICATIONS
CHAIRMAN & THE SIX (6) COMMISSIONERS
Composed of a Chairman and six commissioners who
shall be:
o Natural born citizen of the Philippines and
o At the time of their appointment, at least 35
years of age,
o Holders of a college degree and
o Must not have been candidates for any elective
position in the immediately preceding elections.
o However, majority thereof, including the
chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar
who have been engaged in the practice of law at
least 10 years.9
2. MANNER OF APPOINTMENT/LIMITATIONS/REMOVAL
The Chairman and the commissioners shall be
appointed by the President with the consent of the
commission on appointments for a term of 7 years
without reappointment.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the
unexpired term of the predecessor.
In no case shall any member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity. 10
Commissioners are removable by impeachment.11
Can the President appoint or designate a temporary
chairman of the COMELEC?
Brillantes v. Yorac 192 SCRA 358, The President cannot
validly designate Yorac as acting chairman on the legal
premise that Art. IX-C Sec. 1(2) prohibits the
appointment of members in a temporary or acting
capacity. Art. IX-A Sec. 1(2) provides for the
independence of the COMELEC and therefore, the
choice of a temporary chairman falls under the
discretion and prerogative of the commission and
cannot be exercised for it by the President.
1997 Bar Question: A month before the forth coming
election, A one of the incumbent Commissioners of
the COMELEC, died while in office and B, another
Commissioner, suffered a sever stroke. In view of the
proximity of the elections and to avoid paralyzation in
the COMELEC, the President, who was not running for
any office, appointed Commissioner C of the COA,
who was not a lawyer but a CPA by profession, ad
interim Commissioner to succeed Commissioner A and
designated, by way of temporary measure, Associate
justice D of the Court of Appeals as Acting Associate
Commissioner during the absence of Commissioner B.
Question: Did the President do the right thing in
extending such ad interim appointment in favor of
Commissioner C and designating Justice D acting
Commissioner of the COMELEC?
Suggested Answer: No. The President was wrong in
extending an ad interim appointment in favor of
Commissioner C. In Summers vs. Ozaeta 81 Phil. 754,
it was held that an ad interim appointment is a
permanent appointment. Under Section 15, Article VII
of the Constitution, within two months immediately
before the next presidential elections and up to the
9 Section 1 (1) of Article IX C
10 Sec. 1(2) of Article IX-C -
11 Section 8, Article XI of the Constitution,
9
end of his term, the President cannot make permanent
appointments.
The designation of Justice D as acting Associate
Commissioner is also invalid. Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the
Constitution prohibits the designation of any Commissioner
OF THE of the COMELEC in a temporary or acting capacity. Section
12, Article VIII of the Constitution prohibits the designation
of any member of the Judiciary to any agency performing
QJ or administrative functions.
1998 BQ: Suppose a Commissioner of the COMELEC is
charged before the SB for allegedly tolerating violation of
the election laws against proliferation of prohibited
billboards and election propaganda with the end in view of
removing him from office. Will the action prosper?
Suggested Answer: No. Under Section 8, Article XI of the
Constitution, the Commissioners are removable by
impeachment. As held in the case of In re Gonzales, 160
SCRA 771, a public officer who is removable by
impeachment cannot be charged before the SB with an
offense which carries with it the penalty of removal from
office unless he is first impeached. Otherwise, he will be
removed from office by a method other than
impeachment.
MEANING OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW
Cayetano v. Monsod 210 SCRA 210, the Supreme Court held
that engaging in law practice is not only confined to
courtroom practice. It includes any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. In
upholding the confirmation of Monsod, the SC held that
the more than 10 years of work experience of Monsod as a
lawyer economist and other position requiring application
of his legal knowledge constituted as engaging in the
practice of law as would qualify him with such work
experience to be Chairman of the COMELEC.
NATURE OF THE POWERS OF COMELEC
The powers and functions possessed by the COMELEC ARE
EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATIVE which pertains to the power
to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative
to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum and recall. The power to enforce and enforce
all laws, rules and regulations governing elections is
exclusive to the COMELEC with the set purpose of insuring
an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and credible elections.
The RTC cannot assume jurisdiction over a case involving
the enforcement of the election code which pertained to
taking cognizance of a Special Civil Action filed before it to
restrain Mayor from pursuing certain infrastructure
projects during the election period which was alleged to
constitute a violation of Sec. 261 of the OEC. (Zaldivar v.
Estenzo 23 SCRA 540; Gallardo v. Tabamo 32 SCRA 690).
A judge who restrained the suspension of the canvassing
of election returns is guilty of ignorance of the law and is
administratively liable therefore. (Libardo v. Cesar 234
SCRA 13).
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
The other executive/administrative pertains to all
questions affecting elections such as:
1) The determination of the number and location of
polling places.
2) Deputization/appointment of election officials
and inspectors
3) Supervise registration of voters
4) Award of bid contracts
5) Regulate the use of firearms
6) Call special elections
7) Investigation and prosecution of election
offenses
8) Declare a postponement, suspension, annulment
or failure of elections
9) Regulate the use of franchise or permits to
operate media of communications and
information.
10) Require compliance with the rules for the filing of
certificates of candidacy.
11) Proclamation of winners
12) Registration of Political Parties and Accredit
Citizens Arms
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWERS
Pertains to:
1) Prescribing rules to govern procedure (COMELEC
Rules of Procedure) and
2) promulgation of rules and regulations relative to
the conduct of elections to insure an honest,
orderly, peaceful, free and credible elections,
such as; issuance of rules to supervise and
regulate media and advertisement, rules to
implement prohibition against expenditures or
those in excess of the limits authorized by law.
ADJUDICATORY OR QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS
Embraces the power to resolve controversies that
may arise in the enforcement of election laws and
resolution of cases involving regional, provincial and
city officials or to election disputes in general.
Sec. 3, Article IX-C, that the COMELEC in the exercise
of its QJ functions may sit en banc or in two
divisions, and shall promulgate rules and procedures
in order to expedite the disposition of elections
cases, including pre-proclamation controversies and
summon parties to a controversy pending before it.
The authority to hear and decide election cases,
including pre-proclamations controversies IS vested
with a division and the COMELEC sitting en banc
however does not have the authority over it in the
first instance.
The COMELEC en banc can exercise jurisdiction only
on Motions for Reconsideration of the resolution or
decision of the COMELEC in division as a requirement
for the filing of a petition for certiorari by the
aggrieved party with the SC within 30 days from
receipt of a copy thereof.
In the exercise of its QJ functions, the COMELEC is
empowered to cite a party for contempt of court
conformably with the rules of court and impose the
appropriate penalties as therein prescribed.
10
A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or
ruling of a Division shall be filed within ) days from the
promulgation thereof.12 Such motion, if not pro-forma
suspends the execution for implementation of the decision,
resolution, order or ruling and would in effect, suspend the
running of the period to elevate the matter to the SC (Sec.
4).
Coquilla v. COMELEC G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002, the SC
resolved the issue on whether the 30-day period for
appealing the resolution of the COMELEC was suspended
by the filing of a motion for reconsideration by the
petitioner. Private respondent in this case contends that
the petition should be dismissed because it was filed late
considering that the COMELEC en banc denied petitioners
motion for reconsideration for being pro-forma and
conformably with Sec. 4 of Rule 19, the said motion did not
suspend the running of the 30-day period for the filing of
the petition for certiorari under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the
Constitution.
The COMELEC en Banc ruled that the motion for
reconsideration was pro-forma on the ground that the
motion was a mere rehash of petitioners averments
contained in his verified answer and memorandum, neither
were there new matters raised that would sufficiently
warrant a reversal of the assailed resolution of the Second
Division. However, the mere reiteration in a motion for
reconsideration of the issued raised by the parties and
passed upon by the court does not make a motion pro-
forma; otherwise, the movants remedy would not be a
reconsideration of the decision but a new trial or some
other remedy.
In explaining the purpose/objective of a motion for
reconsideration, the SC referred to its decision in Guerra
Enterprises Company Inc. v. CFI of Lanao del Sur 32 SCRA
314 (1970), where it held that the ends sought to be
achieved in the filing of a motion for reconsideration is
precisely to convince the court that its ruling is erroneous
and improper, contrary to the law or the evidence, and in
doing so, the movant has to dwell of necessity upon the
issues passed upon by the court. It 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.
The SC further enumerated cases where a motion for
reconsideration was held to be pro-forma: (1) it was a
second motion for reconsideration; (2) 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; (3) it failed to substantiate the alleged
error; (4) it merely alleged that the decision in question was
contrary to law or (5) the adverse party was not given due
notice thereof.
Angelia v. COMELEC 332 SCRA 757 - As provided under Rule
13, (1) of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF AN EN BANC RESOLUTION IS A
PROHIBITED PLEADING, EXCEPT IN ELECTION OFFENSE
CASES (SEC. 261 OF THE OEC).
The proper recourse of a party who is aggrieved by a
Decision of the COMELEC En Banc on a Motion for
Reconsideration of a decision of a division in an ordinary
action (election protest, QW, appeal from decisions of the
court in election protest cases), is to file a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
within 30 days from receipt of the aggrieved party of the
said decision, order or ruling.
12 Sec. 2 Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
Banaga, Jr. v. COMELEC 336 SCRA 701 - An en banc
decision in a special action (petition to deny due
course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy,
proceedings against a nuisance candidate,
disqualification of candidates and postponement or
suspension for elections, pre-proclamation
controversies) becomes final and executory five (5)
days from promulgation.
Reyes v. RTC Mindoro 244 SCRA 41, the SC ruled that
in providing that the decisions, order and ruling of
COMELEC which may be brought to the SC on
certiorari under Art. IX-A#7 refers to the special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65.
Garces v. Court of Appeals 259 SCRA 99 (1996) and
Filipinas Engineering & Machine Shop v. Ferrer 135
SCRA 25 (1985), the SC interpreted that term final
orders, rulings and decisions of the COMELEC
reviewable by the SC on certiorari as provided by law
are those rendered in actions or proceedings before
the COMELEC and taken cognizance of by the said
body in the exercise of its adjudicatory or QJ powers.
The Filipinas case involves a resolution of the
COMELEC awarding a contract for a supply of voting
booths to a private party, as a result of its choice
among various proposals submitted in response to its
invitation to bid, is not reviewable by certiorari as it is
not an order rendered in a legal controversy before it
but merely as an incident of its inherent administrative
functions over the conduct of elections. Hence, any
question arising from said order may be taken in an
ordinary civil action for injunction with the RTC.
Chavez v. Commission in Elections 211 SCRA 315
(1992), the SC held that the resolution of the
COMELEC in deleting the name of a candidate in the
list of qualified candidates does not call for the
exercise of the SCs function of judicial review as the
said action is undoubtedly administrative in nature.
Salva v. Macalintal 340 SCRA 506 (2000), the SC held
that the issuance of the COMELEC of Resolution No.
2987 calling for a plebiscite held in the affected
barangays, pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of
RA 7160 is a ministerial duty of the COMELEC and is
part and parcel of its administrative functions. It does
not involve the exercise of discretionary authority as
well as an exercise of its adjudicatory functions. Any
question pertaining to the validity of said resolution
may well be taken in an ordinary civil action before the
trial courts.
Ma. Salvacion Buac, et. al., vs. COMELEC/Cayetano, et.
al. G.R. No. 155855, January 26, 2004. This case
involves a petition for certiorari and mandamus filed
by petitioners Ma. Buac and Bautista assailing a
Resolution of the COMELEC which held that it has no
jurisdiction over controversies involving the conduct
of plebiscite and the annulment of its results.
The case refers to a plebiscite for the ratification of
the Taguig Cityhood Law proposing the conversion of
Taguig from a municipality into a city. The negative
votes prevailed and the petitioners filed with a
COMELEC a petition to annul the results of the
plebiscite with a prayer for revision and recount of the
ballots. The division initially gave due course to the
petition treating it as akin to an election protest
considering that the same allegations of fraud and
irregularities in the casting and counting of ballots and
preparation of returns are the same grounds for
assailing the results of an elections. Therefore it
ordered the Taguig ballot boxes to be brought to its
11
Manila office and created revision committees to revise and
recount the plebiscite ballots.
Intervenor Cayetano moved for reconsideration of the
COMELEC Order insisting that it has no jurisdiction to hear
and decide a petition contesting the results of a plebiscite.
In a complete turnaround, the COMELEC division granted
the MR and dismissed the petition to annul the results of
the Taguig plebiscite and ruled that the COMELEC has no
jurisdiction over the said case as it involves an exercise of
QJ powers not contemplated under Section 2(2) of Article
IX-C of the 1987 Constitution.
On appeal, the COMELEC en banc affirmed the ruling of its
2nd division and held that COMELEC cannot use its power to
enforce and administer all laws relative to plebiscite as this
power is purely administrative or executive and not QJ in
nature. It concluded that the jurisdiction over the petition
to annul the Taguig plebiscite results is lodged with the RTC
under Section 19(6) of BP 129 which provides that the RTC
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in cases not within
the exclusive jurisdiction of any court or body exercising
judicial or QJ functions.
The SC ruled that the power to ascertain the true results of
the plebiscite is necessarily included in the power to
enforce all laws relative to the conduct of plebiscite.
(yielded its historic jurisdiction). The SC also found that the
motion filed by Cayetano was filed out of time (motion for
reconsideration should be filed within 5 days) hence, it no
longer had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the motion.
Bulaong v. COMELEC First Division, 220 SCRA 745 and Soller
v. Commission on Elections 339 SCRA 685 (2000), the SC
ruled that the COMELEC, sitting en banc, does not have the
requisite authority to hear and decide election cases
including pre-proclamation controversies in the first
instance. This power pertains to the divisions of the
Commission. A decision of the COMELEC is void, where the
controversy is not first resolved by a division.
Based on the proceedings of the Soller case, the petition
with the COMELEC assailed the trial courts order denying
the motion to dismiss of Saulong election protest which
was however not referred to a division but was instead,
directly submitted to the COMELEC en banc.
The SC held that the order denying a motion to dismiss is
but an incident of the election protest filed with the RTC
which is interlocutory as the denial does not end the trials
courts task of adjudicating the parties contentions and
determining their rights and liabilities as regards each
other.
The authority to resolve a petition for certiorari involving
incidental issues of election protest falls within the
division of the COMELEC and not on the COMELEC en banc.
It further stressed, that if the principal case, once decided
on the merits is cognizable on appeal by a division of the
COMELEC, then, there is no reason why petitions for
certiorari relating to incidents of elections protest cases
should not be first referred to a division for resolution.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go 12
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
JUDICIAL POWERS OF THE COMELEC
Canicosa vs. COMELEC 282 SCRA 512. Canicosa and
Lajara were candidates for Mayor in Calamba, Laguna By way of exception, Sec. 2(2) of Art. IX-C of the
were Lajera was proclaimed winner. Canicosa filed Constitution grants to the COMELEC:
with the COMELEC a Petition to Declare Failure of
Elections and to Declare Null and Void the Canvass and 1. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION over all contests
Proclamation. (names of RV did not appear on the list, relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all
padlocks were not self locking etc) which was elective regional, provincial and city officials, and
dismissed by the COMELEC en banc on the ground
that the allegations therein did not justify the
2. APPELLATE JURISDICTION over all contests involving
declaration of failure of elections.
elective municipal officials decided by trail courts of
general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials
Canicosa insists that it was error on the part of
decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. As anchored
COMELEC sitting en banc to rule on his petition as it
on this constitutional provision and Sec. 9 RA 6679, a
should have first been heard by a division. The SC held
petition for review involving elections contests among
that the matter relating to declaration of failure of
municipal or barangay elective officials should be filed with
elections or the allegations raised by Canicosa did not
the COMELEC and not with the Court of Appeals, which has
involve an exercise of QJ or adjudicatory functions. It
no jurisdiction to entertain it.
involves an administrative function which pertains to
the enforcement and administration of all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of elections.
Guieb vs. Fontanilla 247 SCRA 348 (1995) and Calucag v.
COMELEC 274 SCRA 405 the SC ruled that Section 9 of RA
Sec. 2 of Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
6679 which vests upon the RTC appellate jurisdiction over
however provide for exceptions when the COMELEC
election cases decided by municipal or metropolitan trial
en banc may take cognizance of cases at the first
courts is unconstitutional, and decisions of the latter which
instance;
are appealed to the RTC, which have no appellate
all other cases where the division is not
jurisdiction, are erroneously appealed and thus become
authorized to act;
final.
declaring a postponement, failure or
suspension of elections;
where upon a unanimous votes of all
POWER TO ISSUE WRITS OF CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND
the members of a division, an
MANDAMUS
interlocutory matter or issue relative to
an action or proceeding before it is
decided to be referred to the Relampagos v. Cumba 243 SCRA 690 (1995), it was held
Commission en banc. that the COMELEC is vested with the power to issue writs
of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only in aid of its
Garvida v. Sales 271 SCRA 767, under the COMELEC appellate jurisdiction consistent with Section 50 of BP 697
Rules of Procedure, the jurisdiction over a petition to and Article 2(1) of the Constitution.
cancel a certificate of candidacy on the ground that
the candidate had made false material representation Carlos v. Angeles Supra, the SC declared that both the SC
in his certificate lies with the COMELEC sitting in a and COMELEC has concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of
division, not en banc. Cases before a division may only certiorari, prohibition and mandamus over decision of trial
be entertained by the COMELEC en banc when the courts of general jurisdiction (RTC) in election cases
required number of votes to reach a decision, involving elective municipal officials. The Court that takes
resolution, order or ruling is not obtained in the jurisdiction first shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the
Division. case. (Art. VIII 5(1) 1987 Constitution, Rule 65,Sec. 1)

Aruelo Jr. v. CA, October 20, 1993, the Court held that
should there be a conflict between a rule of procedure
promulgated by the COMELEC and a Rule of Court, the
COMELEC Rule of Procedure will prevail I f the case is
brought before the COMELEC and the Rules of Court if
the election case is filed with the Court.
Article IX-C Section 2(6) of the Constitution vests in the
COMELEC the power and function to investigate and where
appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws,
including acts or omissions constituting election frauds,
offenses and malpractices.

Jamil vs. COMELEC 283 SCRA 349 (1997), When the

Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion, or
the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall
be reheard, and if rehearing no decision is reached,
the action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally
commenced in the Commission; in appealed cases, the
judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed;
and in all incidental matters, the petition or motion
shall be denied. (Section 6, COMELEC Rules of
Procedure).

