Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
OF
CANDIDACY
Lucero
had
obtained
the
majority
of
the
votes,
the
will
of
the
Doctrine:
The
will
of
the
people
cannot
be
frustrated
by
a
people
cannot
be
frustrated
by
a
technicality
consisting
in
that
his
technicality
-
that
his
certificate
of
candidacy
had
not
been
certificate
of
candidacy
had
not
been
properly
sworn
to.
Public
properly
sworn
to.
interest
must
be
made
to
prevail
over
that
of
petitioner.
1.
De
Guzman
vs.
Provincial
Board
of
Canvassers
of
La
Union|
The
various
provisions
of
the
Election
Law
were
adopted
to
assist
Villamor,
J:
the
voters
in
their
participation
in
the
affairs
of
the
government
GR
No
L-24721;
November
3,
1925
and
not
to
defeat
that
object.
After
the
people
have
expressed
their
will,
the
result
of
the
election
cannot
be
defeated
by
the
fact
that
FACTS:
A
petition
for
mandamus
was
filed
by
Tomas
De
Guzman,
respondent,
who
was
certified
by
the
provincial
secretary
to
be
a
ordering
the
Provincial
Board
of
Canvassers
of
La
Union
to
annul
legal
candidate
for
the
office
of
provincial
governor,
has
not
sworn
the
votes
adjudicated
to
respondent
Juan
Lucero
and
to
declare
to
his
certificate
of
candidacy.
Writ
of
mandamus
denied.
him
(petitioner)
elected
for
the
office
of
provincial
governor
of
La
__________________________________________________________
Union.
Doctrine:
The
requirement
of
an
appeal
fee
is
by
no
means
a
After
gathering
the
election
returns,
respondent
board
of
mere
technicality
of
law
or
procedure.
canvassers
found
that
petitioner
had
obtained
7,662
votes
while
2.
Rodillas
vs.
COMELEC
|
Quiason,
J:
respondent
Lucero
got
8,771
votes.
De
Guzman
alleged
that
GR
No
119055,
July
10,
1995
respondents
certificate
of
candidacy
was
not
duly
sworn
to,
as
required
by
law
hence,
respondent
could
not
have
been
a
legal
FACTS:
Petitioner
Roy
Rodillas
and
private
respondent
Isabelo
candidate
for
the
office
and
could
not
have
been
certified
elected
Dotimas
were
both
candidates
for
Punong
Barangay
in
Brgy.
San
for
the
office
of
provincial
governor.
Section
404
as
amended
by
Nicolas,
Pangasinan.
The
former
obtained
65
votes
while
the
latter
Section
3
of
Act
No.
3030
provides
that
no
person
shall
be
eligible
got
61
votes.
for
the
office
of
senator,
representative
or
any
provincial
office,
unless
within
the
time
fixed
by
law,
he
shall
file
a
certificate
of
Respondent
filed
an
election
protest
with
the
Municipal
Circuit
candidacy
duly
verified.
Trial
Court
of
Tayug,
San
Nicolas.
The
Municipal
Trial
Court
rendered
its
judgement,
finding
Respondent
filed
a
demurrer
on
the
ground:
(a)
that
the
court
had
private
respondent
to
have
obtained
68
votes
as
against
no
jurisdiction
over
the
case,
(b)
that
the
court
had
no
jurisdiction
petitioners
66
votes.
over
the
persons
of
the
defendant
members
of
the
extinguished
MAY
31,
1994:
Petitioner
filed
a
notice
of
appeal
with
the
board
of
canvassers
and
(c)
that
the
facts
alleged
in
the
complaint
Municipal
Circuit
Trial
Court
and
paid
P150
as
appeal
fees
with
the
did
not
constitute
a
cause
of
action.
RTC,
Tayug,
Pangasinan
JUNE
2,
1994:
Petitioner
filed
An
Amended
Notice
of
Appeal
to
ISSUE:
WON
respondents
failure
to
file
his
certificate
of
candidacy
the
Municipal
Circuit
Trial
Court,
realizing
that
the
appeal
was
under
oath
invalidates
the
election
made
to
the
wrong
forum.
JUNE
14,
1994:
The
Municipal
Circuit
Trial
Court
forwarded
HELD:
No.
This
irregularity
does
not
invalidate
the
election
for
the
the
records
of
the
case
to
the
COMELEC.
At
the
same
time,
fundamental
reason
that
after
it
was
proven
that
respondent
petitioner,
paid
with
the
COMELEC
the
amount
of
P510
COMELEC
denied
the
appeal
for
petitioners
belated
filing
of
the
Sec.
18.
Non-payment
of
prescribed
fees.
If
the
fees
above
appeal
and
legal
research
fees.
prescribed
are
not
paid,
Commission
may
refuse
to
take
action
until
they
are
paid
and
dismiss
the
action
or
proceeding
(Rule
40).