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
POWER OF INVESTIGATION
COMELEC v. Noynay, July 9, 1998, the COMELEC
resolved to file an Information for violation of Section
261(i) of the OEC against certain public school officials
for having engaged in partisan political activities
which was filed by its Regional Director with the RTC
presided by Judge Noynay. The judge ordered the
records of the cases to be withdrawn and directed the
COMELEC to file the cases with the MTC on the
ground that pursuant to Section 32 of BP 129 as
amended by RA 7691, the RTC has no jurisdiction over
the cases since the maximum imposable penalty in
each of the cases does not exceed 6 years
imprisonment.
The SC ruled that RA 7691 did not divest the RTC of
jurisdiction over election offenses which are
punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding 6
years. The opening sentence of Section 32, provides
that the exclusive original jurisdiction of Metropolitan
Trial Courts, MTC and MCTC does not cover those
criminal cases which by specific provisions of law fall
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC and of the
SB, regardless of the penalty prescribed therefore.
Pp. v. Inting July 25, 1990, the Supreme Court ruled
that the COMELEC is given exclusive authority to
investigate and conduct preliminary investigations
relative to commission of election offenses and
prosecute the same. A preliminary investigation
conducted by the Provincial Election Supervisor
involving an election offense does not have to be
coursed through the Provincial Prosecutor before the
RTC may take cognizance of the investigation and
determine WoN probable cause exist to issue a
warrant of arrest. If the Provincial Prosecutor
performs any role at all as regards the prosecution of
an election case, it is by delegation or that he was
deputized by the COMELEC.
Faelnar v. People 331 SCRA 429, in cases where the
State Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Prosecutor
exercises the power to conduct preliminary
investigation of election offense cases and after the
investigation submits its recommendation to the
COMELEC, the issue of probable cause is already
resolved. The proper remedy to question the said
resolution is to file an appeal with the COMELEC and
the ruling of the COMELEC on the appeal would be
immediately final and executory.
However, if the conduct of the preliminary
investigation of the complaint for an election offence
is conducted by the COMELEC, the investigation
officer prepared its recommendation to the Law
Department of the COMELEC which department in
turn makes its recommendation to the COMELEC en
banc on whether there is probable cause to
prosecute.
It is the COMELEC en banc that determines the
existence of probable cause. The proper remedy of
the aggrieved party is to file a Motion for
Reconsideration of such resolution. This effectively
allows for a review of the original resolution, in the
same manner that the COMELEC on appeal, or motu
propio, may review the resolution of the State
prosecutor, or Provincial or city fiscal. (Take note that
since this is an election offense a Motion for
Reconsideration of an En Banc resolution is allowed.)
13
Herman Tiu Laurel vs. RTC Judge of Manila Br. 10 and COMELEC
323 SCRA 778, the SC in upholding the power of COMELEC to
prosecute cases of violations of election laws further explained
that there are 2 ways through which a complaint for election
offenses may be initiated.
(1) it may be filed by the COMELEC motu propio or
(2) it may be filed via written complaint by any citizen of the
Philippines, candidate, registered political party, coalition
of political parties or organizations under the party-list
system or any accredited citizen arms of the commission.
Motu propio complaints may be signed by the Chairman of
the COMELEC and need not be verified. But those
complaints filed by parties other than the COMELEC must
be verified and supported by affidavits and other evidence.
The complaint shall be filed with the COMELEC Law Department or
with the offices of the ER, PES or RED, or the State Prosecutors,
provincial or city prosecutors. Whether initiated motu propio or
filed with the COMELEC by any party, the complaint shall be
referred to the COMELEC Law Department for investigation. Upon
the direction of the Chairman, the PI may be delegated to any
lawyer of the Department, any RED or PES, or any COMELEC
lawyer.
COMELEC v. Silva Feb. 10, 1998, the SC settled the issue as to
whether the Chief State Prosecutor, who was designated by the
COMELEC to prosecute election cases, has the authority to decide
WoN to appeal from the orders of dismissal of the RTC.
The authority belongs to the COMELEC and not the prosecutor as
the latter derive its authority from the COMELEC and not from
their offices. Propriety dictates, that if the prosecutor believes,
after the conduct of the PI, that no probably cause warrants the
prosecution of the accused who have allegedly violated Sec. 27 of
RA 6646 (tampering of certificate of canvass), the matter would
have been discussed with the COMELEC and if the latter disagrees,
seek permission to withdraw from the case.
Kilosbayan vs. COMELEC 280 SCRA 892, Kilosbayan filed a letter-
complaint with the COMELEC against incumbent officials running
for public elective office for violation of Sec. 261 of the OEC
alleging illegal disbursement of public funds and submitting as
evidence to support the complaint, published writings in
newspapers without any additional evidence to support the
newspaper articles arguing that it was the COMELECs
constitutional duty to prosecute election offenses upon any
information of alleged commission of election offenses. The
COMELEC dismissed the complaint there being no probable cause
found.
The SC held that it is not the duty of COMELEC to search for
evidence to prove an election complaint filed before it. The task
of COMELEC as investigator and prosecutor is not the physical
searching and gathering of proof in support of the alleged
commission of an election offense. The complainant still has the
burden to prove his complaint.
Bernardo vs. Abalos, G.R. No. 137266, December 5, 2001 In an
election offense case, a motion for reconsideration of the decision
of the COMELEC en banc should be filed first before filing a
certiorari petition with the Supreme Court.
In this case a criminal complaint was filed against Abalos Sr., et. al.
for violation of Section 261 of the OEC. The COMELEC Law
Department conducted the PI which submitted its findings to the
COMELEC en banc recommending that the complaint be dismissed
for insufficiency of evidence. The COMELEC en banc resolution was
assailed before the SC. The SC ruled that petitioners did not
exhaust all the remedies available to them at the COMELEC level
but not seeking a reconsideration of the en banc resolution as
required under Section 1 Rule 13 of the COMELEC rules of
procedure.
The COMELEC under Sec. 2(4) of Article IX-C exercises direct and
immediate supervision and control, during the election period,
over national and local officials or employees including members
of any national or local law enforcement agency or
instrumentality of the government required by law to perform
duties relative to the conduct of elections and appoint deputies
for the purpose of ensuring an HOPE-FRECRE. The power of the
COMELEC over deputized offices under Sec 2(6) covers both
criminal and administrative cases.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
POWER TO SUPERVISE ELECTION OFFICERS AND
DEPUTIES DURING ELECTION PERIOD
Tan v. COMELEC 237 SCRA 353, Tan was the
incumbent City prosecutor of Davao City who was
designated by the COMELEC as Vice-Chairman of the
CBOC for the 1992 Synchronized National and Local
Elections were Garcia and Alterado were contenders
for member of the HR for the Second Legislative
District.
Garcia was proclaimed winner and Alterado filed an
election protest with the HRET, criminal case for
falsification against the CBOC with the Ombudsman
and with the COMELEC an Administrative case for
Misconduct, Neglect of duty, Gross Incompetence
and Acts Inimical to the Service which was the only
case pending after the HRET and Ombudsman
dismissed the cases filed with it. Tan moved to
dismiss the administrative complaint with the
COMELEC for lack of jurisdiction on the premise that
he is under the executive department (DOJ) which
was denied by COMELEC.
It was held that the administrative case against Tan is
in relation to the performance of his duties as
member of the CBOC and not as prosecutor and
hence, cannot claim immunity from the power of the
COMELEC. However, under Section 2(8), the power
of the COMELEC in this instance is limited to merely
issuing a recommendation to the property authority,
the Secretary of the DOJ, in this case, who shall take
appropriate action, either to suspend or remove from
office the officer or employee, who may after due
process, be found guilty of violation of election laws
or failure to comply with instructions, order,
decisions or rulings of the COMELEC.
POWER TO DECLARE A POSTPONEMENT, FAILURE OR
ANNULMENT OF ELECTIONS AND CALL FOR SPECIAL
ELECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 5,6, & 7 OF
THE OEC IN RELATION TO SEC. 4 OF RA 7166.
The grounds for declaring a postponement of
elections is provided under Sec. 5 of the OEC, namely;
when for any serious cause such as violence,
terrorism, loss or destruction of election
paraphernalia or records, FM and other analogous
circumstances of such a nature that the holding of a
HOPE-FRECRE should become impossible in any
political subdivision, the Commission en banc may
motu propio or upon a verified petition by any
interested party, and after due notice and hearing,
whereby all interested parties are afforded equal
opportunity to be heard, shall postpone the election
to a date which is reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which resulted to a
failure to elect but not later than 30 days after the
cessation of the cause for such postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Canicosa vs. COMELEC 282 SCRA 512 (1997) The
power of COMELEC to declare a failure of elections
involves only the exercise of administrative function.
Therefore, COMELEC is not mandated to hear and
decide cases first by Division and then, upon motion
for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc which is
only applicable in its exercise of its adjudicatory or
quasi judicial functions.
14
Canicosa v. COMELEC, Sison v. COMELEC 304 SCRA 170 and
Carlos v. Angeles 346 SCRA 571, the Supreme Court,
conformably with Sec. 6 of the OEC stressed that there are
only THREE (3) INSTANCES WHERE A FAILURE OF
ELECTIONS MAY BE DECLARED THAT IS, IF, ON ACCOUNT
OF FM, VIOLENCE TERRORISM, FRAUD, OTHER
ANALOGOUS CAUSES THE
1) Election in any polling place has not been held on the
date fixed by law
3) Or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law
for the closing of the voting
4) Or after the voting and during the preparation and
transmission of the election returns or the custody or
canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to
elect.
TWO CONDITIONS MUST FURTHER CONCUR TO DECLARE
A FAILURE OF ELECTIONS:
(1) 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 elect and
(2) The votes not cast would affect the
results of the elections.
Carlos v. Angeles By revision of the ballots (as an incident
in an election protest case), the trial court found in a final
tally that the valid votes obtained by the candidates were
as follows: Carlos 83,609 Serapio 66,602 or a winning
margin of 17,007 votes in favor of Carlos and winner in the
May 11, 1998 elections.
However, the trial court set aside the final tally of votes
because of what it perceived to be significant badges of
fraud attributable to the protestee which are as follows: 1)
failure of the keys turned over by the City Treasurer to the
trial court to fit the padlocks on the ballot boxes that
compelled the court to forcibly open the padlocks. The trial
court concluded that the real keys were lost or the
padlocks substituted pointing to possible tampering of the
contents of the ballot boxes (mere inability of the keys to
fit into the padlocks does not affect the integrity of the
ballot). 2) Seven (7) ballot boxes were found empty, thus,
the trial court concluded that there were missing ballots
and missing election returns.
Coquilla V. COMELEC, supra, the SC stressed that what is
common in these three instances is the resulting failure to
elect. In the first instance, no election was held, while in
the second, the election is suspended. In the third instance,
circumstances attending the preparation, transmission,
custody or canvass of the election returns caused a failure
to elect. And, the term failure to elect means nobody
emerged as a winner.
The COMELEC, based on the verified petition by an
interested party and after due notice and hearing, may 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 30 days after the cessation of the cause of such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to
elect.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
Sanchez v. COMELEC 193 SCRA 849 - Sec. 4 of RA 7166
(An Act Providing for the synchronized national and
local elections stated that any declaration of
postponement, failure of election and calling for a
special elections as provided in Section 5,6, & 7 shall
be decided by the Commission sitting en banc by a
majority vote of its members. This power is
exclusively vested in the COMELEC.
Pasandalan v. COMELEC, et. al. G.R. No. 150312 July 18,
2002, the SC held that a petition for declaration of
failure of elections is an extraordinary remedy and
therefore a petition for declaration of failure of
elections must specifically allege the essential
grounds that would justify the same. Otherwise, the
COMELEC can dismiss outright the petition for lack of
merit and no grave abuse of discretion can be
attributed to it in such case because the COMELEC
must exercise with utmost circumspect the power to
declare a failure of election to prevent disenfranching
voters and frustrating the electorates will.
In this case, Pasandalan filed a petition for declaration
of failure of election on the ground that while voting
was going on, Cafgus indiscriminately fired their
firearms causing the voters to panic and leave the
polling places without casting their votes. In taking
advantage of the situation, the supporters of his
opponent took the official ballots and filled them up
with his opponents name and further, that the BEIs
failed to affix their initials at the back of several official
ballots.
Pasandalan, on the basis of the affidavits of his own
poll watchers, insists that a technical examination of
the official ballots in the contested precincts be made
which would show that only a few persons wrote the
entries, citing the case of Typoco v. COMELEC 319
SCRA 498 and Basher v. COMELEC 330 SCRA 736. The
COMELEC dismissed the petition.
The COMELEC is not mandated to conduct a technical
examination before it dismisses a petition for
nullification of election when the petition is, on its
face, without merit. In the case of TYPOCO vs.
COMELEC 319 scar 498, petitioner Typoco buttressed
his petition with independent evidence that
compelled the COMELEC to conduct a technical
examination of the questioned returns. Typoco filed a
Motion to Admit Evidence to prove that a substantial
number of election returns were manufactured and
claimed that the returns were prepared by only one
person based on the report of a licensed examiner of
questioned documents who examined copied of the
election returns. Pasandalan failed to attach
independent and objective evidence other than the
self-serving affidavits of his own poll watchers.
In Basher vs. COMELEC 330 SCRA 736, the SC held that
the fact that an election is actually held prevents as a
rule, a declaration of failure of elections, but the
Court, however, can annul an election if it finds that
the election is attended with patent and massive
irregularities and illegalities. In this case, after a series
of failed elections during the 1997 Barangay Elections,
the election was reset to 30 august 1997. Due to the
prevailing tension in the locality, the voting started
only at around 9p.m. and lasted until the early
morning of the following day. Basher filed a petition
for the nullification of the elections which wad
dismissed by the COMELEC on the ground that actual
voting had taken place. The SC overturned the
COMELEC ruling because the election was
unauthorized and invalid. The electorate was not
given sufficient notice that the election would push
through after 9pm of the same day. Moreover, the
15
voting did not comply with the procedure laid down by the
COMELEC in its Resolution.
Similarly in Mitmug v. COMELEC, 230 SCRA 54, the SC ruled
that the COMELEC could dismiss outright a petition for
nullification of election if it is plainly groundless and the
allegations therein could be better ventilated in an election
protest. In Banaga, Jr. v. COMELEC 336 SCRA 701 on the
other hand, it was ruled that the fact that a verified petition
has been filed does not mean that a hearing on the case
should first be held before the COMELEC can act on it. The
petition must show on its face that the conditions
necessary to declare a failure of elections are present.
Ampatuan et. al. v. COMELEC/Candao, et. al., G.R. No.
149803 January 31, 2002, private respondents filed a
petition for declaration of failure of elections in several
municipalities of Maguindanao. While the hearing on the
said petition was still pending, the COMELEC proclaimed
the petitioners as winners for the position of Governor,
vice-governor and board members. Thereafter, the
COMELEC issued an Order directing the continuation of the
hearing on the failure of elections and issued an order
outlining the procedure to be followed in the conduct of
the technical examination.
Petitioners, relying on the case of Typoco, Jr. v. COMELEC,
contended that by virtue of their proclamation, the only
remedy left for private respondents is to file an election
protest, in which case, original jurisdiction lies with the
regular courts and that the COMELEC no longer has
jurisdiction to conduct a technical examination as it would
defeat the summary nature of a petition for declaration of
failure of elections citing several rulings that an election
protest is the proper remedy for a losing candidate after
the proclamation of the winning candidates.
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC was divested of its
jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition for declaration of
failure of elections after the winners have already been
proclaimed.
HELD: The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed
office does not deprive the COMELEC of its authority to
annul any canvass and illegal proclamation. In this case, it
cannot be assumed that the proclamation of petitioners
was legal precisely because the conduct by which the
elections were held was put in issue by respondents in their
petition for annulment of elections results and/or
declaration of failure of elections. The cases relied upon by
the petitioners that an election protest is the proper
remedy for a losing candidate after proclamation of the
winning candidate involved pre-proclamation
controversies.
The SC made reference to its ruling in Loong v. COMELEC,
257 SCRA 1, that a pre-proclamation controversy is not the
same as an action for annulment of election results, or
failure of elections. In pre-proclamation cases, the
COMELEC is restricted to an examination of the election
returns on their face and is without jurisdiction to go
beyond or behind them and investigate election
irregularities. The COMELEC is duty-bound to investigate
allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence and other
analogous causes in actions for annulment of election
results or for declaration of failure of elections conformably
with the OEC.
Accordingly, the COMELEC, 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 analyze voters signatures
and thumbprints in order to determine WoN the elections
had indeed been free, honest and clean. In the Typoco Jr.
case, the SC held that the COMELEC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in dismiss the petition for declaration of
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
elections as the allegations therein did not justify a
declaration of failure of elections unlike in this present
case, where respondents exhaustively alleged massive
fraud and terrorism, if proven, could warrant a
declaration of failure of elections.
Lucero vs. COMELEC 235 SCRA 280, the Court held
that in fixing the date of the special elections in case
of postponement or failure of elections, the
COMELEC should ascertain that
(1) it should not be later than 30 days after the
cessation of the cause of the postponement or
suspension of the election or the failure to elect
and
(2) it should be reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which resulted in
the failure to elect. In this case, the SC upheld
the validity of holding the special elections more
than one year from the date of the elections
stating that the same is still considered
reasonably closed to the date of the elections not
held notwithstanding the fact that the term of
the elective official concerned is only 3 years and
that the delay was not attributable to the fault of
the voters of the precinct concerned.
Biliwang v. COMELEC June 29, 1992 - There is no
provision which grants to the COMELEC the power to
annul an election. But the SC in this case that
COMELEC can annul an election by mandate of the
extensive powers granted to it under the 1987
Constitution to enforce and administer all laws
relative to the conduct of an election.
Pea v. HRET 270 SCRA 270 the SC however stressed,
that should power should be exercised with greatest
care as it involves the free and fair expression of the
popular will. For this purpose, the petitioner must be
able to show proof that (1) the illegality has affected
more than 50% of the votes case and (2) that the good
votes cannot be distinguished from the bad votes.
Hassan v. COMELEC 264 SCRA 125, the SC provided for
concurrence of two pre-conditions for declaring a
failure of elections and to justify the calling of a special
elections - (1) that no voting has been held in any
precinct or precincts because of FM, violence or
terrorism and (2) that the votes not cast therein is
sufficient to affect the results of the elections.
Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC 260 SCRA 604, a petition for
declaration of failure of elections and to nullify the
canvass and proclamation was filed by Borja wherein
he alleged that there was lack of notice of the date
and time of canvass, there was fraud in the conduct of
the elections as several voters were disenfranchised,
presence of flying voters and unqualified members of
the BEI. The COMELEC dismissed the petition ruling
that the grounds relied upon by Borja were grounds
proper only in an election contest. SC upheld the
decision of the COMELEC.
Sardea v. COMELEC August 17, 1993, it was ruled that
the fact that copies of the ER for the MBC were lost
and destroyed is not one of the causes to warrant a
failure of elections considering that voting actually
took place and there were other valid ER which
existed which can be used in the canvassing of the
votes. Besides, it was also found that the incident did
not affect the result of the elections.
16
Balindong v. COMELEC 260 SCRA 494, the SC ruled that the
mere fact that the transfer of polling place was not made in
accordance with law does not warrant a declaration of
failure of election and the annulment of the proclamation
of the winning candidate, unless the number of votes not
cast will affect the result of the election.
CALLING OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS/REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
DISCRETIONARY
Bulaong v. COMELEC 220 SCRA 745, it was ruled that the
calling of a special election is discretionary on the part of
the COMELEC and being discretionary, the COMELEC
cannot be compelled by mandamus to call for a special
elections considering that mandamus is a remedy available
only to compel to the doing of an act specifically enjoined
by law as a duty and not in the exercise of discretion.
Akbayan, et. al. v. COMELEC and Benito v. the Chairman
and Commissions of COMELEC, March 26, 2001, the
petitioners seek to direct the COMELEC to conduct a special
registration before May 14, 2001 General Elections, of new
voters ages 18 to 21 contending that around 4M youth
failed to register on or before December 27, 2000, the
deadline set by COMELEC under RA 8189.
The COMELEC resolved to deny the request to conduct a
two-day additional registration of new voters on February
18 & 18, 2001 for the reason that it would be operationally
impossible to accomplish the same within the time left.
The SC held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse
of discretion in denying the request for the conduct of a
special registration and neither can COMELEC be compelled
by mandamus to call the elections as the determination on
WoN the conduct of a special registration of voters is
feasible, possible or practical within the remaining period
before the actual date of election, involves the exercise of
discretion and thus, cannot be controlled by mandamus.
1995 BQ: Due to violence and terrorism attending the
casting of votes in a municipality in Lanao del Sur during the
last 8 May 1995 elections, it became impossible to hold
therein free, orderly and honest elections. Several
candidates for municipal positions withdrew from the race.
One candidate for Mayor petitioned the COMELEC for the
postponement of the elections and the holding of special
elections after the causes of such postponement or failure
of elections shall have ceased.
1) How many votes of the COMELEC Commissioners may
be cast to grant the petition?
Suggested Answer: According to Section 7, Article IX-A of
the 1987 Constitution, the Commission on Elections shall
decide by a majority vote of all its members in any case or
matter brought before it. In Cua v. COMELEC 156 SCRA
582, the SC stated that a two-to-one decision rendered by a
Division of the COMELEC and a three-to-two decision
rendered by the COMELEC en banc was valid where only
five members took part in deciding the case.
2) A person who was not a candidate at the time of the
postponement of the elections decided to run for an
elective position and filed a certificate of candidacy prior to
the special elections. May his certificate of candidacy be
accepted?
Suggested Answer: No, his certificate of candidacy cannot
be accepted. Under Section 75 of the OEC, as a rule in
cases of postponement or failure of election no additional
certificate of candidacy shall be accepted.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
3) Suppose he ran as a substitute for a candidate
who previously withdrew his candidacy, will answer
be the same.
Suggested Answer: No, the answer will be different.
Under Section 75 of the OEC, an additional certificate
of candidacy may be accepted in cases of
postponement or failure of election if there was a
substitution of candidates; but the substitute must
belong to and must be endorsed by the same party.
PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATION
Under RA 7941, THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM is a
mechanism of the proportional representation in the
election of representatives to the House of
Representatives from national, regional and sectoral
parties or organizations or coalitions thereof
registered with the COMELEC to enable Filipinos
belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors to contribute legislation that would benefit
them. ]
Party list representation shall constitute 20% of the
total number of representatives, by selection or
election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural minorities, women, youth and
such other sectors as may be provided by law, except
the religions sector (Art. VI, Sec. 5(2) 1987
Constitution.
Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC 342 SCRA 244,
the SC provided for the parameters of the Filipino
Party-List System which are:
(1) the 20% allocation - the combined number of all
party-list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of
the total membership of the HR, including those
under the party-list;
(2) the 2% threshold only those parties garnering a
minimum of 2% of the total valid votes cast for the
party-list system are qualified to have a seat in
the HR;
(3) the 3-seat limit each qualified party, regardless
of the number of votes it actually obtained, is
entitled to a maximum three seats; that is one
qualifying and two additional seats; and
(4) the proportional representation the additional
seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be
computed in proportion to their total number of
votes.
In this case, following the May 11, 1998 national
elections which is the first election for party-list
representation, the COMELEC en banc proclaimed
fourteen (14) parties and organization which had
obtained at least 2% of the total number of votes cast
for the party-list system which constitute a total of 25
nominees short of the 52 party-list representatives
who should actually sit in the house. The PAGASA,
filed with the COMELEC a Petition to proclaim the full
number of party-list representative provided by the
Constitution. They alleged that the filling up of the
20% membership of party-list representative in the
House, as provided under the Constitution, was
mandatory. Nine other party-list organizations filed
their respective motions for intervention seeking the
same relief as that sought by PAG-ASA on substantially
the same grounds.
The COMELEC, contrary to its rules and regulations
governing the said elections, instead proclaimed the
other 38 party list organization notwithstanding its
not having garnered the required 2% votes.
17
RULING: the SC ruled that the Sec 5(2) of Art. VI which
states that the sectoral representation shall constitute 20%
of the members of the HR is not mandatory as it merely
provides a ceiling for party-list in congress. And, obtaining
absolute proportional representation is restricted by the 3-
seat per party limit to a maximum of two additional slots.
COMELEC was held to have abused its discretion in
disregarding an act of Congress .
Ang Bagong Bayani vs COMELEC 359 SCRA 698
The Court finds it appropriate to lay down the following
guidelines, culled from the law and the Constitution, to assist
the Comelec in its work.
1. First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition
must represent the marginalized and underrepresented
groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other words, it
must show -- through its constitution, articles of
incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and
track record -- that it represents and seeks to uplift
marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
2. Second, while even major political parties are expressly
allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in
the party-list system, they must comply with the declared
statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be
elected to the House of Representatives. In other words,
while they are not disqualified merely on the ground that
they are political parties, they must show, however, that
they represent the interests of the marginalized and
underrepresented.
3. Third, the Court notes the express constitutional provision
that the religious sector may not be represented in the
party-list system.
4. Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified
under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds
for disqualification as follows:
(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization
or association organized for religious purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its
goal;
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;
(4) It is receiving support from any foreign
government, foreign political party, foundation,
organization, whether directly or through any of its
officers or members or indirectly through third parties
for partisan election purposes;
(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or
regulations relating to elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding
elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%)
of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two
(2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it
has registered.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
5. Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct
of, or a project organized or an entity funded or
assisted by, the government. By the very nature of
the party-list system, the party or organization must
be a group of citizens, organized by citizens and
operated by citizens. It must be independent of the
government. The participation of the government or
its officials in the affairs of a party-list candidate is not
only illegal and unfair to other parties, but also
deleterious to the objective of the law: to enable
citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors and organizations to be
elected to the House of Representatives.
6. Sixth, the party must not only comply with the
requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise
do so. age on the day of the election.
7. Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization
must represent marginalized and underrepresented
sectors; so also must its nominees. To repeat, under
Section 2 of RA 7941, the nominees must be Filipino
citizens who belong to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.
Surely, the interests of the youth cannot be fully
represented by a retiree; neither can those of the
urban poor or the working class, by an industrialist.
To allow otherwise is to betray the State policy to give
genuine representation to the marginalized and
underrepresented.
8. Eighth, as previously discussed, while lacking a well-
defined political constituency, the nominee must
likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and
enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit
the nation as a whole. Senator Jose Lina explained
during the bicameral committee proceedings that
the nominee of a party, national or regional, is not
going to represent a particular district x x x.
Pimentel Jr. vs HRET GR no. 147589 and 147613
The Constitution expressly grants to the House of
Representatives the prerogative, within
constitutionally defined limits, to choose from among
its district and party-list representatives those who
may occupy the seats allotted to the House in the
HRET and the CA. Section 18, Article VI of the
Constitution explicitly confers on the Senate and on
the House the authority to elect among their
members those who would fill the 12 seats for
Senators and 12 seats for House members in the
Commission on Appointments. Under Section 17,
Article VI of the Constitution, each chamber of
Congress exercises the power to choose, within
constitutionally defined limits, who among their
members would occupy the allotted 6 seats of each
chambers respective electoral tribunal.
18
POWER TO SUPERVISE AND REGULATE FRANCHISE
Telecommunications Broadcast Attorneys of the Phils., Inc.
(TELEBAP) and GMA Network Inc. v. COMELEC April 21,
1998,
FACTS: TELEBAP, which is an organization of lawyers of
radio and broadcasting network companies sued as
citizens, taxpayers and registered voters and GMA
network, challenging the validity of Sec. 92 of BP 881
(COMELEC Time and Space) on the grounds that (a) it takes
property without due process of law and just
compensation; (b) that it denies radio and television
broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws and
(c) that it is in excess of the power given to COMELEC to
supervise and regulate the operation of media of
communication or information during the election period.
HELD: As to the issue of personality of TELEBAP, the court
ruled that it has no legal standing because a citizen will be
allowed to raise a constitutional question only when he
can show that he has personally suffered some actual or
threatened injury as a result of the alleged illegal conduct
of the government; that the injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action; and that the injury is likely to be
redressed by a favorable action.
TELEBAP cannot sue as RV since the case does not concern
their right of suffrage and much less as taxpayers since the
case did not involve the exercise by Congress of its taxing
or spending power. As a corporate entity, TELEBAP will
have standing to assert the right of radio and television
companies only if it can be shown that the party suing has
some substantial relation to the 3rd party or the 3rd party
cannot assert his constitutional right, or that the right of
the 3rd party will be diluted unless the party in court is
allowed to espouse the 3rd partys constitutional claim.
None of these circumstances are present in this case.
With respect to the issue as to WoN Sec. 92 of BP 881 violates
the due process clause and eminent domain provision of the
constitution by taking from radio and television
broadcasting stations without payment of just
compensation, it was ruled that all broadcasting, whether
by radio or by TV stations are licensed by the government.
Airwave frequencies have to be allocated as there are more
individuals who want to broadcast than there are
frequencies assigned.
A franchise is a privilege subject to amendment by
congress in accordance with the constitutional provision
when the common good so requires. The COMELEC time
provisions have been made as amendments of the
franchises of radio and TV stations and was not thought of
as taking of property without just compensation. The right
of the listeners and viewers is paramount over the right of
the broadcasters.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
ABS-CBN vs COMELEC 323 SCRA 811, the SC defined
EXIT POLLS as a specie of electoral survey conducted
by qualified individuals or groups of individuals for
the purpose of determining the probable result of an
election by confidentially asking randomly selected
voters whom they have voted for, immediately after
they have official cast their ballots. That an absolute
prohibition is unreasonably restrictive, because it
effectively prevents the use of exit poll data not only
for election days of the elections, but also for long
term research. The concern of COMELEC of a non-
communicative effect of the exit polls which is
disorder and confusion in the voting centers does not
justify a total ban of the exist polls. COMELEC should
instead set safeguards in place for those who intends
to conduct exit polls.
Sec. 5.5 of RA 9006, provides for the requirements for
the taking of exit polls:
1) Pollsters shall not conduct their survey within
fifty (50) meters from the polling place, whether
said survey is taken in a home, dwelling place and
other places;
2) Pollsters shall wear distinctive clothing.
3) Pollsters shall inform the voters that they may
refuse to answer; and
4) The result of the exist polls may be announced
after the closing of the polls on election day, and
must clearly identify the total number of
respondents, and the places where they were
taken. Said announcement shall state that the
same is unofficial and does not represent a trend.
Social Weather Stations vs. COMELEC 357 SCRA 496
SWS is a private non-stock, non-profit social research
institution conducting surveys in various fields,
including economics, politics, demography and social
development, and thereafter processing, analyzing
and publicly reporting the results thereof. On the
other hand, Kamahalan Publishing Corporation
publishes the Manila Standard, a newspaper of
general circulation, which features newsworthy items
of information including election surveys.
Petitioners brought this action for prohibition to
enjoin the COMELEC from enforcing par. 5.4 of RA
9006 which provides, Surveys affecting national
candidates shall not be published fifteen (15) days
before an election and surveys affecting local
candidates shall not be published seven (7) days
before an election.
The term election surveys is defined in par. 5.1 of
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO GRANT
the law as follows Election surveys refer to the
PARDON, AMNESTY, PAROLE OR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
measurement of opinions and perception of the
voters as regards a candidates popularity,
qualification, platforms or a matter of public
discussion in relation to the election, including
voters preference for candidates or publicly
discussed issues during the campaign period.
Petitioner SWS states that it wishes to conduct an
election survey throughout the period of the elections
both at the national and local levels and release to the
media the results of such survey as well as publish
them directly. Kamahalan also states that it intends to
publish election survey results up to the last day of the
elections on May 14, 2001. HELD: Par. 5.4 constitutes
an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of
speech, expression and the press. It is invalid because
it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of
expression and it is a direct and total suppression of a
category of expression even though such suppression
is only for a limited period, and the governmental
19
interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means
other than the suppression of freedom of expression.
In Bagong Bayani Labor Party v. COMELEC 359 SCRA 698
(June 26, 2001), at issued is the Omnibus Resolution of the
COMELEC which approved the participation of 154
organizations and parties and which the SC remanded to
the COMELEC for the latter to determine evidentiary
hearings, whether the 154 parties and organizations
allowed to participate in the party-list elections comply with
the requirements of the law. The SC ruled that the party-
list organization or party must factually and truly
represent the marginalized and underrepresented
constituencies mentioned in Section 5 of RA 7941 and the
persons nominated by the party-list candidate-organization
must be Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.
Having remanded the case to COMELEC, the SC laid down
the following guidelines:
[REQUISITES TO BE CONSIDERED TO BECOME A PARTY
LIST ORGANIZATION:]
1) FIRST, the PP, sector or organization must represent
the marginalized and underrepresented groups
identified in Section 5 of RA 7941.
2) SECOND, while major political parties are expressly
allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate,
they must comply with the declared statutory policy
enabling Filipino citizens belonging to M and U to be
elected to the HR.
3) THIRD, the religious sector may not be represented in
the party-list system. FOURTH, it must not be
disqualified under the grounds enumerated under
Section 6 of RA 7941.
4) FIFTH, the party or organization must not be an
adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded
or assisted by the government.
5) SIXTH, the party must not only comply with the
requirements of the law, its nominees must likewise
do so. SEVENTH, not only the candidate party must
represent the M and U sectors, so also must its
nominees. EIGHT, while lacking a well-defined political
constituency, the nominees must likewise be able to
contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a
whole.
Art. IX-C Sec. 5 provides that the President cannot, without
the favorable recommendation of the COMELEC, grant
pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of sentence in cases
involving violation of election laws and violation of
election rules and regulations.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go 20
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND ENLIST
CITIZENS ARMS (BP 881, Section 60-62)

Section 60.

"Political party" or "party" means an organized

group of persons pursuing the same ideology,
political ideas or platforms of government and
includes its branches and divisions.
To acquire juridical personality, quality it for
subsequent accreditation, and to entitle it to the
rights and privileges herein granted to political parties,
a political party shall first be duly registered with the
Commission. Any registered political party that, singly
or in coalition with others, fails to obtain at least ten
percent of the votes cast in the constituency in which
it nominated and supported a candidate or candidates
in the election next following its registration shall,
after notice and hearing be deemed to have forfeited
such status as a registered political party in such
constituency.

Section 61. Registration.

1) file with the Commission a verified petition

attaching thereto its constitution and by-laws,
platform or program of government and such
other relevant information as may be required by
the Commission.
2) The Commission shall, after due notice and
hearing, resolve the petition within ten days from
the date it is submitted for decision.
3) No religious sect shall be registered as a political
party and no political party which seeks to
achieve its goal through violence shall be entitled
to accreditation.

Section 62. Publication of petition for registration or

accreditation.
The Commission shall require publication of the
petition for registration or accreditation in at least
three newspapers of general circulation and shall,
after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition
within fifteen days from the date it is submitted for
decision.

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
Suffrage may be exercised:
1) By all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are:
2) At least 18 years of age, and
3) Who shall have resided in the Philippines for at
least one (1) year and in the place wherein they
propose to vote for at least six (6) months
immediately preceding the elections.
4) No literacy, property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of
suffrage.13
RA 8189 VOTERS REGISTRATION ACT/SALIENT FEATURES
Registration of voters is a means of determining who
possess the qualifications of voters and regulating the
exercise of the right of suffrage.
Registration is essential to enable a qualified voter to
vote in any election, or any form of popular
intervention.
What is the effect of the effectivity of RA 8189 to the
current permanent list of voters? RA 8189 provides for the
general registration of voters for purposes of the May 1998
elections. Consequent thereto, all certified list of voters
shall cease to be effective and operative.
WHAT IS REGISTRATION?
Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and
filing of a sworn application for registration by a
qualified voter before the election office of the city
or municipality wherein he resides and including the
same in the book of registered voters upon approval
by the Election Registration Board. (Sec. 3(a) )
WHO MAY REGISTER?
General Rule:
Suffrage may be exercised:
1) by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are:
2) At least 18 years of age, and
3) Who shall have resided in the Philippines for at
least one (1) year and in the place wherein they
propose to vote for at least six (6) months
immediately preceding the elections.
4) No literacy, property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of
suffrage.14
In addition to that provided under Sec. 1 Article V of the
Constitution and Sec. 117 of the OEC, Section 9 of RA 8189
further provide:
Any person who temporarily resides in another city,
municipality or country solely by reason of his
occupation, profession, employment in private or
public service, educational activities, work in the
military or naval reservations within the Philippines,
service in the Armed Forces, or confinement or
detention in government institution in accordance
with law, shall NOT be deemed to have lost his
original residence.
13 Sec. 1, Article V of the Constitution/Sec. 117 OEC
14 Sec. 1, Article V of the Constitution/Sec. 117 OEC
21
rd
The 3 paragraph of Sec. 9 further clarified Sec. 126 of the OEC:
Any person, who, on the day of registration may not have
reached the required age or period of residence but, who,
on the day of election shall possess such qualifications, may
register as a voter.
REQUISITES WHEN NEW DOMICILE IS ACQUIRED BY CHOICE
Romuladez v. RTC 226 SCRA 402 - In order to acquire a new
domicile by choice, there must concur:
1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality;
2) an intention to remain in the new locality;
3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. There must
be animus manendi coupled with animust non-
revertendi.
Sarangani vs COMELEC 334 SCRA 379
SEC. 8 - SYSTEM OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION OF
VOTERS/CREATION OF ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARDS
A qualified voter can personally file an application for
registration DAILY with the office of the election Officer
during regular office hours. The Election Registration
Boards authorized to act on all applications for registration
which is composed of the Election Officer as Chairman and
as members, a public school official most senior in rank and
the local civil registrar or in his absence, the city or
municipal treasurer.
LIMITATION: No registration shall however be conducted
during the period starting 120 days before a regular
elections and 90 days before a special elections.
SEC. 9 QUALIFICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION
1) Citizenship - all citizens of the Philippines, NOT otherwise
disqualified by law
2) Age - at least 18 years old on the day of the election
4) Residence resident in the Philippines at least one (1)
year and six (6) months in the place wherein they
propose to vote immediately preceding the elections.
Residence requirement must be possessed at least on
the date of the elections. Residence and domicile
treated synonymous
5) Original residence not deemed lost temporarily residing
in another city, municipality or country solely by reason
of occupation, profession, employment, educational
activities, work in the military or naval reservations
within the Philippines, service in the AFP, the National
Police forces or confinement or detention in government
institutions in accordance with law.
SEC. 11 - DISQUALIFICATIONS:
1) Any person who has been sentenced by final
judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than
one (1) year.
2) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment
by competent court or tribunal of having committed
any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted
government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of
the anti-subversion and firearms law, or any crime
against national security in accordance with the law.
3) Insane or incompetent as declared by a competent
authority
WHEN DISABILITY REMOVED:
Those sentenced by final judgment, disability is removed by
plenary pardon or amnesty or the expiration of five (5)
after service of sentence.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
For insane and incompetent, by an official declaration
by a proper authority that the insanity or
incompetency no longer exist.
WHO ARE CONSIDERED ILLITERATE AND DISABLED
VOTERS AND HOW DO THEY REGISTER?
Section 14 - Illiterate or disabled applicants are
referred to as person who cannot by themselves
prepare an application for registration because of
their physical disability and/or inability to read and
write.
PROCEDURE FOR ILLITERATE APPLICANTS
May be assisted by the election officer or any member
of an accredited citizens arm.
The election officer shall place such illiterate person
under oath, ask him the questions and record the
answers given in order to accomplish the application
form in the presence of the majority of the members
of the Board.
The accomplished form shall be subscribed by the
applicant in the presence of the Board by means of
thumb mark or some other customary mark and it
shall be subscribed and attested by the majority of the
members of the Board.
PROCEDURE FOR DISABLED APPLICANTS
The application for registration of a physically disabled
person may be prepared by any relative within the 4th
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity or by the
election officer or any members of an accredited
citizens arm using the data supplied by the applicant.
NOTE: In both instance, the fact of illiteracy and
disability shall be so indicated in the application.
DEACTIVIATION, REACTIVIATION AND CANCELLATION OF
REGISTRATION
DEACTIVATION15 is a process wherein the
registration record of a voter is removed by the
Board from the corresponding precinct book of
voters and places the same in an inactive file properly
marked and dated in indelible ink and after entering
the causes for deactivation which are as follows:
1) Those who are disqualified by virtue of a final
judgment as earlier enumerated and insane and
incompetent persons as official declared.
2) Any person who failed to vote in the 2 successive
preceding regular elections as shown by his
voting records.
3) Any person whose registration has been ordered
excluded by the court.
4) Any person who has lost his Filipino citizenship
For the above purposes, the Clerks of Court of the
MTC, MTCC, RTC and SB is mandated to furnish the
election office of the city or municipality concerned at
the end of each month a certified list of persons who
are disqualified by virtue of a final judgment, with
their addressed. With respect to those who lost their
citizenship, insanity and incompetence, the COMELEC
may request a certified list of such persons from the
government agencies concerned.
16
REACTIVATION is a process whereby a voter
whose registration records has been deactivated files
15 Sec. 27
16 Sec. 28
22
with the election officer a sworn application for
reactivation of his registration in the form of an affidavit
by stating therein that the grounds for the deactivation no
longer exist.
When filed?
Any time but not later than 120 days before a regular
election and 90 days before a special election. Upon
approval, the Board, shall retrieve the registration records
from the inactive file and included the same in the
corresponding precinct book of voters. Local heads or
representatives of political parties shall be properly notified
of approved applications.
CANCELLATION17 is a process wherein the Board cancels
the registration records of those who have died as
certified by the local civil registrar who shall submit each
month a certified list of persons who died during the
previous month to the election officer of the place where
the deceased is registered.
1) REMEDIES persons whose application for
reactivation, inclusion or correction has been
disapproved or those who intend to exclude a
voter from the list of voters
JURISDICTION IN INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CASES 18
The Municipal and Metropolitan Trial courts shall have
original jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion
of voters in their respective municipalities.
WHERE TO APPEAL
Decisions of the MTC may be appealed by the aggrieved
party to the RTC within 5 days from receipt of notice
thereof. Otherwise, said decision shall become final and
executory. RTC shall decide the appeal within 10 days from
the time it is received and the RTC decision shall
immediately become final and executory. NO motion for
reconsideration shall be entertained.
WHO MAY FILE PETITION FOR INCLUSION OF VOTERS IN THE
LIST19?
Any person whose application for registration
(1) has been disapproved by the Board; or
(2) whose name has been striken out from the list; or
(3) whose name was not included in the precinct list of voters;
or
(4) who has been included therein with a wrong or misspelled
name;
(after the Board disapproved its application for reinstatement or
correction of name) may file with the court a petition
When to file?
Any time except 105 days prior to a regular election or 75
days prior to a special election. The petition should be
supported by a certificate of disapproval of his application
and proof of service of notice upon the Board. MTC shall
decide within fifteen (15) days after its filing.
If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the
permanent list of voters, the Board shall place the
application for registration previously disapproved in the
corresponding Book of voters and indicate in the
application for registration the date of the order of
inclusion and the court which issued the same.
WHO MAY FILE PETITION FOR EXCLUSION OF VOTERS FROM
THE LIST20?
17 Sec. 29
18 Sec. 33
19 Sec. 34
20 Section 35
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
Any registered voters, representative of a political
party or the Election Office.
When to file?
Any time except 100 days prior to a regular election or
65 days prior to a special election. Supporting
documents shall be proof of notice to the Board and
to the challenged voter. MTC shall decide within ten
(10) days.
If the decision is for exclusion, the Board shall, remove
the voters registration record from the corresponding
book of voters, enter the order of exclusion therein.
Significance of Petitions for Exclusion
Akbayan v. COMELEC March 26, 2001, The petition
for exclusion is a necessary component to registration
since it is a safety mechanism that gives a measure of
protection against flying voters, non-qualified
registrants, and the like. The prohibitive period, on
the other hand, serves the purpose of securing the
voters substantive right to be included in the list of
voters.
Facts: The bone of contention of petitioners praying
for a two-day special registration of new voters for
the May 14, 2001 elections which was denied by the
COMELEC due to operational impossibility,
undermined their constitutional right to vote and
caused the disenfranchisement of around 4M Filipinos
of voting age who failed to register before the
registration deadline set by the COMELEC.
HELD: The SC ruled that the right of suffrage is not
absolute as, in the enjoyment of all other rights, is
subject to existing substantive and procedural
requirements embodied in our Constitution, statute
and other repositories of law.
Procedural limitation: must undergo the process of
registration, in addition to the minimum
requirements set by the Constitution under Section 1,
Article V, the act of registration being an indispensable
precondition and element to the right of suffrage and
election process. Referring to Sec. 8 of RA 8189, the
law is explicit that no registration shall, however, be
conducted during the period starting 120 days before
a regular election and 90 days before a special
election.
Sec. 35 of RA 8189 on the other hand speaks of the
prohibitive period within which to file a sworn petition
for the exclusion of voters from the permanent list of
voters. Thus, if the special registration of voters will
be conducted, then the prohibitive period for filing
petitions for exclusion must likewise be adjusted to a
later date, if NOT, then no one can challenge the
voters list which is violative of the principles of due
process and would open the registration process to
abuse and seriously compromise the integrity of the
voters list, and that of the entire election.
BQ 2001: Let us suppose that Congress enacted a law
which amended the OEC (particularly Sections 138,
139, 142, 143) by vesting in the Commission on
Elections the jurisdiction over inclusion and exclusion
cases filed by voters, instead of in the courts (MTC,
then RTC). Is the law valid or not, why?
SUGGESTED Answer: The law granting the COMELEC
jurisdiction over inclusion and exclusion cases is
unconstitutional. Under Section 2(3), Article IX-C of
the Constitution, the COMELEC cannot decide the
right to vote, which refers to the inclusion and
23
exclusion of voters. Under Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the
Constitution, it can only file petitions in court for inclusion
or exclusion of voters.
De Guzman et. al. v. COMELEC July 19, 2000, the validity of
Sec. 44 of RA 8189 was raised which reads: Reassignment
of Election Officers. No Election Officer shall hold office in
a particular city or municipality for more than 4 years. Any
EO who, either at the time of the approval of this Act or
subsequent thereto, has served for at least 4 years in a
particular city or municipality shall automatically be
reassigned by the Commission to a new station outside the
original congressional district.
With the foregoing provision, COMELEC promulgated Res.
No. 97-0002 and issued several directives reassigning the
petitioners, who are either Ctiy or Municipal Election
Officers, to different stations. Aggrieved by the said
resolution, petitioners went to the Supreme Court through
a petition for certiorari and prohibition with urgent prayer
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO,
assailing the validity of Sec. 44 and raised several issues -
1) Sec. 44 of RA 8189 violates the equal protection
clause, because it singles out the City and
Municipal Election Officers as prohibited from
holding office in the same city or municipality for
more than 4 years, maintaining that there is no
substantial distinction between them and other
COMELEC officials, and therefore, there is no
valid classification to justify the objective of the
provision of law under attack.
In this issue the Court ruled that the 1987 Constitution
permits a valid classification under the following
conditions:
(1) the classification must rest on substantial
distinctions;
(2) the classification must be germane to the purpose
of the law;
(3) the classification must not be limited to existing
conditions only; and
(4) the classification must not be limited to all members
of the same class.
In singling out of election officers in order to ensure
the impartiality of election officials by preventing them
from developing familiarity with the people of their
place of assignment does not violate the equal
protection clause. The legislature as held in Lutz v.
Araneta 98 Phil 1955 that legislature is not required by
the Constitution to adhere to a policy of all or none.
While it may be true that all election officers of COMELEC
referred to by the petitioners are exposed to the same
evil sought to be addressed by the statutes, it can be
discerned that the legislature, through the noble
purpose of the law, would be sufficiently served by
breaking an important link in the chain of corruption
than by breaking up each and every link thereof. The EO
as defined in Section 3 (n) of RA 8189 are the highest
officials or authorized representatives of such officials,
large-scale anomalies in the registration of voters can
hardly be carried out. Similarly, to require the COMELEC
to reassign all employees connected with the registration
of voters who have served for 4 years in a given city or
municipality would entail a lot of administrative burden
on the part of the COMELEC.
(2) On the issue that it violates the security of tenure of
civil servant as it duly deprives them of due process of
law, the rule that outlaws unconsented transfers as
anathema to security of tenure applies only to any officer
who is appointed not merely assigned to a particular
station and does not proscribe a transfer carried out
under a specific statute that empowers the head of an
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go 24
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
agency to periodically reassign the employees and
officers in order to improve the service of the
agency. The guarantee of security of tenure
under the Constitution is not a guarantee of
perpetual employment. It means that an employee
cannot be dismiss (or transferred) from service for
cause other than those provided by law and after
due process is accorded the employee. What it
seeks to prevent is capricious exercise of the power
to dismiss. But, where it is the law-making authority
itself which furnishes the ground for the transfer of
a class of employees, no such capriciousness can be
raised for so along as the remedy proposed to cure
a perceived evil is germane to the purposes of the
law.

(3) Sec. 44 undermines the independency and

authority of the COMELEC to appoint its own
officials and employees. It was ruled that Sec. 44
merely provides the criterion or basis for the
reassignment or transfer of an EO. In fact, Sec. 44
even strengthens the COMELECs power of
appointment, as the power to assign or transfer is
within its exclusive jurisdiction.
PRECINCT/POLLING PLACE/VOTING CENTER
PRECINCT refers to the basic unit of territory established
by the Commission for the purpose of voting.
PRECINCT MAPS refer to the sketch or drawing of a
geographical area stated in terms of streets or street blocks
or sitios the residents of which would belong to a particular
precinct.
POLLING PLACE refers to the place where the BEI
conducts its proceedings and where the voters cast their
votes.
VOTING CENTER refers to the building or place where the
polling place is located.

ARRANGEMENT OF PRECINCTS

Every barangay shall have at least 1 precinct.