ISSUE:
WON
the
payment
of
the
appeal
fees
is
an
essential
requirement
for
the
perfection
of
an
appeal
(COMELEC
is
precisely
given
the
discretion
to
either
refuse
to
take
action
until
fees
are
paid
or
to
dismiss
the
action.
COMELEC
HELD:
Yes.
The
requirement
of
an
appeal
fee
is
by
no
means
a
unfortunately
chose
the
second
option)
mere
technicality
of
law
or
procedure.
It
is
an
essential
requirement
without
which
the
decision
appealed
from
would
become
final
and
executory
as
if
no
appeal
was
filed
at
all.
The
right
to
appeal
is
merely
a
statutory
privilege
and
may
be
3.
PNOC
Energy
Development
Corp.
v.
NLRC
and
Manuel
exercised
only
in
the
manner
prescribed
by
law.
Pineda
(May
31,
1993)
The
COMELEC
Rules
of
Procedure
provides:
G.R.
No.
100947|
Narvasa,
C.J.
Sec.
3.
Notice
of
Appeal.
Within
five
(5)
days
after
promulgation
of
the
decision
of
the
court,
the
aggrieved
party
may
file
with
said
court
a
notice
of
appeal,
and
serve
a
copy
thereof
upon
the
attorney
of
record
of
the
adverse
party
(Rule
22).
F:
Manuel
Pineda
was
employed
with
the
Philippine
National
Oil
Co.-
Energy
Development
Corp
(PNOC-EDC),
as
subsidiary
of
the
(Petitioner
had
only
five
days
from
receipt
of
decision
of
the
Philippine
National
Oil
Co.
from
September
17,
1981
to
January
26,
Municipal
Circuit
Trial
Court
or
until
JUNE
5,
1994
to
perfect
his
1989.
While
holding
the
position
of
Geothermal
Construction
appeal.
He
paid
the
appeal
fees
and
legal
research
fees
only
on
Secretary,
Pineda
decided
to
run
for
councilor
of
the
Municipality
June
14,
1994.
Therefore,
petitioner
belatedly
paid
said
amount)
of
Kananga,
Leyte
in
the
January
1988
elections,
and
filed
his
COC.
Mayor
Arturo
Cornejos
of
Kananga
then
objected
to
Pinedas
Sec.
3.
Appeal
fees.
The
appellant
in
election
cases
shall
pay
an
appeal
fee
as
follows:
(b)
Election
cases
appealed
from
courts
of
candidacy,
as
he
was
still
retaining
his
job
at
PNOC-EDC.
He
then
limited
jurisdiction.
.
.
.
P500.00.
In
every
case,
a
legal
research
protested
with
Engr.
Patanao,
Resident
Manager
of
PNOC-EDC
that
fee
of
P20.00
shall
be
paid
by
the
appellant
in
accordance
with
Pineda
could
not
participate
in
politics
unless
he
officially
Sec.
4,
Republic
Act
No.
3870,
as
amended.
resigned.
However,
this
was
not
acted
upon.
(Besides,
the
correct
amounts
of
appeal
and
research
fees
are
P500
and
P20,
respectively
or
P520,
not
P510
as
paid
by
petitioner)
The
January
elections
were
moved
to
February
1,
1988
and
Pineda
was
proclaimed
elected
to
the
office
of
councilor.
During
this
time,
Sec.
9.
Grounds
for
dismissal
of
appeal.
The
appeal
may
be
Pineda
seemed
to
waver.
He
wrote
to
the
COMELEC
Chairman,
dismissed
upon
motion
of
either
party
or
at
the
instance
of
the
expressing
his
desire
to
withdraw
from
the
political
contest
on
Commission
on
any
of
the
following
grounds:
(a)
Failure
of
the
account
of
election
irregularities,
and
wrote
to
the
Secretary
of
appellant
to
pay
the
appeal
fee
(Rule
22).
Justice
seeking
legal
opinion
on
whether
he
was
considered
considered
ipso
facto
resigned
from
his
office
upon
the
filing
of
his
automatically
resigned
upon
filing
his
COC.
Nevertheless,
Pineda
COC.
took
his
oath
of
office
and
continued
working
for
PNOC-EDC.
2
CATEGORIES
OF
GOCCs
Marcelino
Tongco,
the
Department
Manager,
consulted
the
Legal
Department
regarding
the
status
of
Manuels
employment.
The
1) Those
with
original
charters
(employees
covered
under
Civil
Service
Law)
Legal
Department
opined
that
he
should
be
considered
ipso
facto
2) Those
organized
under
the
general
law,
or
the
Corporation
resigned.