Each precinct shall have not more than 200 voters and shall
comprise contiguous and compact territories.
No territory comprising an election precinct shall be altered
or a new precinct established at the start of the election
period. (Sec. 5, RA 8189)
No location of a polling place shall be changed within 45
days before a regular elections and 30 days before a special
election, referendum or plebiscite except in case it is
destroyed or it cannot be used.
No designation of polling places shall be changed except
upon written petition of the majority of the voters of the
precinct or agreement of all political parties or by
resolution of the Commission upon prior notice and
hearing. 21

Publication of Maps of Precincts

At least 5 days before the first registration day and until

after the election, the COMELEC shall post in the city or
municipal hall and in 3 other conspicuous places and on the
door of each polling place, a map of the city or municipality
showing its division into precincts. Such maps shall be kept
posted until after the election, referendum or plebiscite.
(Sec. 151, BP 881)

Polling Places

POLLING PLACE: Building or place where the Board of

Election Inspectors conducts its proceedings and where the
voters cast their votes (Sec. 152, BP 881)

Designation of polling places

The COMELEC may introduce changes in the location of

polling places when necessary after notice to the

21 Under the Sec. 153 and 154 of the OEC

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go 25
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
registered political parties and candidates affected 2. where there are no sufficient ballots for all registered
and hearing. voters, or
No location shall be changed within 45 days before a 3. where they are destroyed at such time as shall render
regular election and 30 days before a special election, it impossible to provide other official ballots.
referendum or plebiscite except when it is destroyed In these cases, the city or municipal treasure shall provide other
or it cannot be used. (Sec. 153, BP 881) ballots which shall be as similar to the official ones as
circumstances will permit and which shall be uniform within
Arrangements and Contents of Polling Places each polling place. (Sec. 182, BP 881)

Each polling place: at least 10 voting booths to enable

the voters to fill out their ballots secretly. (Sec. 158, BP Printing of official ballots and election returns
881)
The polling place shall be so arranged that everything,
Printed by the Government Printing Office and/or the
except what is being written within the booths, shall
Central Bank printing facilities exclusively, under the
be in plain view of the BEI, the watchers and other
exclusive supervision and control of the COMELEC. (Sec.
persons within the polling place. (Sec. 159 (d), BP 881)
184, BP 881)
The COMELEC shall post inside each voting booth and
The registered political parties or coalitions of parties (or
elsewhere in the polling place on the day before the
their components should there be any dissolution or division
election and during the voting period a list containing
of said coalition) whose candidates obtained at least 10% of
the names of all candidates or the issues or questions
the total votes cast in the next preceding senatorial
to be voted for. (Sec. 158; BP 881)
election are each entitled to have a watcher and/or
There shall be a guard rail between the voting booths
representative in the procurement and watermarking of
and the table for the BEI. (Sec. 159; BP 881)
papers to be used in the printing of election returns and
official ballots, and in the printing, numbering, storage and
distribution thereof. (Sec. 8, R.A. 6646)
OFFICIAL BALLOTS, ELECTION RETURNS
& BALLOT BOXES Requisition and Distribution

Form and Contents of ballots

Ballots distributed to each city and municipality at the rate
of 11/5 ballots for every voter registered, and for
The ballots shall: election returns, at the rate of one set for every polling
1. be uniform in size; place. (Sec. 186, BP 881)
2. be printed in black ink on white security paper with The ruling party and the dominant opposition party shall
distinctive, clear and legible watermarks that will submit the names of their watchers who, together with the
readily distinguish it from ordinary paper; representatives of the COMELEC and the provincial, city,
3. be in the shape of a strip with stub and a and municipal treasurers shall verify the contents of the
detachable coupon containing the serial number of boxes containing the shipment of official ballots, election
the ballot and a space for the thumb mark of the returns and sample official ballots. (Sec. 189, BP 881)
voter on the detachable coupon;
4. bear at the top middle portion the coat-of-arms of
the Republic, the words, Official Ballot, the name Ballot boxes
of the city or municipality and the province, the On the day of the voting, there shall be a ballot
date of the election and the following notice in box one side of which shall be transparent which shall be set in a
English, Fill out this ballot secretly inside the voting manner visible to the voting public. It shall contain two
booth. Do not put any distinctive mark on any part compartments, one for valid ballots and the other for spoiled
of this ballot; ballots.
5. contain the names of all the offices to be voted for,
allowing opposite the name of each office,
sufficient space or spaces with horizontal lines
where the voter may write the name or names of
the individual candidates voted for by him;
6. have nothing printed or written at the back except
the signature of the chairman of the Board of
Election Inspectors
BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS
In cities or municipalities where Arabic is of general use,
ballots shall have each of the titles of the offices to be
The BEI is composed of the:
voted for printed in Arabic in addition to and immediately
1. Chairman,
below the English title.
2. Poll Clerk and
3. Third member who man the precincts, all of whom
Notwithstanding the preceding provisions, COMELEC may
shall be public school teachers.
prescribe a different form of official ballot on the same
watermarked security paper to facilitate the voting by
In case there are not enough public school teachers, teachers in
illiterate voters only and to use or adopt the latest
private schools, employees in the civil service or other citizens of
technological and electronic devices in connection
known probity and competence who are registered voters of
therewith. (Sec. 23, R.A. 7166)
the city or municipality may be appointed (Sec. 13, 6646).

DISQUALIFICATION
Emergency Ballots

GR: no ballots other than the official ballots shall be used Related within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or
or counted. Exception: "emergency ballots" may be used: affinity to any member of the BEI or to any candidate to be
1. in the event of failure to receive the official voted for in the polling place or his spouse.
ballots on time, or

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
22
POWERS OF BEI
(1) Conduct the voting and counting of votes in their
respective polling places;
(2) Act as deputies of the COMELEC in the
supervision and control of the election in the
polling places wherein they are assigned, to
assure the holding of the same in a free, orderly
and honest manner; and
(3) Perform such other functions prescribed by this
Code or by the rules and regulations
promulgated by the COMELEC.
VOTING PRIVILEGE
Members of the BEI and their substitute may vote in
the polling place where they are assigned provided
they are registered voters. 23
Under the OEC all that the BEI need to do is indicate in
the Minutes of Voting such fact.
Under EO 157, the appropriate head of the agency
shall within 30 days submit to the Commission a list of
officers who are registered voters, who, by reason of
their duties and functions, will be in places other than
their place of registration and who desire to exercise
their right to vote, with the request that said officers
and employees be provided with application forms to
cast absentee ballots in their place of assignment.
The COMELEC upon verification that the persons
included in the list are qualified voters, shall transit the
exact number of application forms to the head of the
office making the request and after duly
accomplishing it, shall return he same to the
COMELEC.
ABSENTEES
The COMELEC after receipt of the accomplished
forms, shall transmit the exact number of absentee
ballots to the appropriate head of the government
office for distribution to the applicants. And submit to
the COMELEC the following:
1. A sworn report on the manner of distribution of
the absentee ballots, indicating the number of
ballot transmitted to each province, names of the
persons to whom the absentee ballots are
delivered, the serial numbers of the ballots.
2. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of
eligibility to vote absentee for each particular
voter.
The voters who cast absentee votes shall vote one
week before election day by delivery it to the RD, PES
or the City or Municipal Election Registrar concerned
who in turn shall transmit by fastest means to the
Commission on Elections.
The absentee voter shall apply to the elections for
President, VP and Senators only and shall be limited
to the BEIs, members of AFP, PNP and other
government employees who, on election day, may
temporarily be assigned in connection with the
performance of election duties to places where they
are not registered. (As modified by Sec. 12 of RA 7166)
WATCHERS
(Sections 178-180, OEC)
22 Sec. 168
23 Sec. 169 of the OEC was amended by EO 157 March 30 1987
26
Official watchers of candidates
Every registered political party, coalition of political parties
and every independent candidate shall each be entitled to
one watcher in every polling place.
QUALIFICATIONS
1. qualified voter of the city or municipality,
2. of good reputation and
3. shall not have been convicted by final judgment of
any election offense or of any other crime,
4. must know how to read and write Pilipino,
English, Spanish or any of the prevailing local
dialects, and
5. not related within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity to the chairman or any
member of the board of election inspectors in the
polling place where he seeks appointment as a
watcher.
Each candidate, political party or coalition of political
parties shall designate in every province, highly urbanized
city or district in the Metropolitan Manila area, a
representative authorized to appoint watchers, furnishing
the provincial election supervisor or the city election
registrar, as the case may be, the names of such
representatives.
The provincial election supervisors shall furnish the
municipal election registrars and election registrars of
component cities with the list of such representatives.
In the case of Metropolitan Manila, the designation of the
persons authorized to appoint watchers shall be filed with
the Commission, which shall furnish the list of such
representatives to the respective city and municipal
election registrars.
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF WATCHERS
Upon entering the polling place, the watchers shall present and
deliver to the chairman of the board of election inspectors his
appointment, and, his name shall be recorded in the minutes
with a notation under his signature that he is not disqualified
under the second paragraph of Section 178.
The appointments of the watchers shall bear the personal or the
facsimile signature of the candidate or the duly authorized
representatives of the political party or coalition who appointed
him or of organizations authorized by the Commission under
Section 180.
The watchers shall have the right to stay in the space reserved
for them inside the polling place.
They shall have the right to
1. witness and inform themselves of the proceedings of the
BEI, including its proceedings during the registration of
voters,
2. to take notes of what they may see or hear,
3. to take photographs of the proceedings and incidents, if
any, during the counting of votes, as well as of election
returns, tally boards and ballot boxes,
4. to file a protest against any irregularity or violation of law
which they believe may have been committed by the
board of election inspectors or by any of its members or
by any persons, to obtain from the board of election
inspectors a certificate as to the filing of such protest
and/or of the resolution thereon,
5. to read the ballots after they shall have been read by the
chairman, as well as the election returns after they shall
have been completed and signed by the members of the
board of election inspectors without touching them,
6. but they shall not speak to any member of the board of
election inspectors, or to any voter, or among
themselves, in such a manner as would distract the
proceedings, and to be furnished with a certificate of the
number of votes in words and figures cast for each
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go 27
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
candidate, duly signed and thumb marked by the continuity of the service for the full term for which they
chairman and all the members of the board of were elected.
election inspectors.
Residency Requirement
Refusal of the chairman and the members of the board of Pres. & VP: 10 years immediately preceding the elections
election inspectors to sign and furnish such certificate shall Senators: 2 years
constitute an election offense and shall be penalized under Members of the HR: 1 year.
this Code.
Term of Office
OTHER WATCHERS Pres. & VP: 6 years (however no person who has succeeded
as Pres. and has served as such for more than 4 years shall
The duly accredited citizens arm of the Commission shall be qualified for election to same office at any time. Pres. is
be entitled to appoint a watcher in every polling place. not eligible for re-election. VP 2 successive terms.
Other civic, religious, professional, business, service, youth Senators 6 years and two successive terms only.
and any other similar organizations, with prior authority of Members of HR 3 years and for 3 consecutive terms only.
the Commission, shall be entitled collectively to appoint
one watcher in every polling place. Local Elective Officials

Qualifications27.
ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES (a) Citizen of the Philippines; a
(b) Registered voter in the Barangay, municipality, city, or
COMMON QUALIFICATIONS: province or, in the case of a member of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod,
Qualifications prescribed by law are continuing requirements
or Sanggunian bayan, the district where he intends to
and must be possessed for the duration of the officer's active
be elected; a
tenure. Once any of the required qualifications are lost, his
(c) Resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately
title to the office may be seasonably challenged.24
preceding the day of the election; and able to read and
write Filipino or any other local language or dialect.
Qualifications for President and Vice-President25
Governor, vice-governor or member of Sangguniang
1. Natural-born citizen
Panlalawigan, or Mayor, vice-mayor or member of the
2. Registered voter,
Sangguniang Panlungsod of highly urbanized cities: at least
3. Able to read and write,
23 years old on election day.
4. At least forty years of age on the day of election,
Mayor or vice-mayor of independent component cities,
and
component cities, municipalities: at least 21 years old on
5. Resident of the Philippines for at least ten years
election day.
immediately preceding such election.
Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang
bayan, Punong Barangay or member of the Sangguniang
Qualifications for the Batasang Pambansa26-
Barangay: at least 18 years old on election day.
1. natural-born citizen of the Philippines and,
SK: 15-21 years old on election day.
2. on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five
years of age,
Common to qualifications for registration as a voter
3. able to read and write,
and for vying for an elective office is the matter of
4. a registered voter in the constituency in which he
residence.
shall be elected, and
5. a resident thereof for a period of not less than six
SC TREATS RESIDENCE AS SYNONYMOUS WITH DOMICILE
months immediately preceding the day of the
election.
Coquilla v. COMELEC case, the term residence is to be
understood NOT in its common acceptation as referring to
Sectoral Representative
dwelling or habitation, but rather to domicile or
1. natural-born citizen,
legal residence, that is, the place where a party actually
2. able to read and write,
or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no
3. resident of the Philippines for a period of not less
matter where he may be found at any given time,
than one year immediately preceding the day of
eventually intends to return and remain (animus
the election, a
manendi). A domicle of origin is acquired by every person
4. bona fide member of the sector he seeks to
at birth. It is usually the place where the childs parents
represent, and in the case of a representative of
reside and continues until the same is abandoned by
the agricultural or industrial labor sector, shall be
acquisition of new domicile (of choice).
5. a registered voter, and
6. on the day of the election is at least twenty-five
Facts: In this case, petitioner Coquilla was born of Filipino
years of age.
parents in Samar, where he grew up until he joined the US
Navy subsequently naturalized as a U.S. citizen. He visited
Youth Sectoral Representative
the Philippines thrice while on leave from the US navy but
1. at least be eighteen and not be more than
remained in the US even after his retirement. In 1998, he
twenty-five years of age on the day of the
came to the Philippines and secured a residence certificate
election:
although he continued making several trips to the US.
2. any youth sectoral representative who attains the
age of twenty-five years during his term shall be
He applied for repatriation. His application was approved
entitled to continue in office until the expiration
and took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines on
of his term.
November 10, 2000.
RENUNCIATION of the office for any length of time
On November 21, 2000, he applied for registration as a
shall not be considered as an interruption in the
voter of Samar which was approved on January 12, 2001.
On February 27, 2001, he filed his certificate of candidacy
stating therein that he had been a resident of Samar for
24 Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245; Labo v. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1
25 Section 63
26 Section 64 27 SECTION 39. of Local Govt Code

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
two (2) years. A petition for cancellation of his
certificate of candidacy was filed by Alvarez on the
ground of material misrepresentation by stating in his
certificate that he had been a resident for 2 years
when in fact he had resided therein for only about 6
months since November 10, 2000, when he took his
oath as a citizen of the Philippines. The issues raised
were as follows:
a) Is Coquilla a resident of Oras for at least one (1)
year before the elections held on May 14, 2001?
HELD: The SC ruled that petitioner lost his domicile of
origin by becoming a U.S. citizen after enlisting in the
US navy. From then on and until November 10, 2000,
when he reacquired Philippine citizenship, he was an
alien without any right to reside in the Philippines save
as our immigration laws may have allowed him to stay
as a visitor or as a resident alien.
Further Coquillas contention that he re-established
residence in this country when 1998 when he came
back to prepare for the mayoralty elections by
securing a residence certificate was held to be without
merit because his entry in said dates was as a visa-free
balikbayan whose stay as such was valid for one year
only. Hence, the same cannot constitute as a waiver
of his status as an alien and as a non-resident the same
having been acquired only on November 10, 2000
b) Coquilla likewise contend that he was compelled
to adopt American citizenship only by reason of his
service in the US armed forces.
HELD: Coquilla was repatriated not under RA 2630
(which applies to the repatriation of those who lost
their Philippine citizenship by accepting commission
in the armed forces of the US but under RA 8171 )
Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC 248 SCRA 301 (1995),
it is the fact of residence, not a statement in a
certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in
determining WoN an individual has satisfied the
constitutions residency qualification requirement.
The said statement becomes material only when
there is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to
mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would
otherwise render the candidate ineligible.
Perez v. COMELEC 317 SCRA 640, where the
qualifications of Aguinaldo, former governor of
Cagayan, was at issue when he filed his certificate of
candidacy as member of the House of Representative
in the May 11, 1998 elections, the Court, reiterating its
ruling in Aquino v. COMELEC, explained the meaning
of residence as the place where a party actually or
constructively has his permanent home where he, no
matter where he may be found at any given time,
eventually intends to return and remain, while
domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers when
it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law.
And, the fact that a person is a registered voter in
one district is not proof that he is not domiciled in
another district.
Torayno Sr., V. COMELEC 337 SCRA 574, the purpose
of the residence for seeking and holding public office,
is to give candidates the opportunity to be familiar
with the needs, difficulties and aspiration, potentials
for growth and all matters vital to the welfare of their
constituencies and on the party of the electorate, to
evaluate the candidates qualifications and fitness for
the job they aspire for.
In this case the residence qualification of Emano who
filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Cagayan
28
de Oro was at issue. Emano was elected provincial
governor of Misamis Oriental for his third term in 1995. In
filing his certificate of candidacy for governor, he declared
his residence in his certificate of candidacy to be in Misamis
Oriental.
While still the governor, Emano executed on June 14, 1997 a
voter registration record in Cagayan de Oro
(geographically located in the Province of Misamis
Oriental, a highly urbanized city, in which he claimed 20
years of residence. He subsequently filed his certificate of
candidacy for mayor of the city stating therein that his
residence for the preceding two years and five months was
at Cagayan de Oro City. Emanos opponent, filed a petition
for disqualification of Emano on that ground that he had
allegedly failed to meet the 1 year residence requirement.
But prior to the resolution of the disqualification case,
Emano was proclaimed winner with Damasing trailing
second. So, Torayno et. al filed another Petition before the
COMELEC, this time for QW, where they sought
(1) the annulment of the election of Emano and
(2) proclamation of Damasing who garnered the next
highest number of votes. The COMELEC denied the
Petition, the two cases where consolidated (QW and
Disqualification).
Issue: WoN Emanos disqualified to run as mayor of CDO?
Held: Respondent is an actual resident of Cagayan de Oro
for such a period of time necessary to qualify him to run for
mayor based on the following:
(1) He had actually resided in a house he bought in 1973 in
Cagayan de Oro City
(2) Had actually held office there during his three terms as
provincial governor of Misamis Oriental, as the
provincial capitol was located in Cagayan de Oro
(3) And has registered as voter in the city during the
period required by law.
Court gave the reason why the law requires a minimum
period of residence for candidates who seek to be elected
is to prevent the possibility of a stranger or newcomer
unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a
community and not identified with the latter from seeking
an elective office to serve that community. It is also rooted
in the desire that officials of district or localities be
acquainted not only with the metes and bounds of their
constituents but, more important, with the constituents
themselves Emano in this regard cannot be deemed a
stranger or newcomer when he ran for and was
overwhelmingly voted as city mayor having garnered a
margin of 30,000 votes.
Nolasco vs COMELEC 275 SCRA 762
Disqualified for vote-buying.
"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, sub-paragraph 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 an elective
office under this Code, unless said person has waived
his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go 29
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
foreign country in accordance with the residence City / City or municipal election registrar
requirement provided for in the elections laws." Municipal
Offices

Trinidad vs COMELEC 315 SCRA a75

With the complaint for disqualification of private CONTENTS OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
respondent rendered moot and academic by the
expiration of petitioners term of office therein
The certificate of candidacy shall state the following:
contested, COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
discretion in proceeding to disqualify petitioner from
a. That the person filing the certificate is announcing
his reelected term of office in its second questioned
his candidacy for the office stated therein and
Resolution on the ground that it comes as a matter
that he or she is eligible for such office;
of course after his disqualification in SPA No. 95-213
b. The political party to which the candidate
promulgated after the 1998 election. While it is true
belongs;
that the first questioned Resolution was issued eight
c. Civil status;
(8) days before the term of petitioner as Mayor
d. Date of birth;
expired, said Resolution had not yet attained finality
e. Residence;
and could not effectively be held to have removed
f. Post office address for all election purposes;
petitioner from his office. Indeed, removal cannot
g. Profession or occupation;
extend beyond the term during which the alleged
h. That he / she will support and defend the
misconduct was committed. If a public official is not
Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain
removed before his term of office expires, he can no
faith and allegiance thereto;
longer be removed if he is thereafter reelected for
i. That he / she will obey the laws, legal orders, and
another term.
decrees promulgated by the duly constituted
authorities;
CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY j. That he / she is not a permanent resident or
immigrant to a foreign country;
Candidate Any person aspiring for or seeking an k. That the obligation imposed by oath is assumed
elective public office, who has filed a certificate of voluntarily, without mental reservation or
candidacy by himself or through an accredited political purpose of evasion;
party, aggroupment, or coalition of parties. (Sec. 79, l. That the facts stated in the certificate of
BP 881) candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge.

Guest Candidacy A political party may nominate EFFECTS OF FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
and/or support candidates not belonging to it. (Sec.
70, BP 881) Note however that this is not applicable in Sec. 66 of the OEC provides that an appointive official is
cases of political parties registered under the party-list considered resigned upon the filing of his/her certificate of
system, as nominees must necessarily be bona fide candidacy. The forfeiture is automatic and the operative act
members of the party. is the moment of filing which shall render the appointive
official resigned (applicable also to GOCC and can
FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY constitute as just cause for termination of employment in
addition to those set forth in the Labor Code28).
To be eligible for any elective public office, one must Sec. 67 has already been amended R.A. 8436 and RA 9006
file a certificate of candidacy within the period fixed which provides that a candidate holding an elective
by the Omnibus Election Code. position whether national or local running for office other
than the one he is holding in a permanent capacity, except
Mode of Filing: Certificates must be filed by the candidate for Pres. and VP, is considered resigned only upon the start
personally or by his duly authorized representative. No of the campaign period corresponding to the position for
certificate shall be filed by mail, telegram or facsimile. which he/she is running.
(Sec. 7, R.A. 7166)
Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr. 202 SCRA 779, October 15, 1991,
Time of Filing: Certificates of candidacy must be filed in 12 Dimaporo was elected representative for the 2nd district of
legible copies not later than 120 days before the elections. Lanao del Sur during the 1987 elections. On January 15,
(Sec. 11, R.A. 8436) 1990, he filed with the COMELEC a Certificate of Candidacy
for Regional Governor of the ARMM. The election was
Place of Filing scheduled for 17 February 1990. Having lost in the ARMM
elections, he expressed his intention to resume performing
The certificates of candidacy shall be filed in the his duties and functions as elected member of congress.
following places:
Having failed in his bid, he points out that the term of office
President COMELEC main office (Manila) of members of the HR, as well as the grounds by which the
Vice- incumbency of said members may be shortened, are
President provided for in the Constitution, which grounds are as
Senator follows:
Congressman Provincial election supervisor
1) Section 13 Art. VI: Forfeiture of his seat by holding
If NCR district: File with Regional any other office or employment in the
Election Director government or any subdivision, agency or
If legislative district in cities outside instrumentality thereof, including go or gocc or
NCR which comprise one or more subsidiaries;
legislative districts: File with City 2) Section 16 (3): Expulsion as a disciplinary action
election registrar concerned for disorderly behaviour
Provincial Provincial election supervisor
Offices
28 Nicolasora v. CSC 1990 case and PNOC v. NLRC May 31, 1993

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
3) Section 17: Disqualification as determined by
resolution of the Electroal Tribunal in an
election contest
4) Section 7, oar. 2: Voluntary Renunciation of
office.
He asserts that under the rule expressio unius est
exlusio
HELD:
The fact that the ground cited in Sec. 67, Article I.X of
OEC is not mentioned in the constitution itself as a
mode of shortening the tenure of office of members
of congress does not preclude its application to
present members of congress. Section 2 w/c provides
xx all other officers and employees may be removed
from office as provided by law. Thus, the grounds are
not exclusive. The act contemplated in section 67 of
BP 881 of filing of a C0C for another office constitutes
an overt and concrete act of voluntary resignation of
the elective presently held.
A candidate is required to file a certificate of
candidacy in order to make him eligible to run for
public office and it is in the nature of a formal
manifestation to the whole world of the candidates
political creed or lack of political creed.
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.
In the event an official candidate of a political party
dies, withdraws or is disqualified after the last day for
filing a certificate of candidacy, the political party may
substitute another candidate. This is a privilege
granted to a political party.
SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDACY
A valid certificate of candidacy is an indispensable
requisite in case of substitution of a disqualified
candidate under SEC. 77. A candidate who dies,
withdraws or is disqualified must be an official
candidate of registered or accredited political party
and the substitute candidate must be of the same
political party as the original candidate and must be
duly nominated as such by the political party.
QUESTION: May an independent candidate who has
withdrawn from such candidacy, then affiliate as party
member of a political party, and is thereafter nominated to
substitute its candidate for mayor legally run as substitute
candidate? YES!
Sinaca v. Mula 315 SCRA 266 declared in the
affirmative since there is no condition precedent that
a substitute candidate must have been a member of
the party concerned for a certain period of time
before he can be nominated as such as the law merely
provided that the substitute should be a person
belonging to and certified to by the same political
party as the candidate to be replaced.
Any person holding a public appointive office,
including members of the AFP and officers and
employees of GOCCs, shall be considered ipso facto
resigned upon the filing of one's certificate of
candidacy. (Sec. 66, BP 881) Only the moment and act
of filing are considered. Once the certificate is filed,
the seat is forever forfeited and nothing, save a new
30
29
election or appointment, can restore the ousted official.
Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer,
reporter, on-air correspondent or personality who is a
candidate for any elective public office shall be deemed
resigned, if so required by his/her employer, or shall take a
leave of absence from his/her work as such during the
campaign period. (Sec. 6.6, R.A. 9006)
WITHDRAWAL OF CERTIFICATE
A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may
withdraw the same prior to the election by submitting to
the office concerned a written declaration under oath.
If a candidate files a certificate of candidacy for more than 1
office, he shall not be eligible for any of them. However, he
may declare under oath the office for which he desires to
be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the
other office or offices provided that this is done before the
expiration of the period for the filing of certificates of
candidacy. (Sec. 73, BP 881)
The filing of the withdrawal shall not affect whatever civil,
criminal, or administrative liabilities which a candidate may
have incurred. (Sec. 73, BP 881)
RAMIREZ V. COMELEC: Since the certificate of candidacy
for the position of board member was filed by his party and
the said party had withdrawn that nomination, there was
substantial compliance with Sec. 73 of the Omnibus
Election Code. His filing under oath within the statutory
period of his individual candidacy for mayor was a rejection
of the party nomination of the other officer.
Go vs COMELEC 357 SCRA 739
Go filed a certificate of candidancy for mayorship for Baybay,
Leyte. Later, she also filed a certificate of candidancy for
governorship of Leyte. She filed a withdrawal of her candidacy
for mayorship at 12:28 a.m. March 01, 2001.
Two opponents filed for her disqualification. The petitions were
based on the ground that petitioner filed certificates of
candidacy for two positions, namely, that for mayor of Baybay,
Leyte, and that for governor of Leyte, thus, making her ineligible
for both.
Ruling: She is not disqualified for both office. Her submission of
her withdrawal of her certificate of candidacy was a substantial
compliance with the law.
Section 73, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the
Omnibus Election Code, provides that:
"SEC. 73. Certificate of candidacy.- No person shall be eligible for
any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of
candidacy within the period fixed herein.
"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.
"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. However, before
the expiration of the period for the filing of certificates
of candidacy, the person who has filed more than one
certificate of candidacy may declare under oath the
29Note: Sec. 67 of BP 881 and the first proviso of Sec. 11 of R.A. 8436
(which states that "Any elective official, running for any officer other than one
which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-
President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned upon the start of the
campaign period") have been repealed by Sec. 14 of R.A. 9006 (Fair
Election Act of 2001).
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go 31
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
office for which he desires to be eligible and
cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other
office or offices."