Pineda
appealed,
stating
that
subsidiaries
of
GOCCs
are
Code
(employees
covered
under
Labor
Code)
not
covered
by
Sec.
66
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code,
and
declared
that
he
wished
to
resign
as
councilor.
He
also
wrote
a
letter
to
the
Department
of
Local
Govt
inquiring
about
the
status
of
his
CONGRESS
DOES
NOT
DISTINGUISH
employment
but
the
DLG
Undersecretary
advised
that
there
was
Congress
made
no
effort
to
distinguish
between
these
2
classes
of
no
legal
impediment
to
his
continuing
employment
with
PNOC- GOCCs
or
their
employees
in
the
Omnibus
Election
Code,
EDC
while
holding
an
elective
position.
Eventually,
Pineda
was
particularly
as
regards
the
rule
that
any
employee
in
GOCCs
shall
terminated
so
he
lodged
an
illegal
dismissal
complaint.
be
considered
ipso
facto
resigned
from
his
office
upon
the
filing
of
his
COC.
H2:
No.
There
is
nothing
in
Sec.
73
of
BP
Blg
88
which
mandates
F:
On
January
15,
2004,
petitioner
Luna
filed
her
COC
for
the
that
the
affidavit
of
withdrawal
must
be
filed
with
the
same
office
position
of
vice-
mayor
of
Lagayan,
Abra
as
a
substitute
for
Hans
where
the
certificate
of
candidacy
to
be
withdrawn
was
filed.
Thus,
Roger,
who
withdrew
his
COC
on
the
same
date.
Ruperto
Blanco,
it
can
be
filed
directly
with
the
main
office
of
the
COMELEC,
the
Election
Officer
of
Lagayan,
Abra
removed
the
name
of
Hans
Roger
office
of
the
regional
election
director
concerned,
the
office
of
the
from
the
list
of
candidates
and
placed
the
name
of
Luna.
On
April
provincial
election
supervisor
of
the
province
to
which
the
20,
2004,
private
respondents
filed
a
petition
for
cancellation
of
municipality
involved
belongs,
or
the
office
of
the
municipal
the
COC
or
disqualification
of
Luna.
Private
respondents
alleged
election
officer
of
the
said
municipality.
While
COMELEC
that
Luna
made
a
false
material
representation
in
her
COC
because
Resolution
3253-A
says
otherwise,
it
is
merely
directory
and
Luna
is
not
a
registered
voter
of
Lagayan,
but
Bangued,
Abra.
They
intended
for
convenience.
It
is
not
mandatory
or
jurisdictional.
An
also
claimed
that
the
substitution
by
Luna
for
Hans
Roger
was
administrative
resolution
cannot
contradict,
much
less
amend
or
invalid
because
Roger
was
only
20
years
old
on
election
day
and
repeal
a
law,
or
supply
a
deficiency
in
the
law.
was
therefore
disqualified
to
run
for
vice-
mayor
and
cannot
be
substituted.
The
COMELEC
1st
Division
ruled
that
while
Luna
complied
with
the
procedural
requirements
for
substitution,
Hans
SEC.
1b,
COMELEC
RESOLUTION
NO.
3253-A;
MERELY
Roger
was
not
a
valid
candidate
for
vice-
mayor
who
could
be
DIRECTORY
substituted
by
Luna.
Luna
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration
with
the
COMELEC
en
banc
and
added
that
her
right
to
due
process
was
Certificate
of
candidacy-
No
person
shall
be
eligible
for
more
than
violated
because
she
was
not
given
the
opportunity
to
present
one
office
to
be
filled
in
the
same
election.
If
he
files
a
certificate
of
evidence.
It
ruled
that
Roger
may
not
be
validly
substituted
but
candidacy
for
more
than
one
office
he
shall
not
be
eligible
for
also
ruled
that
Lunas
right
to
due
process
was
not
violated.
either.
However,
before
the
expiration
of
the
period
for
the
filing
Furthermore,
the
COMELEC
en
banc
ruled
that
Luna
was
a
of
certificate
of
candidacy,
he
may
declare
under
oath
the
office
for
registered
voter
of
Lagayan,
Abra.
which
he
desire
to
be
eligible
and
cancel
the
certificate
of
candidacy
for
the
office
or
offices.
H:
Yes.
When
a
candidate
files
his
COC,
the
COMELEC
has
a
died,
withdrew
or
was
disqualified.
The
substituted
candidate
ministerial
duty
to
receive
and
acknowledge
its
receipt.
Since
Hans
nominated
by
the
political
party
concerned
may
file
his
COC
for
Roger
withdrew
his
COC
and
the
COMELEC
found
that
Luna
the
office
affected
in
accordance
with
the
preceding
sections
not
complied
with
all
the
procedural
requirements
for
a
valid
later
than
mid-day
of
election
day
of
the
election.
substitution,
Luna
can
validly
substitute
for
Hans
Roger.