There is nothing in this Section which mandates that the

affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same office
where the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was
filed. Thus, it can be filed directly with the main office of
the COMELEC, the office of the regional election director
concerned, the office of the provincial election supervisor
of the province to which the municipality involved belongs,
or the office of the municipal election officer of the said
municipality.

Dimaporo vs Mitra Jr. 202 SCRA 779

Dimaporo was duly elected congressman of ARMM.

During the governatorial race, he filed a certificate of
candidacy. Upon his filing of his candidacy, his name in the
roll of congressmen was blotted. He did not win in the
governatorial race. He wants to be back in office as
congressman.

Ruling: He lost his position ipso facto when he filed his

certificate of candidacy for governor.

Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 reads: "Any elective

official whether national or local running for any office
other than the one which he is holding in a permanent
capacity except for President and Vice-President shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the
filing of his certificate of candidacy."

Rationale of the law: this statutory provision seeks to

ensure that such officials serve out their entire term of
office by discouraging them from running for another
public office and thereby cutting short their tenure by
making it clear that should they fail in their candidacy, they
cannot go back to their former position. This is consonant
with the constitutional edict that all public officials must
serve the people with utmost loyalty and not trifle with the
mandate which they have received from their constituents.

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
DISQUALIFICATION OF A CANDIDATE
BEFORE ELECTIONS
Under the OEC
1) HAS BEEN DECLARED BY COMPETENT
AUTHORITY INSANE OR INCOMPETENT
Incompetence- the same may also refer not
only to mental illness, disease or physical
disability but also other causes which may
include:
a. minority or
b. lack of residence requirement;
c. any person who has been sentenced by
final judgment for subversion,
insurrection rebellion; or for any
offense for which carries a penalty of
more than 18 months or for a crime
involving moral turpitude, shall be
disqualified to be a candidate and to
hold any office. 30
DISQUALIFICATION IS REMOVED:
1. Plenary pardon or granted amnesty; or
2. upon declaration by a competent authority
that said insanity or incompetence had been
removed;
3. expiration of a period of 5 years from his
service of sentence unless of course within
the same period he again becomes
disqualified.
2) GUILTY OF GIVING MONEY OR MATERIAL
CONSIDERATION TO INFLUENCE, INDUCE
OR CORRUPT VOTERS OR PUBLIC OFFICIAL
PERFORMING ELECTORAL FUNCTIONS;
THOSE WHO HAVE COMMITTED
TERRORISM TO ENHANCE HIS CANDIDACY,
HAVING SPEND THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN
MORE THAN REQUIRED BY LAW
P10.00/RV/P5.0031
3) Sec. 69, a petition to abate a NUISANCE
CANDIDATE the COMELEC may motu
propio or upon verified petition of an
interested party, refuse to give due course
to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is
shown that it is filed in contemplation of a
nuisance candidate or cancel the same if
already filed. This is an exception to the
ministerial duty of the COMELEC and its
30 Sec. 12
31 Sec. 68
32
officers to receive a certificate of candidacy
under Sec. 76
A NUISANCE Candidate is
1. one who files his certificate to put the election
process in mockery or disrepute;
2. or to cause confusion among the candidates by
the similarity of names (because in the
appreciation of ballots, where there are two
candidates with the same name or surname and
only the name or surname is written, it will be
considered a stray vote and will not be counted
for either of the candidate unless of course one
of the candidate with the same name or surname
is an incumbent because of the equity of the
incumbent rule) or
3. By other circumstances or acts which clearly
demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide
intention to run for office, thus would prevent
the faithful determination of the true will of the
people.
A petition to declare a candidate a nuisance candidate
shall be filed by any registered candidate for the same
office within 5 days from the last day of the filing of
the certificate of candidacy.
Jarilla v. COMELEC 232 SCRA 758, a
disqualification case was filed against a candidate
on the grounds that he is not a RV. COMELEC
dismissed the case on the ground that it was filed
out of time for the filing of petition to abate a
nuisance candidate. The SC ruled that the
dismissal is not applicable where the grounds
referred to is the ineligibility of a candidate
which may be filed anytime in a petition for QW.
4) A verified petition seeking to deny due course or
to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed
by any person on the ground that the candidate
made MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION IN HIS
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY. 32 Section 5 of RA
6646 and Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of
procedure provide that the petition shall be filed
within 5 days from the last day for the filing of a
certificate of candidacy.
False representation pertains to material matter
affecting substantive rights of a candidate the
right to run for elective post for which he filed the
certificate of candidacy. The material
misrepresentation must refer to the qualifications
for the office, such as residence, citizenship, age.
In addition to the requirement of materiality, the
false representation must consist of deliberate
attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a fact
which would otherwise render a candidate
ineligible. It must be made with an intention to
deceive the electorate as to ones qualifications
for public office. The use of a surname, when not
intended to mislead or deceive the public as to
ones identity is not within the scope of the
provision.
Cases:
Salcedo II v. COMELEC 312 SCRA 447, a candidate who used
her husbands name even though their marriage was void
was not guilty of misrepresentation concerning a material
fact.
Coquilla vs COMELEC, Section 5 & & of RA 6646 provide
that proceedings for denial or cancellation of a certificate
32 Sec. 78 of the OEC
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
of candidacy is summary in nature. Thus, the holding
of a formal hearing is not mandatory. Coquilla
however cannot claim denial of the right because
records show that he filed a verified answer. A
Memorandum and a Manifestation before the
COMELEC in which he submitted documents relied by
him in his petition.
Abella v. COMELEC 210 SCRA 253, a candidates
statement in her certificate of candidacy for the
position of governor of Leyte that she was a resident
of Kananga, Leyte when this was not so or that the
candidate was a natural-born Filipino when in fact he
had become an Australian citizen in Labo vs. COMELEC
211 SCRA 297, constitutes a ground for the
cancellation of a certificate of candidacy.
GROUND FIOR DQ UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CODE (SEC. 40)
(Qualifications of local elective candidates under the LGC was
asked in the 1999 Bar)
1) THOSE SENTENCED BY FINAL JUDGMENT FOR AN
OFFENSE INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE OR FOR AN
OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY ONE YEAR OR MORE
IMPRISONMENT, WITHIN 2 YEARS* AFTER SERVING
SENTENCE.
a candidate for an elective office may likewise be
disqualified on the ground that the candidate has
been sentenced for a crime involving moral
turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1
year or more imprisonment, within 2 years from
serving sentence. 33
NOTE: that the 1st ground for disqualification consists
of two (2) parts, namely:
a. those sentenced by final judgment for an
offense involving moral turpitude, regardless
of the period of imprisonment; and (2)
those sentenced by final judgment for an
offense, OTHER THAN one involving moral
turpitude, punishable by one (1) year or
more imprisonment, within 2 years after
serving sentence.
MORAL TURPITUDE anything done
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or
good morals. In general, ALL crimes of
which fraud or deceit is an element or those
which are inherently contrary to rules of
right conduct, honesty or morality in a
civilized community, involve moral turpitude.
They include such offenses as estafa,
falsification of public document, smuggling,
bribery, murder, bigamy, abduction,
seduction, concubinage and violation of BP
22.
As discussed earlier, Sec. 40 of RA 7160 limits
the disqualification to 2 years* after service
of sentence. But this should now be read in
relation to Sec. 11 of RA 8189 which
enumerates those who are disqualified to
register as a voter. *Thus, the 2 year
disqualification period under Sec. 40 is now
deemed amended to last 5 years from
service of sentence after which period the
voter will be eligible to register as a voter
and to run for an elective public office.
33 Sec. 12 of the OEC & Section 40 of RA 7160
33
2) THOSE CONVICTED BY FINAL JUDGMENT FOR VIOLATING
THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE REPUBLIC.
3) FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL AND NON-
POLITICAL CASES
Marquez jr. v. COMELEC and Rodriguez 259 SCRA
FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE refers to a person who
has been convicted by final judgment. The SC said
that when a person leaves the territory of a state
not his own, homeward bound and subsequently
learns of the charges filed against him while he is
in the service of his country, the fact that he does
not subject himself to the jurisdiction of the
former state does not outrightly qualify him as a
fugitive from justice. In fact, when Rodriguez left
the US, there was no complaint and arrest
warrant yet and there would be no basis in saying
that he is running away from any prosecution or
punishment.
4) THOSE REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS A RESULT OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE
Rodolfo E. Aquinaldo vs COMELEC 212 SCRA 768, a
public official cannot be removed for administrative
conduct committed during a prior term as his re-
election to office operates as a condonation of the
officers previous misconduct to the extent of cutting
of the right to remove him therefore.
Grego v. COMELEC 274 SCRA 481, the Court ruled that
Sec. 40 of RA 7160 does not have any retroactive
effect. In this case a Deputy Sheriff was removed for
serious misconduct in 1981. He run in 1992 & 1995. His
removal in 1981 cannot serve as basis for his
disqualification. Laws have prospective effect.
5) PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY OR
THOSE WHO HAVE ACQUIRED THE RIGHT TO RESIDE
ABROAD AND CONTINUE TO AVAIL OF THE SAME RIGHTS
AFTER THE EFFECTIVITY OF RA 7160.
Caasi v. CA 191 SCRA 229 (1990). A disqualification case
was filed against Merito Miguel under Sec. 68 of the
OEC by rival candidate Caasi for the position of
Municipal Mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan on the ground
that Miguel was a green card holder, therefore, a
permanent resident of the U.S. and not Bolinao. While
Miguel admitted having possessed a green card he
however denied that he is a resident of the US as his
obtaining a green card is merely for convenience in
order that he may freely enter the US for his periodic
medical examination and to visit his children. The
COMELEC dismissed the disqualification case holding
that the possession of a green card did not sufficiently
establish Miguels abandonment of his resident in the
Philippines. The SC on review however, reversed the
decision of the COMELEC stating that to be qualified
to run for elective office in the Phils., the law requires
that the candidate who is a green card holder must
have waived his status as a permanent resident or
immigrant of a foreign country. His act of filing a
certificate of candidacy for elective office in the
Philippines, did not of itself constitute a waiver of his
status as permanent resident or immigrant of the US.
6) INSANE OR FEEBLE MINDED
7) THOSE WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP (ALLEGIANCE)
The SC has ruled in various ways the issue as to
whether a candidate for electoral position is a Filipino
citizen, in cases of doubt, on the issue of citizenship.
The rulings of the SC however is not consistent on the
matter as will be noted in several cases.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
AZNAR V. COMELEC 185 SCRA 703: the qualification of
Emilio Lito Osmea to be elected governor of Cebu
was raised. Aznar filed a disqualification case against
him on the ground that he is allegedly not a Filipino
citizen but a citizen of the US being a holder of an
alien Certificate of Registration. Osmea maintained
that he is a Filipino citizen being the legitimate child of
a Filipino; a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine
passport; continuously residing in the Phils. Since his
birth and has not gone out of the country for more
than six months and a RV in the Philippines since 1965.
Court ruled that the mere fact that respondent
Osmea was holder of a certificate stating that he is
an American citizen did not mean that he is no longer
a Filipino & that an application for an ACR was not
tantamount to renunciation of his Philippine
Citizenship.
Labo Jr. V. COMELEC 176 SCRA 1 (1989), a
disqualification case was filed against Labor Jr. was
elected Mayor of Baguio City by Luis Lardizabal on the
ground that he was not a citizen of the Philippines
having been naturalized as an Australian citizen, which
he did not contest and for having categorically
declared in a number of sworn statements that he was
an Australian citizen. Based on these evidences Labo
Jr. was alleged to be ineligible for the elective
position. While Labo Jr. asserts that his naturalization
in Australia was annulled after it was found that his
marriage to the Australian was bigamous, this
circumstance alone did not automatically restore his
Philippine cirizenship.
MERCADO V. MANZANO G.R. NO. 135083 MAY 25,
1999: The case was a case of the application of the jus
soli and jus sanguinis on the same person. Manzano
was born in California, acquired US citizenship by
operation of the US Constitution under the principle
of jus soli. He was also a natural born Filipino citizen
by operation of the 1935 Constitution, as his father
and mother were Filipino at the time of his birth. At
the age of 6, his parent brought him to the Philippines
using an American passport as travel document. His
parents registered him as an alien with the Philippine
bureau of Immigration, was issued an ACR.
Held: The circumstances did not result in the loss of
his Philippine citizenship, as he did not renounce it and
did not take an oath of allegiance to the US and the
fact that respondent Manzano was registered as an
American citizen in the BID & was holding an American
passport on April 22, 1997, only a year before he filed a
certificate of candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Makati,
these were just assertions of his nationality before
the termination of his American citizenship.
In ruling that Manzano is a Filipino citizen, the court
distinguished dual citizenship with dual allegiance :
Dual Citizenship Dual Allegiance
Arises when, as a result of (ENTAILS A VOLUNTARY
the concurrent application ACT ie. Taking an oath of
of the different laws of two allegiance to another
or more states, a person is State)
simultaneously considered a
national by the said states, Article IV Section 5 of the
such as a situation when a 1987 Constitution on dual
person whose parents are allegiance (Dual
citizens of a state which allegiance of citizens is
adheres to the principle of inimical to the national
jus sanguinis is born in a interest and shall be dealt
state which follows the with by law.)
doctrine of jus soli. Such
person ipso facto, and
without any voluntary act
34
on his part, is concurrently
considered a citizen of both
states.
CIRILO VALLES V. COMELEC & LOPEZ G.R. #138000 AUGUST
9, 2000: The mere fact that Lopez was a holder of an
Australian passport and had an ACR are not acts
constituting an effective renunciation of citizenship and
do not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship.
For renunciation to effectively result in the lost of
citizenship, the same must be express (Com. Act 63, Sec. 1).
An ACR does not amount to an express renunciation or
repudiation of ones citizenship34. Similarly, her holding of
an Australian passport as in the Manzano case, were
likewise mere ACTS OF ASSERTIONS BEFORE SHE
EFFECTIVELY RENOUNCED THE SAME. Thus, at the most,
Lopez had dual citizenship she was an Australian and a
Filipino, as well.
The phrase dual citizenship under RA Sec. 40(d) of RA
7160 and Sec. 20 of RA 7854 must be understood as
referring to dual allegiance. In including sec. 5 Article IV
on citizenship, the concern of the Constitutional
Commission was not dual citizens per se but with
naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their
countries of origin even after their naturalization. Hence,
persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this
disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who
must, therefore, be subject to strict process with respect to
the termination of their status, the filing of the certificate
of candidacies for candidates with dual citizenship is
sufficient election of Philippine citizenship as to terminate
their status as persons with dual citizenship considering
that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of
conflicting laws of different states.
The fact that Lopez had dual citizenship did not
automatically disqualify her from running for public office.
For candidates with dual citizenship, it is enough that they
elect Phil. Citizenship upon the filing of their certificate of
candidacy, to terminate their status as persons with dual
citizenship. The filing of the certificate of candidacy
sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship effectively
removing any disqualification as a dual citizen. In the
Certificate of Candidacy, one declares that he/she is a
Filipino citizen and that he/she will support and defend the
Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith
and allegiance thereto. Such declaration, which is under
oath, operates as an effective renunciation of foreign
citizenship.
Frivaldo v. COMELEC 174 SCRA 245 (1989). Frivaldo was
proclaimed governor-elect of Sorsogon and subsequently
assumed office. A disqualification was filed on the ground
that he was not a Filipino citizen, having been naturalized in
the US in 1983, which he admitted but which he undertook
only to protect himself against then President Marcos.
The SC found Frivaldo disqualified for not having
possessed the requirement of citizenship which cannot be
cured by the electorate, especially if they mistakenly
believed, as in this case, that he candidate was qualified.
Republic v. dela Rosa, 232 SCRA 785, the disqualification of
Frivaldo was again at issue. Frivaldo opted to reacquire his
Phili. Citizenship thru naturalization but however failed to
comply with the jurisdiction requirement of publication,
thus, the court never acquired jurisdiction to hear the
naturalization of Frivaldo. He was again, disqualified.
Frivaldo later reacquired Philippine citizenship. In a 1996
decision, Frivaldo v. COMELEC 257 SCRA 721 (1996), he
obtained the highest number of votes in 3 consecutive
34 AZNAR V. COMELEC 185 SCRA 703
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
elections but was twice declared by the SC to be
unqualified to hold office due to his alien citizenship.
He claimed to have reassumed his lost Phil. Citizenship
thru repatriation. It was established that he took his
oath of allegiance under the provision of PD 725 at 2
pm on June 30, 1995, much later than the time he filed
his certificate of candidacy. The law does not specify
any particular date or time when the candidate must
possess citizenship, unlike that of residence and age
as Sec. 39 of RA 7160 specifically speaks of
qualification of elective officials, not candidates
thus, the citizenship requirement in the local
government code to be possessed by an elective
official at the latest as of the time he is proclaimed
and at the start of the term of office to which he has
been elected. But to remove all doubts on this
important issue, the Court held that the repatriation
of Frivaldo retroacted to the date of the filing of his
application on August 17, 1994 and being a former
Filipino who has served the people repeatedly and at
the age of 81, Frivaldo deserves a liberal
interpretation of the Philippine laws and whatever
defects there were in his nationality should now be
deemed mooted by his repatriation.(Finally!)
8) THREE-TERM LIMIT
Another ground which can serve as legal ground for
disqualifying a candidate is the 3 TERM LIMIT OR HAVING
SERVED 3 CONSECUTIVE TERMS.
No local elective official shall serve for more than
three (3) consecutive terms in the same position.
VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION of the office for any
length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of service for the full
term for which the elective official concerned was
elected35.
Adormeo v. COMELEC & Talaga, Jr., G.R. No. 147927
February 4, 2002 and citing Borja v. COMELEC 295
SCRA 157 and Lonzanida V. COMELEC 311 SCRA 602:
the term limit for elective local officials must be
taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as
the right to serve in the same elective position.
Thus, two (2) conditions for the application of the
disqualification must concur:
That the official concerned has been elected for
three consecutive terms in the same local
government post; and
That he has fully served three consecutive terms.
Adormeo v. COMELEC, Talaga Jr., was elected
mayor in May 1992, he served the full term, was re-
elected in 1995-1998 but lost in the 1998 elections to
Tagarao. In the recall elections of May 2000, Talaga
Jr. won and served the unexpired term of Tagarao
until June 30, 2001. Talaga Jr. filed his certificate of
candidacy for the same position in the 2001
elections which candidacy was challenged on the
ground that Talaga Jr. is already barred by the 3
term limit rule. Adormeo contends that Talagas
candidacy violated Section 8, Article X of the
Constitution which states that the term of office of
local elective officials shall be three years and no
such official shall serve for more than three
consecutive term. To further bolster his case, he
adverts to the comment of Fr. Joaquin Bernas who
stated that in interpreting said provision that if
one is elected representative to serve the
unexpired term of another, that unexpired term,
no matter how short, will be considered one term
35 Section 43 (b) of RA 7160, Local Government Code
35
for the purpose of computing the number of successive
terms allowed.
ISSUE: Was Talaga disqualified to run for mayor of
Lucena City in the May 14, 2001 elections.
HELD: Qualified! The term limit for elective local officials
must be taken to refer to the right to be elected as well
as the right to serve in the same elective position
considering that the continuity of his mayorship was
disrupted by his defeat in the 1998 elections which is
considered as an interruption in the continuity of service.
The SC further held that the comment of Fr. Bernas is
pertinent only to members of the House of
Representatives, there being no recall election provided
for members of Congress, unlike local government
officials.
LONZANIDA V. COMELEC July 28, 1998,
Facts: Lonzanida served two consecutive terms as
municipal mayor Zambales prior to the May 8, 1995
elections. In the May `1995 elections, Lonzanida ran for
Mayor and was again proclaimed winner. He assumed
office and discharged the duties thereof. Alvez filed an
election protest which in a decision dated January 9, 1997
declared a failure of elections rendering the results for
the office of the mayor of San Antonio as null and void.
The office of the mayor of said municipality was
declared vacant. the COMELEC on Nov. 13, 1997,
resolved the election protest filed by Alvez in his favor
after determining that Alvez got the plurality of votes.
The COMELEC issued a writ of execution ordering
Lonzanida to vacate the post, which he obeyed and Alvez
assumed office for the remainder of the term.
Lonzanida again filed his certificate of candidacy for
Mayor in the 1998 elections and his opponent timely filed
a petition to disqualify him for running for mayor on the
ground that he had served 3 consecutive terms in the
same post.
ISSUE: Whether Lonzanidas assumption of office from
May 1995 to March 1998 may be considered as service of
one full term for the purpose of applying the 3-year limit
for elective local government officials.
HELD: Qualified! The two requisites for the application of
the 3-term limit are wanting.
First, petitioner cannot be considered as having been
elected to the post in the May 1995 elections, and
second, the petitioner did not fully serve the 1995-1998
mayoralty TERM BY REASON OF INVOLUNTARY
RELINQUISHMENT OF OFFICE (Sec. 43 of RA 7169 & Sec.
8 of Art. X of the Constitution, requires the renunciation
to be voluntary to be considered as an interruption in
the continuity of service for the full term for which the
election official concerned was elected.) Take note that
he was not duly elected in the 1995 elections as his
proclamation as winner was declared null and void.
A proclamation subsequently declared void is no
proclamation at all and while a proclaimed candidate
may assume office on the strength of the proclamation
of the BOC, he is only a presumptive winner who
assumes the office subject of the final outcome of the
election protest.
Had the COMELEC lost jurisdiction? Yes. The
proclamation nor assumption of office of a candidate
against whom a petition for disqualification is pending
before the COMELEC does not divest the COMELEC of
jurisdiction to continue hearing the case and resolve it on
the merits.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
Borja v. COMELEC September 3, 1998: Issue:
whether a Vice-Mayor who succeeds to the office of
mayor by operation of law and serves the
remainder of the term is considered to served a
term in that office for the purpose of the 3-term
limit.
Sec. 8 of Art X of the Constitution contemplates
service by local officials for 3 consecutive terms as a
result of election. The first sentence speaks of the
term of office of elective local officials and bars
such official(s) from serving for more than 3
consecutive terms. The term served must
therefore be one for which the official concerned
was elected. The purpose of this provision is to
prevent a circumvention of the limitation on the
number of terms an elective local official may serve.
Conversely, if he is not serving a term for which he
was elected because he is simply continuing the
service of the official he succeeds, such official
cannot be considered to have fully served the term
notwithstanding his voluntary renunciation of office
prior to its expiration. (Asked in the 2001Bar)
EFFECT OF DISQUALIFICATION CASES
36
purpose of determining whether the acts complained of
have in fact been committed. When the inquiry results in a
finding before the election, the COMELEC shall order the
candidates disqualification. In the case the complaint was
not resolved before the election, the COMELEC motu
propio or on motion of any of the parties, refer the said
complaint to the Law Department of the COMELEC for PI.
COMELEC was held not to have abused its discretion in not
ordering the suspension of the proclamation conformably
with its COMELEC Reso 2070 which provides that where a
complaint is filed after the elections but before
proclamation, as in this case, the complaint must be
dismissed as a disqualification case but shall be referred to
the law department for PI.
In the event the law department makes a prima facie
finding of guilt and the corresponding information has been
filed with the appropriate trial court, the complainant may
file a petition for suspension of the proclamation of
respondent with the court before which the criminal case is
pending and that court may order the suspension of the
proclamation if the evidence of guilt is strong. Since these
circumstances are not present in this case, not legal ground
warrants the suspension of the proclamation.