The
COMELEC
may
not,
by
itself,
without
the
proper
proceedings,
deny
due
course
to
or
cancel
a
certificate
of
candidacy
filed
in
due
form.
6.
Jose
Monsale
v.
Paulino
Nico
(May
28,
1949)
It
has
been
previously
held
that
the
question
of
eligibility
or
ineligibility
of
a
candidate
for
non-age
is
beyond
the
usual
and
G.R.
No.
L-2539
|
Ozaeta,
J.
proper
cognizance
of
the
COMELEC.
It
would
have
been
different
if
there
was
a
petition
to
cancel
Rogers
COC.
For
if
the
COMELEC
cancelled
Rogers
COC
after
the
proper
proceedings,
then
he
is
no
F:
Jose
Monsale
withdrew
his
COC
on
October
10,
1947,
but
on
candidate
at
all
and
there
can
be
no
substitution
of
a
person
whose
November
7,
attempted
to
revive
it
by
withdrawing
his
COC
has
been
cancelled
and
denied
due
course.
withdrawal.
The
COMELEC
ruled
on
November
8
that
the
Monsale
could
no
longer
be
a
candidate.
A
canvass
of
the
election
returns
showed
that
Paulino
Nico
received
2,291
votes,
another
candidate,
SEC.
76,
OMNIBUS
ELECTION
CODE
Gregorio
Fagutao
126
votes
and
Monsale,
non,
because
the
votes
cast
in
his
favor
had
not
been
counted
because
he
was
not
a
Ministerial
duty
of
receiving
and
acknowledging
receipt-
The
registered
candidate.
Nico
was
then
proclaimed
elected.
Commission,
provincial
election
supervisor,
election
registrar
or
officer
designated
by
the
Commission
or
the
board
of
election
inspectors
under
the
succeeding
section
shall
have
the
ministerial
I:
W/N
a
candidate
who
has
withdrawn
his
COC
may
revive
it,
duty
to
receive
and
acknowledge
receipt
of
the
COC.
either
by
withdrawing
his
letter
of
withdrawal
or
by
filing
a
new
COC
after
the
deadline
provided
by
law
for
the
filing
of
such
certificate.
SEC.
77,
OMNIBUS
ELECTION
CODE
Candidates
in
case
of
death,
disqualification
or
withdrawal
of
another-
If
after
the
last
day
for
the
filing
of
certificates
of
H:
No.
There
is
no
question
as
to
the
right
of
a
candidate
to
candidacy,
an
official
candidate
of
a
registered
or
accredited
withdraw
or
annul
his
own
COC,
there
being
no
legal
prohibition
political
party
fies,
withdraws
or
is
disqualified
for
any
cause,
only
against
such
withdrawal.
On
October
10,
1947,
or
31
days
before
a
person
belonging
to,
and
certified
by,
the
same
political
party
the
election,
Monsale
ceased
to
be
candidate
by
his
own
voluntary
may
file
a
certificate
of
candidacy
to
replace
the
candidate
who
act,
and
the
boards
of
election
inspectors
of
the
municipality
of
Miagao
were
notified
of
his
letter
to
the
COMELEC
whereby
he
U.I.O.G.D
withdrew
his
withdrawal
of
his
COC,
can
only
be
considered
as
a
new
COC
which,
having
been
filed
only
4
days
before
the
election,
could
not
be
accepted
under
the
law,
which
expressly
provides
7.
Cipriano
vs.
COMELEC
that
such
certificate
should
be
filed
at
60
days
before
the
election.
G.R.
No.
158830
August
10,
2004
Facts:
On
June
7,
2002,
Ellan
Marie
P.
Cipriano
filed
with
the
SEC.
36,
REVISED
ELECTION
CODE;
PERIOD
FOR
FILING
THE
COC
COMELEC
her
certificate
of
candidacy
as
Chairman
of
the
Sangguniang
Kabataan
(SK)
for
the
SK
elections.
On
June
15,
2002
At
least
60
days
before
a
regular
election
and
30
days
at
least
before
a
special
election
(date
of
election),
the
COMELEC
issued
Resolution
No.
5363
adopting
the
recommendation
of
the
Commissions
Law
Department
to
deny
due
course
to
or
cancel
the
certificates
of
candidacy
of
several
candidates
for
the
SK
elections,
including
Ciprianos
on
the
ground
that
the
latter,
together
with
the
other
PURPOSES
OF
THE
LAW
IN
REQUIRING
THE
FILING
OF
COC
AND
candidates,
were
not
registered
voters
in
the
barangay
where
they
IN
FIXING
A
TIME
LIMIT
intended
to
run.