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. 36
not declared by final judgment: but is voted for and
received the winning number of votes in such election,
the COMELEC shall continue with the trial and, upon
motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may
during the pendency order the suspension of the
proclamation of such candidate whenever the
evidence of quilt is strong.

Perez v. COMELEC & Aguinaldo, supra, the

disqualification case against Aguinaldo was decided
on May 10, 1998 the day before the May 11, 1998
elections and was proclaimed on May 16, 1998 and
assumed office on May 17, 1998. Perez filed a Motion
for Reconsideration on May 22, 1998 which the
COMELEC denied in a decision dated June 11, 1998.
The SC ruled that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction to
entertain the MR because the proclamation of
Aguinaldo already barred the action. The fact that
Aguinaldo was already proclaimed, it is already the
HRET who has jurisdiction over the same having
exclusive original jurisdiction over the petition for
declaration of Aguinaldos ineligibility.

Bagatsing v. COMELEC 320 SCRA 220, a

disqualification case was filed by candidates
Bagatsing, Maceda and Lopez against Atienza 7 days
after the elections for allegedly disbursing public
funds within the 45 day prohibitory period, which
amount was alleged to be distributed as financial
assistance to the public school teachers of Manila who
manned the precinct polls for the said elections.
Atienza was proclaimed Mayor of the City of Manila.
COMELEC First Division dismissed the disqualification
case and denied the motion to suspend proclamation
pending their MR with the COMELEC en banc,
petitioners filed a petition with the

Issue: WoN the COMELEC first Division committed

grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
disqualification case against Atienza and referring the
same to its law department for PI.

Held: A complaint for disqualification filed BEFORE the

election must be inquired into by the COMELEC for the CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION PROPAGANDA

ELECTION PERIOD
36 Sec. 72 of the OEC and Sec. 6 of RA 6646

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
90 days before the date of the election and 30
days thereafter.
CAMPAIGN PERIOD (excludes the day before and the day of
the elections)
PRES., VP AND SENATORS starts 90 days
before the date of election which coincides with
the start of the election period.
Members of the HR and local officials 45 days
Brgy. Officials 15 days
POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT
FOR PRINTED AND BROADCAST MEDIA
Allowed (RA 9006) provided the said advertisement
shall bear and be identified by reasonably legible or
audible words Political advertisement paid for,
follows by the true and correct name and address of
the candidate or party for whose benefit the election
propaganda was printed or aired.
If the broadcast is given free of charge by the radio or
television station, it shall be identified by the words
airtime for this broadcast was provided free of
charge by followed by the true and correct name and
address of the broadcast entity.
Provided, that said print, broadcast donated shall not
be published or printed without the written
acceptance of the candidate or political party which
acceptance shall be attached to the advertising
contract and submitted to the COMELEC.
GUIDELINES of POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS WHETHER
BY PURCHASE OR DONATION
1. PRINT ADVERTISEMENTS
Shall not exceed page in broadsheet and
page in tabloids 3 x a week per newspaper,
magazine or other publications during the
campaign period.
2. TELEVISION/RADIO ADVERTISEMENTS
National Candidates/ Registered Political Party
Not more than 120 minutes of TV advertisement
and 180 minutes of radio.
Local Elective Offices
not more than 60 minutes of TV advertisement
and 90 minutes of radio.
COMELEC TIME AND SPACE
PRINT SPACE: COMELEC shall pay just
compensation (PPI ruling) in at least 3
NEWSPAPERS OF GENERAL CIRCULATION which
COMELEC shall allocated free of charge to the
national candidates. Broadcast network (radio
and TV), free of charge to COMELEC.
LIMITATIONS IN BROADCASTING OF ELECTION ACCOUNTS
COMELEC shall ensure that radio and television or
cable television broadcasting entitles shall not
allow the scheduling of any program or permit
any sponsor to manifestly favor or oppose any
candidate or political party or unduly or
repeatedly referring to or including said
candidate and/or political party in such program
respecting, however, in all instances the right of
said broadcast entities to air accounts of
37
significant news or new worth events and views on
matters of public interest.
RESTRICTIONS ON MEDIA PRACTITIONERS
Any mass media columnist, commentator, reported or
non-air correspondent or personality who is a
candidate for any elective office or is a campaign
volunteer for or employed or retained in any capacity
by any candidate or political party SHALL BE DEEMED
RESIGNED, if so required by their employer, or SHALL
TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE FORM HIS/HER WORK AS
SUCH DURING THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD. Any media
practitioner who is an official of a political party or
member of the campaign staff of a candidate or
political party shall not use his/her time or space to
favor any candidate or political party.
No movie, cinematography or documentary portraying
the life or biography of a candidate shall be publicly
exhibited in a theater, television stations or any public
forum DURING THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD or those
portrayed by an actor or media personality who is
himself a candidate.
ELECTION SURVEYS
Election Surveys refers to the measurements of opinions
and perceptions of the voters as regards a candidates
popularity, qualifications, platforms or matter of public
discussion in relation to the election, including voters
preference or candidates or publicly discussed issued
during the campaign period. The person or entity who
publishes a survey is required to include the following
information:
1. Name of the person, candidate, party or
organization who COMMISSIONED OR PAID FOR
THE SURVEY.
2. Name and address of the person or polling firm
who conducted the survey.
3. PERIOD during which the survey was conducted,
methodology used, including the number of
individual respondents and the areas form which
they were selected, and the specific questions
asked.
4. Margin of error of the survey
The survey together with the raw data gathered to support
the conclusions shall be available for inspection, copying
and verification by the COMELEC, or by the registered
political party or any COMELEC accredited citizens arm.
LIMITATIONS
Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be
published 15 DAYS BEFORE AN ELECTION and surveys
affecting local candidates shall not be published 7 DAYS
BEFORE AN ELECTION.
POSTING OF CAMPAIGN MATERIALS
Political parties and party-list groups may be authorized by
the COMELEC COMMON POSTER AREAS FOR THEIR
CANDIDATE IN NOR MORE THAN 10 PUBLIC PLACES such
as plazas, markets, barangay centers and the like, wherein
candidates can post, display or exhibit election
propaganda. Size of the poster areas shall not exceed 12 X
16 feet or its equivalent. With respect to independent
candidates, may likewise avail of this but the difference is
merely on the size which shall not exceed 4 x 6 feet or its
equivalent.
Francisco Chavez v. COMELEC G.R. No. 162777, 31 August
2004) (read attached)
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go 38
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
PROVINCIA cause of any of the members of the Board of Canvassers, the
CITY MUNICIPAL
L COMELEC may appoint the following as substitutes, in the order
City election named:
registrar or a
lawyer of PROVINCIAL CITY MUNICIPAL
Provincial COMELEC;
Election Ranking Ranking lawyer Ranking
election Chairma
registrar or lawyer of the of the lawyer of the
supervisor In cities with more n
Chair a
or lawyer in than 1 election COMELEC COMELEC COMELEC
man representati
the regional registrar,
ve of
office of the COMELEC shall (1) Provincial (1) City auditor (1) Municipal
COMELEC
COMELEC designate the auditor or Administ
election registrar equivalent; rator;
who shall act as (2) Registrar
chairman of Deeds (2) Registrar of (2) Municipal
Vice Deeds; Assessor
Municipal (3) Clerk of ;
Chair Provincial
City fiscal treasurer Court (3) Clerk of
man fiscal
Most senior nominat Court (3) Clerk of
district ed by nominated Court
school the by the nominat
Vice
supervisor Executiv Executive ed by
Chairma
Provincial or in his e Judge Judge of the
City n
Memb superintend absence a of the the RTC; Executiv
superintendent of RTC; e Judge
er ent of principal of
schools (4) Any other of the
schools the school
district or (4) Any other available MTC;
the available appointive
elementary appointi city official (4) Any other
school ve available
CANVASSING BODIES provincia appointi
l official ve
municip
The CANVASS OF VOTES refers to the process by al official
which the results in the election returns are tallied and
totalled.
Same as for Same as for Same as for
Member Vice- Vice-Chairman Vice-
CERTIFICATES OF CANVASS are official tabulations of
Chairman Chairman
votes accomplished by district, municipal, city and
provincial canvassers based on the election returns,
which are the results of the ballot count at the
PROHIBITIONS ON THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS
precinct level.

Canvass proceedings are administrative and summary
in nature.
Position
Pres. & Vice Pres.
(Sec. 4, Art. VII, Sec. 30
RA 7166)
Senators and Regional
Officials ( Sec. 2 EO 144
March 2, 1987)
Members of the HR Canvassers composed of
and Provincial officials
(RA 7166)
Members of HR and
Municipal Officials
Member of the HR, city
and municipal officials,
The chairman and the members of the Board of Canvassers
shall not be related within the 4th civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity to any of the candidates whose
votes will be canvassed by said board, or to any member of
Canvassing Body the said board. (Sec. 222, B.P. 881)
Congress No member or substitute member of the different boards of
canvassers shall be transferred, assigned or detailed
outside of his official station, nor shall he leave said station
COMELEC without prior authority of the COMELEC during the period
beginning election day until the proclamation of the
Provincial Board of winning candidates. (Sec. 223, B.P. 881)
the PES, Prosecutor and No member of the board of canvassers shall feign illness in
provincial official of the order to be substituted on election day until the
DECS. proclamation of the winning candidates. Feigning of illness
District BOC in each constitutes an election offense. (Sec. 224, B.P. 881)
legislative district in
JURISDICTION OF COMELEC OVER THE BOARD OF
Metro Manila
City and Municipal BOC CANVASSERS
composed of city or
municipal election COMELEC has direct control and supervision over the board
officer, city pros. And of canvassers. Any member of the Board may, at any time,
DECS Superintendent. be relieved for cause and substituted motu proprio by the
COMELEC. (Sec. 227, B.P. 881)

COMELEC has the power to investigate and act on the

Composition of the Board of Canvassers (Sec. 221, BP 881, propriety or legality of the canvass of election returns made
as amended by Sec. 20, RA 6646) by the board of canvassers.

However, in case of non-availability, absence,

disqualification due to relationship, or incapacity for any

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
NATURE OF THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS DUTIES
A canvassing board's task is to compile and add the
results as they appear in the election returns
transmitted to it. (Guiao v. COMELEC, 137 SCRA 366)
When Ministerial
Once the COMELEC or the board of canvassers is
satisfied in the authenticity of the returns, it has no
power to look beyond the face thereof, and its task of
tallying is merely ministerial.
When there is an error in the computation which is
discovered after proclamation, the board of
canvassers can simply correct the error; the remedy
being purely administrative.
When Quasi-Judicial
The board of canvassers must be satisfied that the election
returns submitted to it are genuine and authentic. Thus,
the board of canvassers will not be compelled to canvass
the returns when they are found to be:
obviously manufactured;
contrary to probabilities;
clearly falsified; or
not legible
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CANVASS PROCEEDINGS
There must be a strong prima facie case backed
up by a specific offer of evidence, and an
indication of its nature and importance has to be
made out to warrant the reception of evidence
aliunde, for the presentation of witnesses and the
delays necessarily entailed thereby.
When COMELEC has determined after
investigation and examination of the voting and
registration records that ACTUAL VOTING and
ELECTION took place in the questioned precincts,
election returns cannot be disregarded but are
accorded prima facie status as bona fide reports
of the result of voting for canvassing and
proclamation purposes.
COMELEC should guard against PROCLAMATION
GRABBING and against attempts to paralyze the
canvassing and proclamation.
To allow a respondent to raise belated questions
before the COMELEC as to the returns during the
review of a case before the COMELEC, which
question has not been raised before the board of
canvassers, would mean undue delays in the pre-
proclamation proceedings.
The Supreme Court can review the decisions of
COMELEC ONLY in cases of grave abuse of
discretion in the discharge of QUASI-JUDICIAL
POWERS and not in the exercise of its
administrative duties.
Conclusiveness of findings
The findings of the board of canvassers and the
certificate of election issued by them are not
conclusive but are merely PRIMA FACIE evidence of
the result and title to the office of those declared
elected.
As to all other collateral matters, the findings of the
board are conclusive. However, such findings are
39
not conclusive in a direct proceeding to try title to the
office.
The fact of having a plurality of votes lawfully cast is
what confers title to the office UNLESS one is allowed to
go behind the certificate or returns to establish title to
the office before the appropriate tribunal.
PREPARATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS AND
STATEMENT OF VOTES
Certificate of canvass
The respective board of canvassers shall prepare a
certificate of canvass duly signed and affixed with the
imprint of the thumb of the right hand of each
member, supported by a statement of the votes
received by each candidate in each polling place and,
on the basis thereof, shall proclaim as elected the
candidates who obtained the highest number of votes
cast in the province, city, municipality or barangay.
(Sec. 231, B.P. 881)
Failure to comply with this requirement shall
constitute an election offense.
Statement of votes
The STATEMENT OF VOTES is a tabulation per precinct
of votes garnered by candidates as reflected in the
election returns; its preparation is an administrative
function of the board, purely a mechanical act over
which COMELEC has direct control and supervision.
The Statement of Votes supports the certificate of
canvass and is the basis of proclamation.
Consequently, any error in the Statement of Votes
would affect the proclamation made on the basis
thereof.
Failure to object to the Statement of Votes before the
Board of Canvassers does not constitute a bar to
raising the issue for the first time before the COMELEC,
as the law is silent as to when such objection may be
raised.
Number of Copies of the Certificates of Canvass and Their
Distribution (Sec. 29, R.A. 7166)
City or Municipal Board of Canvassers:
The City or Municipal Board of Canvassers shall prepare the
certificates of canvass for President, Vice-President, Senators,
Members of the House of Representatives, and Elective
Provincial Officials in 7 copies to be distributed as follows:
1. 1st copy: Provincial board of canvassers for
canvassing of election results for President, Vice-
President, Senators, Members of the House of
Representatives and Elective Provincial Officials
2. 2nd copy: COMELEC
3. 3rd copy: To be kept by the chairman of the board
of canvassers
4. 4th copy: Citizens' arm designated by the
COMELEC to conduct media- based unofficial
count
5. 5th to 7th copies: Representatives of any 3 of 6
major political parties according to the voluntary
agreement of the parties; if there is no
agreement, COMELEC shall decide based on the
criteria under sec. 26 of RA 7166
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
City Boards of Canvassers of cities comprising one or
more legislative districts,Provincial Boards of Canvassers,
and
District Boards of Canvassers in the Metro Manila area:
The foregoing Boards of Canvassers shall prepare the
certificates of canvass for President, Vice-President and
Senators in 7 copies to be distributed as follows:
1. 1st copy: Congress, directed to the Senate
President for use in the canvass of election
results for President and Vice-President
2. 2nd copy: COMELEC, for use in the canvass of
the election results for Senators
3. 3rd copy: To be kept by the chairman of the
board of canvassers
4. 4th copy: Citizens' arm designated by the
COMELEC to conduct media- based unofficial
count
5. 5th to 7th copies: Representatives of any 3 of
6 major political parties according to the
6. voluntary agreement of the parties; if there
is no agreement, COMELEC shall decide
based on the criteria under sec. 26 of RA
7166
RULES IN THE APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS:
37
40
APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS AND DISPOSITION OF ELECTION
RETURNS
APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS is an electoral activity
undertaken after close of voting while the ballot is being
read by the BEI during the counting.
Every ballot shall be presumed valid unless there is a clear
and good reason to justify its rejection for the reason that
a ballot is indicative of the will of the voter.
It is not required that it should be nicely or accurately
written, or that the name of the candidate voted for should
be correctly spelled. The ballot should be read in the light
of the circumstances surrounding the election and the
voter to give effect to, rather than frustrate the will of the
voter.
1) PRINCIPLE OF IDEM SONANS37 which literally means
the same or similar sound. The rule states that A
name or surname incorrectly written which when read,
has a sound similar to the name or surname of a
candidate when correctly written shall be counted in
his favor. (Asked in 1994 Bar)
2) BALLOTS WITH PREFIXES BEFORE THE NAME OF THE
CANDIDATE IS VALID. Example, a candidate for town
mayor is an engineer, if the vote for him is prefixed
with the word engineer, it should not be invalidated
as a marked ballot under Rule 12. (Asked in the 1994
Bar)
3) STRAY VOTE (NOT BALLOT) is one cast in favor of a
person who has not filed a certificate of candidacy or
in favor of a candidate for an office for which he did
not present himself.
While the vote for said person is considered a
stray vote, it shall not invalidate the whole ballot.
(In the 1994 Bar, the question was What is a
stray ballot? Although the Code does not
provide for stray ballot, it is presumed that stray
ballot refers to stray vote.)
4) MARKED BALLOT refers to a distinguishing mark,
figure or character which shows an intention on the
part of the voter to distinguish his particular form
from others of its class, and not one that is common
and distinguishable from, the other of a designated
class.
Not every mark made by a voter on the ballot
which may separate and distinguish it from other
ballots casts at the election will result in a
declaration of invalidity. To constitute a mark a
distinguishing mark, it must be placed on a ballot
Sec. 211 BP 881
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
with the deliberate intention that it shall
identify the ballot after the vote has been
cast, unless a statute enumerates certain
marks as illegal or distinguishing regardless
of the question of intent. A mark ballot shall
not be counted the whole ballot is
invalidated.
Columbres v. COMELEC 340 SCRA 608: There
is no such presumption in law that the
marking found on the ballots have been
made by third persons, absent concrete
evidence showing that they were placed by
the voter themselves. Instead, THE LEGAL
PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE SANCTITY OF
THE BALLOT HAS BEEN PROTECTED AND
PRESERVED. Thus, an examination of the
questioned ballot is required in order to
ascertain the real nature of the alleged
markings thereon-whether they were
written by different persons, and whether
they were intended to identify the ballot.
Another issue in the Columbres case is
whether the COMELEC en Banc committed
grave abuse of discretion in declaring that
the findings of the division of the COMELEC
on the contested ballots are findings of facts
that may not be the subject of a motion for
reconsideration. The SC stressed that to
determine the winning candidate, the
application of election law and
jurisprudence in appreciating the contested
ballots, is essential. Any question on the
appreciation of ballots would directly affect
the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
the declared winner, hence, the decision,
order or ruling of a COMELEC division
pertinent thereto is also a proper subject of
a motion for reconsideration before the
COMELEC en banc.
6) Excess Ballots Sec. 207 OEC. Before proceeding to
count, the BEI shall count the ballots in the
compartment for valid ballots and compare the
number with the actual number of voters who voted.
If there are excess ballots, the poll clerk shall draw out
as many ballots equal to the excess without looking at
them and the excess ballots shall not be counted.
Excess ballots shall be deposited in the compartment
for invalid ballots.
7) Spoiled Ballots refers to those ballots which were
accidentally defaced or torn and shall be deposited in
the compartment for invalid ballots and shall not be
counted. The voter is entitled to another ballot.
8) Equity of the Incumbent Rule if there are two or
more candidates with the same full name, first name
or surname and one of them is an incumbent and on
the ballot is written only such full name or surname,
the vote shall be counted in favor of the incumbent.
Otherwise, the same shall be considered a stray vote.
9) Neighborhood Rule even if the name of a candidate
was written on the wrong space, it should be counted
if the intention to vote for him can be determined.
CERTIFICATE OF VOTES, STATEMENT OF VOTES,
STATEMENT OF CANVASS
Certificate of Votes (CV): - an election document
issued by the BEIs after the counting and
announcement of the results and before leaving the
41
polling place upon request of the accredited watchers.
It shall contain the number of votes obtain by each
candidate written in words and figures, precinct #, name of
the city or municipality signed and thumb mark by each
member of the Board.
Evidentiary value: The CV shall be admissible in evidence to
prove tampering, alteration, falsification or any anomaly
committed in the preparation of the election returns concerned,
when duly authenticated by at least two members of the BEI
who issued the certificate. Failure to present the CV shall
however not bar the presentation of other evidence to impugn
the authenticity of the ER. It cannot be a valid basis of canvass.
FUNCTION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF VOTES
(1) to prevent or deter the members of the BEI or other
official from altering the statement because they know
of the existence of such certificate;
(2) to advise the candidate definitely of the number of his
votes so that in case the election statement submitted
to the BOC does not tally with the certificate in his
hands, he may ask that the other authentic copy of the
be used for the canvass and
(3) to serve as evidence of fraud in election protests cases
and in subsequent prosecution of the election
offenses against those liable therefore.
Statement of Votes is a tabulation per precinct of the
votes obtained by the candidates as reflected in the
ER. The Certificate of Canvass is in turn based on the
statement of votes and is the basis for proclamation.
NUMBER OF COPIES OF ELECTION RETURNS AND THEIR
DISTRIBUTION
RA 8173 which amended Sec. 27 of RA 7166 provides that in the
election for Pres. and VP, Senators and House of
Representatives, the ERS shall be distributed as follows:
1st CBOC or MBOC
2nd Congress , directed to the Pres. of the Senate
3rd COMELEC
4th dominant majority party as may be determined by the
COMELEC in accordance with law.
5th dominant minority party as may be determined by
COMELEC in accordance with law.
6th Citizens Arms authorized by the COMELEC to conduct
an unofficial count
7th to be deposited inside the ballot box
Local Officials (1) CBOC or MBOC (2) COMELEC (3) PBOC (4)
DMP (5) DMP (6) citizens arm for unofficial count (7) inside
ballot box.
PROCLAMATION
Duties of Board of Canvassers
After the canvass of election returns, in the absence of a
perfected appeal to the COMELEC, the Board of Canvassers
shall proclaim the candidates who obtained the highest
number of votes cast in the province, city, municipality or
barangay, on the basis of the certificates of canvass.
Failure to comply with this duty constitutes an election
offense. (Sec. 231, B.P. 881)
The Board of Canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate
as winner unless authorized by the COMELEC after the
latter has ruled on any objections brought to it on appeal
by a losing party. Any proclamation made in violation
hereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns
will not adversely affect the results of the election.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go 42
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
Once the Board of Canvassers has completed its duty, candidate shall assume office not earlier than the
the board cannot meet again and re-canvass the votes scheduled election day. (Sec. 3)
or reverse their prior decision and announce different
results. The COMELEC shall decide petitions for disqualification not
later than election day. Otherwise, such petitions shall be
deemed dismissed. (Sec. 3)
When proclamation void

A proclamation is void when it is based on incomplete

returns (Castromayor v. COMELEC, 250 SCRA 298) or
when there is yet no complete canvass (Jamil v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 123648, Dec. 15, 1997).
A void proclamation is no proclamation at all, and the
proclaimed candidates assumption into office cannot
deprive the COMELEC of its power to annul the
proclamation.

Partial proclamation (Sec. 21, R.A. 7166)

Notwithstanding the pendency of any pre-

proclamation controversy, the COMELEC may
summarily order the proclamation of other winning
candidates whose election will not be affected by the
outcome of the controversy.

Election Resulting in a Tie (Sec. 240, B.P. 881)

A tie occurs when:

(a) 2 or more candidates receive an equal and

highest number of votes; or

(b) 2 or more candidates are to be elected for the

same position and 2 or more candidates received
the same number of votes for the LAST PLACE in
the number to be elected.

The board of canvassers, by resolution, upon 5 days

notice to all tied candidates, shall hold a special
PUBLIC MEETING at which the board shall proceed to
the DRAWING OF LOTS of the candidates who have
tied and shall proclaim as elected the candidates who
may be favored by luck.

The candidates so proclaimed shall have the right to

assume office in the same manner as if he had been
elected by plurality of vote.

The board of canvassers shall forthwith make a

certificate stating the name of the candidate who had
been favored by luck and his proclamation on the
basis thereof.

Nothing in the above shall be construed as depriving a

candidate of his right to contest the election.

Proclamation of a Lone Candidate (R.A. 8295)

Upon the expiration of the deadline for the filing of

certificates of candidacy in a special election called to
fill a vacancy in an elective position other than for
President and Vice-President, when there is only one
(1) qualified candidate for such position, the lone
candidate shall be proclaimed elected to the position
by proper proclaiming body of the COMELEC without
holding the special election upon certification by the
COMELEC that he is the only candidate for the office
and is therefore deemed elected. (Sec. 2)

In the absence of any lawful ground to deny due

course or cancel the certificate of candidacy in order
to prevent such proclamation, as provided for under
Sec. 69 and 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, the lone

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
MODES OF CHALLENGING CANDIDACY
& ELECTION RESULTS
Pre-Proclamation Controversy
A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any question
or matter pertaining to or affecting the proceedings
of the board of canvassers, or any matter raised
under Sec. 233-236 of BP 881 in relation to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and
appreciation of the election returns. (Sec. 241, BP 881)
Jurisdiction: The COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction over
pre-proclamation cases. It may order, motu proprio or
upon written petition, the partial or total suspension of the
proclamation of any candidate-elect or annul partially or
totally any proclamation, if one has been made. (Sec. 242,
BP 881)
When not allowed
Pre-proclamation controversies are not allowed for the
following positions:
President
Vice President
Senator
Member of the House of
Representatives (Sec. 15, R.A. 7166)
Nature of proceedings: SUMMARY by the COMELEC after
due notice and hearing. Questions which require more
deliberate and necessarily longer consideration are left for
examination in the corresponding election protest. (Sison
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134096. March 3, 1999)
Issues that may be Raised
(1) Illegal composition or proceedings of the
board of election canvassers
(2) Canvassed election returns are either:
incomplete
contain material defects
appear to be tampered with or falsified
contain discrepancies in the same
returns or in other authentic copies
(3) The election returns were:
prepared under duress, threats,
coercion, intimidation or
obviously manufactured or not authentic
(4) Substituted or fraudulent returns in
controverted polling places were canvassed, the
results of which materially affected the standing
of the aggrieved candidate(s).
(5) Manifest errors in the Certificates of Canvass
or Election Returns (Sec. 15, R.A. 7166; Chavez v.
COMELEC, 211 SCRA 315)
This enumeration is restrictive and exclusive. The complete
election returns whose authenticity is not questioned must
be prima facie considered valid for purposes of canvass and
proclamation. To allow a re-count or a re-appreciation of
the votes in every instance would paralyze canvass and
proclamation.
43
Issues that cannot be raised
Jurisprudence has held that the following issues are not proper
in a pre-proclamation controversy:
Appreciation of ballots, as this is performed by
the Board of Election Inspectors at the precinct
level and is not part of the proceedings of the
Board of Canvassers (Sanchez v. COMELEC, 153
SCRA 67, reiterated in Chavez v. COMELEC, 211 SCRA
315);
Technical examination of the signatures and
thumb marks of voters (Balindong v. COMELEC, 260
SCRA 494; Matalam v. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 733);
Prayer for re-opening of ballot boxes (Alfonso v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 107847, June 2, 1994);
Padding of the Registry List of Voters of a
municipality, massive fraud and terrorism
(Ututalum v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 335);
Challenges directed against the Board of Election
Inspectors (Ututalum v. COMELEC, supra)
Fraud, terrorism and other illegal electoral
practices. These are properly within the office of
election contests over which electoral tribunals
have sole, exclusive jurisdiction. (Loong v.
COMELEC)
Procedure
The procedure for filing a pre-proclamation controversy
depends on the issue being raised:
(a) Questions involving the composition or proceedings of the
board of canvassers, or correction of manifest errors
WHERE: The controversy may be initiated either in the Board of
Canvassers or directly with the COMELEC. (Sec. 17, R.A. 7166)
WHEN:
It depends:
(a) If petition involves the illegal composition or
proceedings of the board, it must be filed immediately
when the board begins to act as such (Laodeno v.
COMELEC, 276 SCRA 705), 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. Otherwise, by
participating in the proceedings, the petitioner is
deemed to have acquiesced in the composition of the
Board of Canvassers.
(b) If the petition is for correction, it must be filed not
later than 5 days following the date of proclamation,
and must implead all candidates who may be adversely
affected thereby. (Sec. 5(b), Rule 27, COMELEC Rules of
Procedure)
PROCEDURE:
If filed with the Board first:
(1) Petitioner submits his / her objection to the
chairman of the board of canvassers.
(2) The Board makes its ruling.
(3) Within 3 days from the ruling, the parties
adversely affected may appeal the matter to
the COMELEC.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
(4) Upon appeal, the COMELEC shall
summarily decide the case within 5 days
from the filing thereof. (Sec. 19, R.A.
7166)
If initiated directly with the COMELEC:
(1) Petitioner files petition with the
COMELEC.
(2) Upon the docketing of such
petition, the Clerk of Court
concerned shall issue summons
with a copy of the petition to
respondents.
(3) The Clerk of Court concerned shall
immediately set the petition for
hearing. The COMELEC shall hear
and decide the petition en banc.
The Board of Canvassers shall not commence, proceed or
resume canvass unless otherwise ordered by the
COMELEC. (Sec. 5, Rule 27, COMELEC Rules of Procedure)
(b) Matters relating to the preparation, transmission,
receipt, custody and appreciation of the election
returns and certificates of canvass
WHERE: Only with the Board of Canvassers
WHEN: At the time the questioned return is
presented for inclusion in the canvass.
WHO: Any candidate, political party or
coalition of political parties
PROCEDURE:
(1) The contesting party makes an oral objection to
the chairman of the Board of Canvassers at the
time the questioned return is presented for
inclusion in the canvass. Such objection is
recorded in the minutes of canvass.
Simultaneous with the oral objection, the
objecting party enters his objection in the form
for written objections prescribed by the
COMELEC.
(2) Upon receipt of such objection, the Board
automatically defers the canvass of the contested
returns and proceeds to canvass the returns
which are not contested by any party.
(3) Within 24 hours from and after the presentation
of such objection, the objecting party submits the
evidence in support of the objection, which shall
be attached to the form for written objections.
Within the same 24-hour period, any party may
file a written and verified opposition to the
objection in the prescribed COMELEC form,
attaching supporting evidence, if any. The Board
shall not entertain any objection or opposition
unless reduced to writing in the prescribed forms.
(4) The Board chairman immediately and formally
admits the evidence attached to the objection or
opposition by affixing his signature at the back of
each and every page thereof.
(5) Upon receipt of the evidence, the Board
considers the objection and the opposition, and
summarily rules on the objection. The Board then
44
enters its ruling on the prescribed form and
authenticates the same by entering the signatures of
all its members.
(6) The parties adversely affected by the ruling
immediately inform the Board if they intend to appeal
the ruling. Such information is then entered in the
minutes of canvass.
(7) The Board then sets aside the returns and proceeds to
consider the other returns. The Board then suspends
the canvass after all the uncontested returns have
been canvassed and the contested return ruled upon
by it.
(8) Within 48 hours from the ruling, the party adversely
affected files a written and verified notice of appeal
with the Board. The party then files an appeal with the
COMELEC within a non-extendible period of 5 days
thereafter.
(9) Immediately upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the
Board makes an appropriate report to the COMELEC,
elevating therewith the complete records and
evidence submitted in the canvass, and furnishing the
parties with copies of the report.
(10) The COMELEC summarily decides the appeal within 7
days from receipt of the record and evidence elevated
to it by the Board.
(11) The COMELEC's decision becomes executory after the
lapse of 7 days from receipt thereof by the losing
party.
(12) The COMELEC then authorizes the Board of Canvassers
to proceed with the proclamation of the winner. Any
proclamation made without COMELEC authorization is
void ab initio, unless the contested returns do not
adversely affect the results of the election. (Sec. 20,
R.A. 7166)
This procedure is mandatory. Non-compliance with any of the
steps above is fatal to the pre-proclamation petition.
EFFECT OF FILING OF PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
The period to file an election contest shall be SUSPENDED
during the pendency of the pre-proclamation contest in the
COMELEC or the Supreme Court. (Alangdeo v. COMELEC, June
1989)
The right of the prevailing party in the pre-proclamation contest
to the execution of COMELECs decision does not bar the losing
party from filing an election contest.
Despite the pendency of a pre-proclamation contest, the
COMELEC may order the proclamation of other winning
candidates whose election will not be affected by the outcome
of the controversy.
EFFECT OF PROCLAMATION OF WINNING CANDIDATE
A pre-proclamation controversy shall no longer be viable after
the proclamation and assumption into office by the candidate
whose election is contested. The remedy is an election protest
before the proper forum. (Mayor v. COMELEC, January 1989)
The prevailing candidate may still be unseated even though he
has been proclaimed and installed in office if:
1. The opponent is adjudged the true winner of the
election by final judgment of court in an election
contest;
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
2. The prevailing party is declared ineligible or
disqualified by final judgment of a court in a
QUO WARRANTO case; or
3. The incumbent is removed from office for
cause.
Matalam v. COMELEC 271 SCRA 733
A PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY was
defined, as a general rule, as any question
pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the
BOC 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 COMELEC, on any matter raised under Secs.
233, 234, 235 and 236 of the OEC in relation to the
preparation, transmission receipt custody and
appreciation of the ER and Certificate of canvass.
(Sec. 243 OEC)
Under Sec. 17 of RA 7166, questions affecting the
composition or proceedings of the BOC may be
initiated WITH THE BOARD OR DIRECTLY WITH THE
COMELEC. However, matters raised under Sec. 233
to 236, shall be brought in the first instance before
the BOC only.
Exception: in Sec. 15 of RA 7166 which prohibits
candidates for Pres. and VP, Senators and members
of the HR from filing PPC.
The Commission exercises authority to decide PPC
in two instances, to wit:
(1) in appeals from ruling of the BOC; and
(2) in petitions directly filed with it.
In appeals from the rulings of the board, TWO
TYPES ARE GENERALLY INVOLVED.
1. The FIRST refers to RULINGS ON QUESTIONS
CONTESTING ITS COMPOSITION OR
PROCEEDINGS, AND APPEAL THEREFROM
must be taken by the contestant adversely
affected within 3 days from such ruling.
2. The second type refers to RULINGS ON
QUESTIONS CONTESTING ELECTION
RETURNS.
The party adversely affected must
immediately inform the board that he
intends to appeal from the ruling and the
board shall enter said information in the
minutes of the canvass; and
Within 48 hours from the ruling, the
adverse party must file with the board a
written and verified notice of appeal,
And within an unextendible period of 5 days
thereafter, he has to take the appeal to the
COMELEC.
Matalam v. Comlec 271 SCRA 733 - The enumeration of
the issues in a PPC is restrictive and exclusive38 and
the COMELEC is limited and restricted only to an
examination of the ER and is without jurisdiction to go
beyond or behind the ER.
Section 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:
38 Sec. 242
45
(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 v. COMELEC 323 SCRA 407, COMELEC exercise
exclusive jurisdiction and may motu propio or upon written
petition, and after due notice and hearing, order the partial
or total suspension of the proclamation of the candidate-
elect or annul partially or totally any proclamation, if one
has been made, as the evidence shall warrant in accordance
with sec. 242 of the OEC.
Velayo v. COMELEC 327 SCRA 713 - A PPC is summary in
nature, administrative in character and which is filed
before the BOC. While it is true that RA 7166 provides for
summary proceedings in PP cases and does not require a
trial type hearing, nevertheless, summary proceedings
cannot be stretched to mean ex parte proceedings.
Summary means with dispatch with the least possible
delay. But although the proceedings are summary, the
adverse party nevertheless must at the very least be
notified so that he can be apprised of the nature and
purpose of the proceeding. In this case, it was found that
all proceedings were conducted by the respondent
COMELEC without the participation of the petitioner.
Worse, respondent Navidad was allowed to file various
motions without the knowledge of the petitioner. Plainly,
these ex parte proceedings offend fundamental fairness
and are null and void. This ruling was reiterated in the
recent case of Cawasa, et. al. v. COMELEC, et. al. G.R.
150469 July 3, 2002.
SCOPE OF A PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY (SEC. 242)
1) Illegal composition or proceedings of the BOC;
2) The canvassed ERs are incomplete, contain material
defects, appear to be tampered with, or falsified or
contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other
authentic copies as mention in Secs. 233 to 236;
3) The ER were prepared under duress, threats, coercion
or intimidation or they are obviously manufactured or
not authentic; or,
Ocampo v. COMELEC 325 SCRA 636, the SC ruled
that this fact must be evident from the face of
the said documents. In the absence of a strong
evidence establishing spuriousness of the returns,
the basic rule that the ER shall be accorded prima
facie status as bona fide reports of the results of
the count of the votes for canvassing and
proclamation purposes must prevail.
4) When substitute or fraudulent returns in
controverted polling places are canvassed, the result
of which materially affect the standing of the
aggrieved candidate. (Sec. 243 OEC)
Summary Recent Jurisprudence:
1) A proclamation made pending appeal of the ruling of
the board of canvassers is void.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
2) A petition to correct entries in the certificates of
canvass on the ground of manifest errors must
be predicated on errors that appear on the fact
of the COC sought to be corrected. A petition
for correction of manifest error may be filed
involving the election of members of the HR.
3) It is possible that a candidate receives zero
votes in one or two precincts. This fact alone
cannot support the contention that the ER
contains statistically improbable results. This is
also true when only one candidate obtained all
the votes in some precincts.
4) Formal defects, duress, and intimidated are not
grounds for excluding an ER.
An order setting aside a proclamation must be rendered
after prior notice and hearing. Due process requirements
must be present before the Commission Elections rules on
the petition.
PETITION TO ANNUL OR SUSPEND PROCLAMATIO N
The filing with the COMELEC of a petition to annul or to
suspend proclamation suspends the running of the period
to file an election protest. (Alangdeo v. COMELEC, June
1989)
No law provides for a reglementary period within which to
file a petition for the annulment of an election if there is as
yet no proclamation. (Loong v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 1)
There is no fixed time frame within which to file a petition
to annul a proclamation, the same being limited only by the
standard of reasonableness. (Nachura, p. 386)
DECLARATION OF FAILURE OF ELECTION
Nature: A petition to declare a failure of election is neither
an election protest nor a pre-proclamation controversy.
(Borja v. COMELEC, 260 SCRA 604)
Grounds for declaration: See previous discussion.
Jurisdiction of COMELEC:
The COMELEC, sitting en banc, may declare a failure of
election by a majority vote of its members. (Sec. 4, R.A.
71660
The COMELEC, in the case of actions for annulment of
election results or declaration of failure of elections, may
conduct technical examination of election documents and
compare and analyze voters' signatures and fingerprints in
order to determine whether or not the elections had
indeed been free, honest and clean. (Loong v. COMELEC,
supra)
Requisites for the declaration of failure of election
Before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking
a declaration of failure of election, the following conditions
must concur:
(1) No voting has taken place in the precincts
concerned on the date fixed by law, or even
if there was voting, the election nonetheless
resulted in a failure to elect; and
(2) The votes cast would affect the results of
the election. (Mitmug v. COMELEC, 230 SCRA
54; Loong v. COMELEC, supra; Hassan v.
COMELEC, 264 SCRA 125)
The election is only to be set aside when it is impossible
from any evidence within reach to ascertain the true result
46
when neither from the returns nor from other proof can the
truth be determined (i.e. where the illegality affects more than
50% of the total number of votes cast and the remainder does
not constitute a valid constituency).
Procedure
(1) Petitioner files verified petition with the Law
Department of the COMELEC.
(2) Unless a shorter period is deemed necessary by
circumstances, within 24 hours, the Clerk of
Court concerned serves notices to all interested
parties, indicating therein the date of hearing,
through the fastest means available.
(3) Unless a shorter period is deemed necessary by
the circumstances, within 2 days from receipt of
the notice of hearing, any interested party may
file an opposition with the Law Department of
the COMELEC.
(4) The COMELEC proceeds to hear the petition. The
COMELEC may delegate the hearing of the case
and the reception of evidence to any of its
officials who are members of the Philippine Bar.
(5) The COMELEC then decides whether to grant or
deny the petition. This lies within the exclusive
prerogative of the COMELEC.
DISQUALIFICATION CASES
Grounds for disqualification
See previous discussion.
Priority of disqualification cases
The COMELEC and the courts shall give priority to cases of
disqualification for violation of the Omnibus Election Code, to
the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than 7
days before the election in which the disqualification is sought.
(Sec. 72, BP 881)
Procedure
WHO MAY FILE:
Any citizen of voting age, or
Any duly registered political party, organization or coalition
of political parties
WHERE: Law Department of the COMELEC
WHEN:Any day after the last day for filing of certificates of
candidacy, but not later than the date of proclamation
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 disqualified before an
election and he is subsequently voted for and receives the
winning number of votes in such election, the COMELEC or the
courts shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action,
inquiry, or protest and may order the suspension of the
proclamation of such candidate during the pendency of the case
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go 47
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor,
provided that evidence of his guilt is strong. (Sec. 6, R.A.
6646)

The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest

number of votes is later declared to be disqualified or not
eligible for the office to which he was elected, does not
necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second
highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the
elective office.

ELECTION CONTESTS

Election contests, defined

These are adversarial proceedings by which matters involving

the title or claim to an elective office, made before or after
proclamation of the winner, is settled whether or not the
contestant is claiming the office in dispute. The purpose of an
election contest is to ascertain the candidate lawfully elected to
office.

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go 48
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
The Regional Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts have
Nature exclusive original jurisdiction over municipal and barangay
officals, respectively.

An election contest is imbued with public interest.
The election contest must be liberally construed to favor
the will of the people. An election contest may not be
defeated by mere technical objections.
It must be noted that cases involving qualifications of
candidates for the Sangguniang Kabataan filed before the
election are decided by the Election Officer, while those filed
after the election are decided by the MTCs. (Nachura, p. 389)

Until and unless the election protest is decided against Powers of the COMELEC in relation to election contests
him, a person who has been proclaimed as duly elected has
the lawful right to assume and perform the duties and
The power of COMELEC to decide election cases includes the
functions of the office.
power to determine the validity or nullity of votes.