Cipriano,
nonetheless,
was
allowed
to
vote
in
the
SK
elections
and
her
name
was
not
deleted
from
the
official
list
of
1) to
enable
the
voter
to
know,
at
least
60
days
before
a
candidates.
After
the
canvassing
of
votes,
Cipriano
was
regular
election
the
candidate
among
whom
they
are
to
proclaimed
the
duly
elected
SK
Chairman
of
Barangay
38,
make
the
choice
Pasay
City.
2) to
avoid
confusion
and
inconvenience
in
the
tabulation
of
the
votes
cast
After
learning
of
Resolution
No.
5363,
Cipriano
filed
with
the
COMELEC
a
motion
for
reconsideration
of
said
resolution.
She
INSTANCE
WHEREIN
THE
FILING
OF
THE
COC
AFTER
THE
argued
that
a
certificate
of
candidacy
may
only
be
denied
due
EXPIRATION
OF
TIME
LIMIT
IS
ALLOWED
course
or
cancelled
via
an
appropriate
petition
filed
by
any
registered
candidate
for
the
same
position
under
Section
78
of
the
When
a
candidate
with
a
COC
duly
field
dies
or
becomes
Omnibus
Election
Code
in
relation
to
Sections
5
and
7
of
Republic
disqualified.
Act
(R.A.)
No.
6646.
Thus,
the
COMELEC
cannot,
by
itself,
deny
due
course
to
or
cancel
ones
certificate
of
candidacy.
COMELEC,
in
resolving
Ciprianos
motion
for
reconsideration,
issued
Resolution
No.
5781
wherein
it
cited
Resolution
No.
5584,
in
relation
to
Resolution
No.
4801.
Resolution
No.
5584
provides
that
the
Commission,
by
virtue
of
its
administrative
powers,
may
Election
Code
allows
any
person
to
file
before
the
COMELEC
a
motu
proprio
deny/cancel
the
certificates
of
candidacy
of
petition
to
deny
due
course
to
or
cancel
a
certificate
of
candidates
who
are
found
to
be
not
registered
voters
in
the
candidacy
on
the
ground
that
any
material
representation
therein
place
where
they
seek
to
run
for
public
office.
Resolution
No.
is
false.
4801,
on
the
other
hand,
provides
that
(a)
a
verified
petition
to
disqualify
a
candidate
on
the
ground
of
ineligibility
or
under
Section
68
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code
may
be
filed
at
anytime
8.
Abecede
vs.
Imperial
before
proclamation
of
the
winning
candidate
by
any
registered
voter
or
any
candidate
for
the
same
office
and
(b)
All
G.R.
No.
L-13001
March
18,
1958
disqualification
cases
filed
on
the
ground
of
ineligibility
shall
Facts:
Alfredo
Abcede
filed
with
the
Commission
on
Elections
his
survive,
although
the
candidate
has
already
been
proclaimed
certificate
of
candidacy
for
the
Office
of
the
President
of
the
Thus,
in
the
event
that
the
disqualified
candidate
is
proclaimed
the
Philippines.
Abcede
and
other
candidates
were
summoned
by
the
winner
despite
his
disqualification
or
despite
the
pending
Commission
on
Elections
to
appear
before
the
same
on
September
disqualification
case
filed
before
his
proclamation,
but
which
is
23,
1957,
"to
show
cause
why
their
certificates
of
candidacy
subsequently
resolved
against
him,
the
proclamation
of
said
should
be
considered
as
filed
in
good
faith
and
to
be
given
due
disqualified
candidate
is
hereby
declared
void
from
the
course,"
with
the
admonition
that
their
failure
to
so
appear
beginning,
even
if
the
dispositive
portion
of
the
resolution
would
be
sufficient
ground
for
the
Commission
to
consider
disqualifying
him
or
canceling
his
certificate
of
candidacy
does
not
said
certificates
of
candidacy
as
not
filed
in
good
faith
and
not
provide
for
such
an
annulment.
to
give
due
course
thereto.
After
due
hearing,
at
which
Abcede
appeared
and
introduced
evidence,
the
Commission
issued
a
Issue:
WON
COMELEC
may
look
into
the
qualifications
of
a
resolution
dated
October
4,
1957,
ordering
that
the
certificates
of
candidate
and
cancel
his
certificate
of
candidacy
on
the
ground
candidacy
of
the
persons
therein
named,
including
that
of
that
he
lacks
the
qualifications
prescribed
by
law
Abecede,
"shall
not
be
given
due
course."
The
Commission
is
convinced
that
the
certificate
of
candidacy
of
Alfredo
Abcede
was
Held:
NO.
The
Court
held
that
the
Commission
may
not,
by
itself,
without
the
proper
proceedings,
deny
due
course
to
or
cancel
a
filed
for
motives
other
than
a
bona
fide
desire
to
obtain
a
substantial
number
of
votes
of
the
electorate.
(to
obtain
money
certificate
of
candidacy
filed
in
due
form.
When
a
candidate
files
his
certificate
of
candidacy,
the
COMELEC
has
a
ministerial
duty
from
the
public
by
means
of
false
or
fraudulent
pretenses)
A
reconsideration
of
such
resolution
having
been
denied,
Abcede
to
receive
and
acknowledge
its
receipt.
While
the
Commission
filed
with
this
Court
a
petition
for
certiorari
and
mandamus,
may
look
into
patent
defects
in
the
certificates,
it
may
not
go
into
praying
that
the
resolution
be
annulled
and
that
his
matters
not
appearing
on
their
face.
The
question
of
eligibility
or
aforementioned
certificate
of
candidacy
be
given
due
course.
ineligibility
of
a
candidate
is
thus
beyond
the
usual
and
proper
cognizance
of
said
body.
Nonetheless,
Section
78
of
the
Omnibus
The
Commission
argues
that
while
Section
37
of
the
Revised
Election
Code
imposes
upon
the
commission
the
ministerial
duty
to
receive
and
acknowledge
certificates
of
candidacy,
the
law
leaves
to
the
Commission
a
measure
of
discretion
on
whether
to
give
due
course
to
a
particular
certificate
of
candidacy
should
it
find
said
certificate
of
candidacy
to
have
been
filed
9.
Garvida
vs.
Sales
not
bona
fide.
The
law
requires
the
certificate
of
candidacy
to
be
G.R.
No.
124893
April
18,
1997
under
oath
in
acknowledgment
of
its
serious
character
as
an
indispensable
segment
in
the
process
of
election,
the
first
step
that
Facts:
Lynette
Garvida
applied
for
registration
as
member
and
a
citizen
has
to
take
in
seeking
public
trust
and
in
avoiding
service
voter
of
the
Katipunan
ng
Kabataan
of
Barangay
San
Lorenzo,
to
the
common
weal.
It
is
a
solemn
matter,
not
to
be
taken
lightly.
Bangui,
Ilocos
Norte.
The
Board
of
Election
Tellers,
however,
Otherwise,
it
authorizes
a
meaningless
expenditure
of
a
denied
her
application
on
the
ground
that
Garvida,
who
was
considerable
amount
of
public
funds,
and
adds
routinary
burden
then
twenty-one
years
and
ten
(10)
months
old,
exceeded
the
on
the
already
heavily
burdened
election
machinery,
as
well
as
age
limit
for
membership
in
the
Katipunan
ng
Kabataan
as
shear
off
the
election
much
of
its
dignity
as
a
solemn
process
of
laid
down
in
Section
3
[b]
of
COMELEC
Resolution
No.
2824.
democracy.
Garvida
then
filed
a
"Petition
for
Inclusion
as
Registered
Kabataang
Member
and
Voter"
with
the
Municipal
Circuit
Trial
Issue:
WON
COMELEC
has
the
power
to
choose
wheter
it
will
give
Court,
Bangui-Pagudpud-Adams-Damalneg,
Ilocos
Norte.
The
or
not
to
give
due
course
to
Abcede's
certificate
of
candidacy
Court
found
her
qualified
and
ordered
her
registration
as
Held:
NO.
The
Court
held
that
the
action
of
the
Commission
as
member
and
voter
in
the
Katipunan
ng
Kabataan.
The
Board
of
regards
Abcede's
certificate
of
candidacy
is
beyond
the
bounds
of
Tellers
appealed
the
said
decision
but
the
presiding
judge
of
the
its
jurisdiction,
and,
hence,
void.
Section
36
of
the
Revised
Election
Regional
Trial
Court,
however,
inhibited
himself
from
acting
on
the
Code
provides
that
the
certificates
of
candidacy
of
candidates
for
appeal
due
to
his
close
association
with
petitioner.
President
shall
be
filed
with
the
Commission
on
Elections
which
On
April
23,
1996,
Garcida
filed
her
certificate
of
candidacy
for
the
shall
order
the
preparation
and
distribution
of
copies
for
the
position
of
Chairman,
Sangguniang
Kabataan,
Barangay
San
same
to
all
the
election
precincts
of
the
Philippines.
Pursuant
Lorenzo,
Municipality
of
Bangui,
Province
of
Ilocos
Norte.
In
a
to
Section
37
of
the
same
Code,
the
Commission
on
Election,
the
letter
dated
April
23,
1996,
Election
Officer
Dionisio
F.