The COMELEC has the power to issue writs of certiorari,

Jurisdiction over election contests prohibition, and mandamus. However, this power can only be
exercised in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (Relampagos v.
Cumba, 243 SCRA 690)
Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the

sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, Kinds of election contests
and disqualifications of the President, Vice-President, and
There are 2 kinds of election contests that may be filed: an
may promulgate its rules for such purpose. (Art. VII, Sec. 4,
election protest, and a quo warranto case.
1987 Constitution)
Election Protest
Electoral Tribunals of the Senate and House of
WHO MAY FILE: Any candidate who has filed a certificate of
Representatives
candidacy and has been voted upon for the same office, and who
has not himself caused or contributed to the irregularities or
The Senate and the House of Representatives
frauds of which he complains
have their own electoral tribunals. Each electoral tribunal
has 9 members: 3 Supreme Court Justices, 6 members of
GROUNDS: Fraud, terrorism, irregularities or illegal acts
the Senate or House of Representatives, as the case may
committed before, during or after the casting and counting of
be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
votes
representation from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system
PERIOD FOR FILING: Within 10 days from proclamation of the
represented therein. (Art. VI, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution)
results of the election
For purposes of election contests cognizable by
Where, after 5 days from the proclamation of the winning
the Electoral Tribunals, the rules of procedure of such
candidate, the loser files a motion for reconsideration in the pre-
tribunals shall prevail over the provisions of the Omnibus
proclamation controversy, there are only 5 days which remain of
Election Code. (Lazatin v. HRET, 168 SCRA 39)
the period within which to file an election protest. (Roquero v.
COMELEC, 289 SCRA 150)
COMELEC
PROCEDURE:
The COMELEC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all
A. For protests filed with the COMELEC (Rule 20 vis--vis Rules
election contests relating to the elections, returns, and
10-19, COMELEC Rules of Procedure)
qualifications of all elective:
(1) Protestant files a verified petition with the COMELEC
(1) Regional Officials;
within 10 days from proclamation and pays the
(2) Provincial Officials; and
required docket fees. Failure to pay the basic docket
(3) City Officials
fee will result in the dismissal of the protest.
(Gatchalian v. COMELEC, 245 SCRA 208)
Decisions in these cases may be appealed to the Supreme
Court.
(2) The Clerk of Court of the COMELEC or the division
concerned issues the corresponding summons to the
The COMELEC has appellate jurisdiction over all contests
protestee within 3 days from the filing of the petition.
involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts
of general jurisdiction (i.e., Regional Trial Courts) or
(3) Protestee must file an answer within 5 days from
involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts
service of summons and a copy of the petition. The
of limited jurisdiction (i.e., the Municipal Trial Courts).
protestee may incorporate in his answer a counter-
protest or counterclaim.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the COMELEC on
election contests involving elective municipal and barangay
The COMELEC may not entertain a counter-protest
offices shall be final, executory and not appealable. (Sec. 2,
filed beyond the reglementary period to file the same.
Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution) Note, however, that this does
(Kho v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 124033, Sept. 25, 1997)
not preclude a recourse to the Supreme Court by way of a
special civil action for certiorari. (Galido v. COMELEC, 193
(4) Protestant has 5 days from receipt of the answer or
SCFA 78)
answer with counterclaim or counter-protest to file his
reply or answer to counter-protest or counterclaim,
respectively.
Regional and Municipal Trial Courts

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
If no answer is filed to the protest or counter-
protest, a general denial is deemed to have been
entered.
(5) After the issues have been joined, the case shall
be set for hearing and presentation and reception
of evidence.
(6) After the case has been submitted for decision,
the COMELEC shall render its decision. If the case
is being heard by a Division, the case shall be
decided within 10 days. If it is being heard by the
COMELEC en banc, it shall be decided within 30
days.
(7) The decision of a division becomes final and
executory after the lapse of 15 days following its
promulgation. The aggrieved party may file a
timely motion for reconsideration within 5 days
from promulgation of the decision on the
grounds that the evidence is insufficient to justify
the decision; or that the said decision is contrary
to law.
For the COMELEC en banc, the decision becomes
final and executory 30 days from its
promulgation.
B. For protests filed with the Regional Trial Courts
(Rule 35, COMELEC Rules of Procedure)
(1) Protestant files a verified petition with the RTC
within 10 days from proclamation.
(2) Protestee must file an answer within 5 days
after receipt of notice of the filing of the
petition and a copy of the petition.
Should the protestee desire to impugn the
votes received by the protestant in other
precincts, he may file a verified counter-protest
within the same period fixed for the filing of
the answer.
(3) Protestant has 5 days from receipt of the
counter-protest to file his answer to such
counter-protest.
(4) Any other candidate for the same office may
intervene in the case within 5 days from filing
of the protest by filing a verified petition-in-
intervention. The protestant or protestee shall
answer the protest-in-intervention within 5
days after notice.
(5) If no answer is filed to the protest, counter-
protest or protest-in-intervention within the
specified time limits, a general denial is
deemed to have been entered.
(6) After the issues have been joined, the case
shall be set for hearing. Presentation and
reception of evidence shall be completed
within 30 days from the date of the
commencement thereof.
(7) The Court shall decide the election contest
within 30 days from the date it is submitted for
decision, but in every case within 6 months
after its filing. Such decision shall declare who
among the parties has been elected, or in a
proper case, that none of them has been
legally elected.
49
(8) The decision becomes final 5 days after its
promulgation. No motion for reconsideration shall
be entertained.
Should an aggrieved party wish to appeal the
decision to the COMELEC, he may do so by filing a
notice of appeal within 5 days from promulgation of
the decision.
EFFECT OF DEATH OF PROTESTANT
The death of the protestant does not extinguish an election
protest. An election protest is imbued with public interest
which raises it onto a plane over and above ordinary civil
actions, because it involves not only the adjudication of the
private interest of the rival candidates but also the paramount
need of dispelling once and for all the uncertainty that beclouds
the real choice of the electorate with respect to who shall
discharge the prerogatives of the office within their gift. (De
Castro v. COMELEC, 267 SCRA 806, as cited in Nachura, p. 393)
However, it is not the heirs of the deceased who shall be the
successors-in-interest to the suit, but the succeeding candidate-
elect. For example, if the deceased was a candidate for
governor, the real party in interest in the continuation of the
proceedings is the Vice-Governor-elect, as he or she will succeed
in the event that the protestant is declared to be the person
lawfully elected to the office.
Quo Warranto
WHO MAY FILE: Any registered voter in the constituency
GROUNDS: Ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines
PERIOD FOR FILING: Within 10 days from proclamation of the
results of the election
Award of damages
Actual or compensatory damages may be granted in all election
contests or in quo warranto proceedings in accordance with
law. (Sec. 259, B.P. 881)
ELECTION PROTEST and QUO WARRANTO
ELECTION PROTEST
An EP is a special statutory proceedings designed to
contest the right of a person, declared elected to enter
upon and hold office. It is strictly a contest between the
defeated and winning candidates, based on grounds of
ELECTION FRAUDS OR IRREGULARITIES, as to who actually
obtained the majority of the legal votes and, therefore, is
entitled to hold office. It can only be filed by a candidate
who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been
voted for. It is a formal judicial proceedings that goes into
correctness of the counting and appreciation of ballots at
the precinct level were the parties are allowed to present
and examine evidence in detail. IT IS FILED TEN (10) DAYS
GROUNDS:
1. Fraud,
2. Vote-buying,
3. Terrorism,
4. Presence of flying voters,
5. Misreading or misappreciation of the ballots,
disenfranchisement of voters,
6. Unqualified members of the BEI and
7. other election irregularities.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
QUO WARRANTO
A petition for QW on the other hand refers to
questions of disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning
candidate. It is a proceeding to unseat the ineligible
person from office, but not to install the protestant in
his place. It can be filed by any voter within ten (10)
days from proclamation except on the ground of
citizenship, which can be filed at any time, considering
that citizenship is a continuing qualification for an
elective office.
What distinguished one remedy from the other is not the
label given to it but the allegations therein stated. So a
petition alleging fraud and irregularity which vitiated the
conduct of the election, although entitled QW, is an EP and
vice versa. In view of these fundamental differences, they
may not be availed of jointly and in the same proceeding.
They may however be separately filed, with the second and
later case suspended until the earlier is resolved. An action
for QW cannot however be converted into an EP.
Ronald Allan Poe a.k.a FPJ vs. GMA PET Case No. 002
resolved the issue on whether a widow may
substitute/intervene for the protestant who died
during the pendency of the protest case?
Court where faced not only on who between
protestant and protestee was the true winner in the
May 10, 2004 presidential elections but also to decide
whether the protestants widow Jesusa Sonora Poe
could intervene and/or substitute for the deceased
party, assuming arguendo that the protest could
survive his death. GMA votes is 12,905,808/FPJ
11,782,232.
Together with the filing of the notice of death the
manifestation to interevene was filed with the
contention that:
(1) Urgent need for her to contiue and
substitute for her late husband in the EP to
ascertain the true and genuine will of the
electorate;
(2) De Casto v. COMELEC and Lumogdang v.
Javier cases were used stating that the
death of the protestant does not constitute
a ground for the dismissal of the contest or
to oust the court of jurisdiction.
(3) cognizant that she cannot succeed or be
entitled to the said office, but her utmost
concern is one that involves the publics
interest.
(4) that should it be determined that protestee
did not garner the highest number of votes,
be prevented from exercising the powers,
duties and responsibilities
GMA contends that pursuant to the rules of procedure
of the PET only the registered candidate who
garnered the 2nd and 3rd highest votes for the
presidency may contest the election of president. She
cannot use public interest to justify her request to be
substituted.
Court ruled that Mrs. FPJ is not real party in interest
pursuant to Rule 14 of PET rules. Public office is
personal to the public officer and not property
transmissible to the heirs upon death. But in Vda. de
Mesa the Court allowed substitution and intervention
but only by a real party in interest in the person who
would be benefited or injured by the judgment and a
party who is entitled to the avails of the suit. In de
mesa and lumogdang v. Javier cases, the VM was
50
permitted to substitute for the reason that if the mayor is
unseated, the VM succeeds the office.
Court not unaware that a contest before election tribunals
has two aspects. First, right to hold public office and
second, it is imbued with public interest.
PERSONAL ASPECT IS INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH PUBLIC
INTEREST. But nobility of intentions is not the point of
reference in determining whether a person may intervene
in an election protest. Rule 19, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court is
applicable.
JURISDICTION OVER EP AND QW
1) Supreme Court sitting en banc as Presidential
Electoral Tribunal, sole judge of all contests relating to
the E, R and Q of the Pres. and VP protest is filed 30
days after proclamation. Not subject to judicial
review
2) Senate Electoral Tribunal for members of senate as
sole judge of all contest relating to the E, R, and Q of
its own members. Filed within 15 days from date of
proclamation. Not subject to judicial review except on
grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack
of jurisdiction.
3) HRET members of HR to be filed within 10 days
each electoral tribunal shall be composed of nine
members, three of whom shall be justices of the SC to
be designated by the CJ and the remaining 6 members
of the senate or house of representatives, as the case
may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of their
proportional representation from the political parties
and the parties or organizations registered under the
party list system. Senior justice shall be chairman (Art.
VI, Sec. 17)
4) COMELEC for regional, provincial and city officials
filed in 10 days. Subject to judicial review within 30
days from date of receipt of decision by aggrieved
party
5) RTC for municipal officials 10 days Subject to appeal
with COMELEC within five (5) days from receipt of
decision. Decisions of the COMELEC on contest on
appeal involving municipal and barangay officials are
final and executory except on grounds of grave abuse
of discretion within 30 days.
In Veloria v. COMELEC 211 SCRA 907, an EP was filed
with the RTC by a condidate for a municipal office.
Instead of appealing within 5 days, they filed a MR.
When the MR was denied, they filed a Notice of
Appeal. HELD: Sec. 256 of the OEC prohibits the filing
of a MR in EC affecting municipal offices. The MR did
not suspend the period to appeal. Hence, the
resolution dismissing the EP has become final and
executory.
Pangilinan v. CA 232 SCRA 32, EP was filed in the RTC
which was dismissed during the pre-trial for failure of
the counsel of respondents to appear. Respondent
filed a MR which the RTC granted. Petitioner argued
that a MR is not allowed. HELD: In Com. Res. 2493, a
pre-trial conference in EC was abolished. There was no
basis for the dismissal f the EC and since the EC is
vested with public interest, it is imperative that the
real choice of the electorate be determined.
6) MTC for barangay officials 10 days and five (5) days for
appeal with COMELEC.
PRINCIPLES COMMON TO ALL ELECTION CONTESTS:
1) Who may file the person entitled to file an election
protest is a candidate who has duly filed a certificate of
candidacy and has been voted to the same office.
However, precision in the use of terms in an election
protest is not indispensable. Substantial compliance is
sufficient.
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
2) Jurisdictional allegations the jurisdiction facts
necessary to confer JURISDICTION TO TRY AN
ELECTION PROTEST ARE:
a. That the protestant was a candidate
who had duly filed a certificate of
candidacy and had been voted for the
same office;
b. That the protestee has been
proclaimed;
c. That the petition was filed within ten
(10) days after the proclamation; and
d. That fraud and election irregularities
vitiated the conduct of elections and
affected the legality thereof.
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping -
The SC in Loyola v. CA 245 SCRA 477 (1995) and Lomarong
v. Dubguban 269 SCRA 624 (1997) ruled, that the SC
Circular requiring that any complaint, petition or other
initiatory pleading must contain a non-forum certification
applies to election cases. The requirement is mandatory,
not jurisdictional, so that non-compliance therewith may
warrant the dismissal of election cases. A certification
filed after the filing of the election case but within the
reglamentary period to file the same constitutes as
substantial compliance with the circular but not one filed
thereafter.
Docket Fees
in Soller v. COMELEC 339 SCRA 684, the SC ruled that a
court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the
payment of the prescribed docket fees.
Verification in the same case, the fact that the petitioner
failed to stated in the verification that the contents thereof
are true and correct of his own personal knowledge lack
the proper verification and the pleading must be dismissed.
EXECUTIONS PENDING APPEAL
Malaluan v. COMELEC 254 SCRA 397 where the SC
ruled on the matter relative of an execution of a
decision in an election protest case pending appeal.
Since the judge acted without any precedent in this
case, the Court held that Sec. 2, Rule 39 of the Rules
of Court which allows the RTC to order execution
pending appeal upon good reasons stated in a special
order, may be made to apply by analogy or
suppletorily to election contests decided by it.
Gutierrez v. COMELEC 270 SCRA 197, it was settled
that SEC. 2 RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT, can be
applied pursuant to Rule 41 of the COMELEC rules of
Procedure, to election contests decided by courts.
The rationale being that the BOC are composed of
persons who are less technically prepared to make an
accurate appreciation of the ballots, apart from their
being more apt to yield to extraneous considerations,
and that the board must have to act summarily,
practically racing against time, while on the other
hand, the judge has the benefit of all the evidence the
parties can offer and of admittedly better technical
preparation and background.
Camlian v. COMELEC 271 SCRA, the Court ruled that
execution pending appeal must be strictly construed
against the movant as it is an exception to the
general rule on execution of judgments.
Ramas v. COMELEC Feb. 10, 1998, the Court
enumerated what may constitute good reasons for
execution pending appeal:
51
(1) the public interest involved or the will of the
electorate
(2) the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of
the contested office and
(3) the length of time that the election contest has been
pending.
The filing of bond does not constitute. Nevertheless, the
trial court may require the filing of a bond as a condition
for the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution
to answer for the payment of damages which the
aggrieved party may suffer by reason of the execution
pending appeal.
DAMAGES In Malaluan, the Court ruled that damages cannot
be granted in an election protest case ratiocinating that the
provision of law allowing for damages under specific
circumstances, more particularly compensatory and actual
damages is provided under Art. 2176 of the civil code which is
appropriate only in breaches of obligations in cases of contracts
and QC and on the occasion of crimes and quasi-delicts where
the defendant may be held liable for damages the proximate
cause of which is the act or omission complained of. Therefore,
the monetary claim of a party in an election case must
necessarily be hinged on either a contract or QC or a tortuous
act or omission or a crime in order to effectively recover actual
or compensatory damages. In the absence of any or all of
these, the claimant must be able to point out a specific
provision of law authorizing a money claim for election protest
expenses against the losing party.
EVIDENCE ON THE ELECTION
The following may be used as evidence in contesting the results
of the election:
Election Returns:
Election returns are properly used as evidence in an election
contest when what is involved is the correctness of the number
of votes of each candidate, and the ballots cannot be produced
or are not available.
Ballots
Ballots are properly used as evidence when the election returns
are not available.
Poll-Books and Tally Sheets
Poll-books and tally sheets may be used as evidence where by
law, poll-books or tally sheets are required to be kept.
Election Officials
Election officials may be called to testify in the absence of
ballots, tally sheets or poll-books.
Voters
Voters may testify where the illegality consists in the casting of
votes by persons unqualified, unless it can be shown for whom
they voted, it cannot be allowed to change the result.
Certificate of Votes
The provisions of Sections 235 and 236 of the Omnibus Election
Code notwithstanding, the certificates of votes shall be
admissible in evidence to prove tampering, alteration,
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
falsification or any anomaly committed in the election
returns concerned, when duly authenticated by testimonial
or documentary evidence presented to the board of
election inspectors who issued the certificate.
The failure to present any certificate of votes shall be a bar
to the presentation of other evidence to impugn the
authenticity of the election returns.
ELECTION OFFENSES
Jurisdiction over election offenses
The Regional Trial Courts have exclusive original
jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal actions or
proceedings for violation of election laws. (Sec. 268,
B.P. 881; Juan v. People, G.R. No. 132378, January 18,
2000)
Prosecution of election offenses
The COMELEC has the exclusive power to investigate
and prosecute cases involving violations of election
laws. (Sec. 2 (6), Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 268,
B.P. 881; De Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760) However, it
may validly delegate the power to the Provincial
Prosecutor or to the Ombudsman.
In the event that the COMELEC fails to act on any
complaint within 4 months from its filing, the
complainant may file the complaint with the fiscal or
the Department of Justice, if warranted. (Sec. 265,
B.P. 881)
PREFERENTIAL DISPOSITION OF ELECTION OFFENSES
Investigation and prosecution of election offenses
shall be given priority by the COMELEC. The
investigating officer shall resolve the case within 5
days from submission.
The courts shall give preference to election cases
over all other cases except petitions for writ of
habeas corpus. Their trial shall be commenced
without delay and shall be conducted continuously
until terminated, and the case shall be decided
within 30 days from its submission for decision.
(Sec. 269, B.P. 881)
Election offenses
The various election offenses are enumerated
primarily under Sec. 261 of B.P. 881. However,
other election laws provide for other election
offenses. Some of the more significant offenses
include the following:
Registration
Failure of the Board of Election Inspectors to post
the list of voters in each precinct. (Sec. 9, R.A.
7166);
Change or alteration or transfer of a voter's
precinct assignment in the permanent list of
voters without the express written consent of the
voter (Sec. 4, R.A. 8189)
52
Certificate of Candidacy
Continued misrepresentation or holding out as a candidate
of a disqualified candidate or one declared by final and
executory judgment to be a nuisance candidate (Sec. 27f,
R.A. 6646);
Knowingly inducing or abetting such misrepresentation of a
disqualified or nuisance candidate (Sec. 27f, R.A. 6646);
Coercing, bribing, threatening, harassing, intimidating,
terrorizing, or actually causing, inflicting or producing
violence, injury, punishment, torture, damage, loss or
disadvantage to discourage any other person or persons
from filing a certificate of candidacy in order to eliminate all
other potential candidates from running in a special
election (Sec. 5, R.A. 8295);
Election Campaign
Appointment or use of special policemen, special agents or
the like during the campaign period (Sec. 261m, B.P. 881)
Use of armored land, water or aircraft during the campaign
period (Sec. 261r, B.P. 881)
Unlawful electioneering (Sec. 261k, B.P. 881)
Acting as bodyguards or security in the case of policemen
and provincial guards during the campaign period (Sec.
261t, B.P. 881)
Removal, destruction, obliteration, or tampering of lawful
election propaganda, or preventing the distribution thereof
(Sec. 83, B.P. 881 vis--vis Sec. 262, B.P. 881)
Voting
1. Vote-buying and vote-selling (Sec. 261a, B.P. 881)
2. Conspiracy to bribe voters (Sec. 261b, B.P. 881): A
disputable presumption of a conspiracy to bribe
voters is created when there is proof that at least
1 voter in different precincts representing at least
20% of the total precincts in any municipality, city
or province has been offered, promised or given
money, valuable consideration or other
expenditure by a candidate's relatives, leaders
and/or sympathizers for the purpose of
promoting the election of such candidate. (Sec.
28, R.A. 6646)
3. Coercion of subordinates to vote for or against
any candidate (Sec. 261d, B.P. 881)
4. Dismissal of employees, laborers, or tenants for
refusing or failing to vote for any candidate (Sec.
261d(2), B.P. 881)
5. Being a flying voter (Sec. 261z (2), B.P. 881)
Counting of Votes
1. Tampering, increasing, decreasing votes, or
refusal to correct tampered votes after proper
verification and hearing by any member of the
board of election inspectors (Sec. 27b, R.A. 6646)
2. Refusal to issue to duly accredited watchers the
certificate of votes cast and the announcement of
the election, by any member of the board of
election inspectors (Sec. 27c, R.A. 6646)
Canvassing
Any chairperson of the board of canvassers who fails to give
notice of meeting to other members of the board, candidate or
political party as required (Sec. 27e, R.A. 6646)
Acts of government or public officers
 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go 53
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES
1. Appointment of new employees, creation of new
positions, promotion, or giving salary increases Election offenses are generally mala prohibita. Proof of criminal
within the election period (Sec. 261g, B.P. 881) intent is not necessary. Good faith, ignorance, or lack of malice
2. Transfer of officers and employees in the civil is not a defense; the commission of the prohibited act is
service within the election period without the sufficient. (People v. Bayona, 61 Phil. 181; People v. Fuentes, 181
prior approval of the COMELEC (Sec. 261h, B.P. 881) Phil. 186)
3. Intervening of public officers and employees in the
civil service in any partisan political activity (Sec.
261i, B.P. 881) Penalties
4. Use of public funds for an election campaign (Sec.
261o, B.P. 881)
5. Illegal release of prisoners before and after For individuals
election (Sec. 261n, B.P. 881) 1. Imprisonment of not less than 1 year but
6. Release, disbursement or expenditure of public not more than 6 years, without
funds during the prohibited period (Sec. 261v, B.P. probation (Sec. 264, B.P. 881)
881) 2. Disqualification to hold public office;
7. Construction of public works, etc. during the 3. Deprivation of the right of suffrage
prohibited period (Sec. 261w, B.P. 881)
8. Suspension of elective local officials during the For a Foreigner
election period without prior approval of the 1. Imprisonment of not less than 1 year but
COMELEC (Sec. 261x, B.P. 881) not more than 6 years (without
probation);
Coercion, intimidation, violence 2. Deportation after service of sentence
1. Coercion of election officials and employees
2. Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent For a Political Party
devices or other forms of coercion (Sec. 261e, B.P.
881) Payment of a fine not less than P10,000
3. Use of undue influence (Sec. 261j, B.P. 881) after a criminal conviction
4. Carrying deadly weapons within the prohibited
area (Sec. 261p, B.P. 881) Persons Required by Law to Keep Prisoners in their Custody
5. Carrying firearms outside residence or place of
business (Sec. 261q, B.P. 881) For prisoners illegally released from any
6. Organization or maintenance of reaction forces, penitentiary or jail during the prohibited period,
strike forces, or similar forces during the election where such prisoners commit any act of
period (Sec. 261u, B.P. 881) intimidation, terrorism or interference in the
election, the Director of the Bureau of
Other prohibitions Corrections, provincial warden, jail keeper or
1. Unauthorized printing of official ballots and persons who are required by law to keep said
election returns with printing establishments prisoners in their custody shall, if convicted, be
that are not under contract with the sentenced to suffer prison mayor in its maximum
COMELEC (Sec. 27a, R.A. 6646) period. (Sec. 264, B.P. 881)
2. Wagering upon the results of elections (Sec.
261c, B.P. 881)
3. Sale, etc. of intoxicating liquor on the day Arrests in Connection with the Election Campaign
fixed by law for the registration of voters in
the polling place, or the day before the
No person shall be arrested or detained at any
election or on election day (Sec. 261dd (1),
time for any alleged offense committed during
B.P. 881)
and in connection with any election through any
4. Opening booths or stalls within 30 meters of
act or language tending to support or oppose any
any polling place (Sec, 261dd (2), B.P. 881)
candidate, political party or coalition of political
5. Holding fairs, cockfights, etc. on election day
parties under or pursuant to any order of
(Sec. 261dd (3), B.P. 881)
whatever name or nature and by whomsoever
6. Refusal to carry election mail during the
issued except only upon a warrant of arrest issued
election period (Sec. 261dd (4), B.P. 881). In
by a competent judge after all the requirements
addition to the prescribed penalty, such
of the Constitution have been strictly complied
refusal constitutes a ground for cancellation
with.
or revocation of certificate of public
convenience or franchise.
7. Discrimination in the sale of air time (Sec.
261dd (5), B.P. 881) In addition to the Prescription
prescribed penalty, such refusal constitutes
a ground for cancellation or revocation of
Election offenses prescribe 5 years from the date of their
the franchise.
commission.
Failure to register or vote
If the discovery of the offense be made in an election
contest proceeding, the period of prescription shall
Art. V, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution states that suffrage
commence on the date on which the judgment in such
"may" be exercised by qualified citizens of the Philippines,
proceedings becomes final and executory. (Sec. 267, B.P.
as compared to the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions which used
881)
the term "shall." Thus, it can be said that under the current
Constitution, failure to register or to vote is no longer an
election offense.

Good faith not a defense

 ELECTION LAWS Arranged by Sasha Go 54
SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. VALENCIAS NOTES, JO PUZONS NOTES, JAZZIE SARONA; UP LAW 2001 ELECTION NOTES