Rios,
per
secretary
of
the
provincial
board,
and
the
municipal
secretary,
in
advice
of
Provincial
Election
Supervisor
Noli
Pipo,
their
respective
cases,
shall
have
the
ministerial
duty
to
receive
disapproved
Garvida's
certificate
of
candidacy
again
due
to
the
certificates
of
candidacy
referred
to
in
the
preceding
her
age.
The
latter,
however,
appealed
to
COMELEC.
Regional
section
and
to
immediately
acknowledge
receipt
thereof.
The
Director
Filemon
A.
Asperin
set
aside
the
order
of
Rios
and
foregoing
provisions
give
the
Commission
no
discretion
to
give
or
allowed
petitioner
to
run.
not
to
give
due
course
to
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy.
On
May
2,
1996,
Rios
issued
a
memorandum
to
petitioner
required
number
of
votes
to
reach
a
decision,
resolution,
order
or
informing
her
of
her
ineligibility
and
giving
her
24
hours
to
ruling
is
not
obtained
in
the
Division.
Moreover,
only
motions
to
explain
why
her
certificate
of
candidacy
should
not
be
reconsider
decisions,
resolutions,
orders
or
rulings
of
the
disapproved.
Earlier
and
without
the
knowledge
of
the
COMELEC
COMELEC
in
Division
are
resolved
by
the
COMELEC
en
banc.
officials,
Florencio
G.
Sales,
Jr.,
a
rival
candidate
for
Chairman
of
Section
532
(a)
of
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
provides
the
Sangguniang
Kabataan,
filed
with
the
COMELEC
en
banc
a
that
the
conduct
of
the
SK
elections
is
under
the
supervision
of
the
"Petition
of
Denial
and/or
Cancellation
of
Certificate
of
COMELEC
and
shall
be
governed
by
the
Omnibus
Election
Code.
Candidacy"
against
Garvida
for
falsely
representing
her
age
Section
78,
Article
IX
provides
that
a
verified
petition
seeking
to
qualification
in
her
certificate
of
candidacy.
On
the
same
day,
deny
due
course
or
to
cancel
a
certificate
of
candidacy
may
be
The
COMELEC
en
banc
issued
an
order
directing
the
Board
of
filed
by
any
person
exclusively.
In
relation
thereto,
Rule
23
of
Election
Tellers
and
Board
of
Canvassers
of
Barangay
San
Lorenzo
the
COMELEC
Rules
of
Procedure
provides
that
a
petition
to
deny
to
suspend
the
proclamation
of
petitioner
in
the
event
she
won
in
due
course
to
or
cancel
a
certificate
of
candidacy
for
an
elective
the
election.
office
may
be
filed
with
the
Law
Department
of
the
COMELEC
on
the
ground
that
the
candidate
has
made
a
false
material
On
election
day,
Garvida
garnered
higher
votes
than
Sales
but
representation
in
his
certificate.
The
petition
may
be
heard
and
the
Board
of
Election
Tellers
did
not
proclaim
the
former
as
evidence
received
by
any
official
designated
by
the
COMELEC
after
the
winner
in
accordance
with
the
order
of
the
COMELEC
en
which
the
case
shall
be
decided
by
the
COMELEC
itself.
banc.
A
petition
for
certiorari
was
filed
on
May
27,
1996.
However,
the
Board
of
Election
Tellers
proclaimed
petitioner
the
winner
for
the
position
of
SK
chairman,
Barangay
San
Lorenzo,
Bangui,
Ilocos
Norte.
She
also
ran
in
the
Pambayang
Pederasyon
ng
mga
10.Loong
vs.
COMELEC
Sangguniang
Kabataan
for
the
municipality
of
Bangui,
Ilocos
Norte
G.R.
No.
93986
December
22,
1992
and
she
won
as
Auditor
and
was
proclaimed
one
of
the
elected
officials
of
the
Pederasyon.
Facts:
Benjamin
Loong
filed
with
the
COMELEC
his
certificate
of
candidacy
for
the
position
of
Vice-Governor
of
the
Mindanao
Issue:
WON
COMELEC
en
banc
has
jurisdiction
to
act
on
the
Autonomous
Region.
Nurhussein
Ututalum
and
Alim
Bashir
Edris
petition
to
deny
or
cancel
her
certificate
of
candidacy
were
also
candidates
for
the
same
position.
On
March
5,
1990,
Held:
NO.
The
Court
held
that
the
Commision
acted
without
Ututalum
filed
before
the
COMELEC
Second
Division
a
petition
(docketed
as
SPA
Case
No.
90-006)
seeking
to
disqualify
jurisdiction
or
with
grave
abuse
of
discretion
when
it
entertained
Loong
for
the
office
of
Regional
Vice-Governor,
on
the
ground
the
petition
and
issued
the
order
of
May
2,
1996.
Jurisdiction
over
that
the
latter
made
a
false
representation
in
his
certificate
of
a
petition
to
cancel
a
certificate
of
candidacy
lies
with
the
candidacy
as
to
his
age.
On
March
7
1990,
Edris
also
filed
a
COMELEC
sitting
in
Division,
not
en
banc.
Cases
before
a
Division
may
only
be
entertained
by
the
COMELEC
en
banc
when
the
"Petition
in
Intervention"
in
the
said
SPA
No.
90-006,
raising
therein
issues
similar
to
those
raised
by
respondent
Ututalum
in
his
main
petition.
Loong
filed
in
SPA
No.
90-006
his
answer
to
Procedure.
However,
the
same
is
expressly
covered
by
Rule
23
of
the
petition
alleging
that
that
respondent
COMELEC
has
no
the
Comelec
Rules
of
Procedure
governing
petitions
to
cancel
jurisdiction
because
such
petition
is
actually
one
which
is
to
certificate
of
candidacy.
Moreover,
Section
3,
Rule
25
which
allows
deny
due
course
to
or
cancel
a
certificate
of
candidacy
which,
the
filing
of
the
petition
at
nay
time
after
the
last
day
for
the
filing
under
Section
78
of
the
Omnibus
Election
should
have
been
of
certificates
of
candidacy
but
not
later
than
the
date
of
filed
within
5
days
following
the
last
day
for
filing
of
the
proclamation,
is
merely
a
procedural
rule
issued
by
respondent
certificate
of
candidacy.
Loong
contends
that
SPA
No.
90-006
Commission
which,
although
a
constitutional
body,
has
no
was
filed
out
of
time
because
it
was
filed
beyond
the
25-day
period
legislative
powers.
Thus,
it
can
not
supersede
Section
78
of
the
prescribed
by
Section
78
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code.
On
the
Omnibus
Election
Code
which
is
a
legislative
enactment.
Section
other
hand,
Ututalum
alleges
that
SPA
No.
90-006
was
filed
when
78
provides
that
a
verified
petition
seeking
to
deny
due
course
no
proclamation
of
winner
had
as
yet
been
made
and
that
the
or
to
cancel
a
certificate
of
candidacy
may
be
filed
by
the
petition
is
deemed
filed
on
time
as
Section
3,
Rule
25
of
the
person
exclusively
on
the
ground
that
any
material
Comelec
Rules
of
Procedure
states
that
the
petition
to
disqualify
representation
contained
therein
as
required
under
Section
a
candidate
on
grounds
of
ineligibility
"shall
be
filed
any
day
74
hereof
is
false.
The
petition
may
be
filed
at
any
time
not
after
the
last
day
for
filing
of
certificates
of
candidacy
but
not
later
than
twenty-five
days
from
the
time
of
the
filing
of
the
later
than
the
date
of
proclamation."
certificate
of
candidacy
and
shall
be
decided,
after
due
notice
and
hearing,
not
later
than
fifteen
days
before
the
election.
COMELEC,
however,
holds
that
it
has
jurisdiction
to
try
the
instant
petition
and
the
Loong's
motion
to
dismiss
on
the
ground
of
lack
of
jurisdiction
is
denied.
It
also
held
that
he
qualifications
prescribed
for
elective
office
cannot
be
erased
by
the
electorate
alone.
The
Good
luck
guys!
will
of
the
people
as
expressed
through
the
ballot
cannot
cure
the
vice
of
ineligibility,
especially
if
they
mistaken
believed
that
the
candidate
was
qualified.
(Age
requirement
in
accordance
with
Sections
3
and
4
of
R.A.
No.
6734)
Issue:
WON
SPA
No.
90-006
was
filed
within
the
period
prescribed
by
law
Held:
The
Court
held
that
the
petition
filed
by
Ututalum
with
the
COMELEC
to
disqualify
Loong
on
the
ground
that
the
latter
made
a
false
representation
in
his
certificate
of
candidacy
as
to
his
age,
clearly
does
not
fall
within
and/or
under
the
grounds
for
disqualification
as
provided
in
Rule
25
of
the
COMELEC
Rules
of
11.
Lanot
vs
COMELEC
G.R.
No.
164858,
November
16,
2006
ISSUE:
Whether
or
not
COMELEC
committed
grave
abuse
of
Carpio,
J.
discretion
amounting
to
lack
of
or
excess
of
jurisdiction
FACTS:
On
March
19,
2004,
Henry
P.
Lanot,
Vener
Obispo,
Roberto
HELD:
NO.
Congress
never
intended
the
filing
of
a
certificate
of
Peralta,
Reynaldo
dela
Paz,
Edilberto
Yamat,
and
Ram
Alan
Cruz
candidacy
before
January
2,
2004
to
make
the
person
filing
to
filed
a
petition
for
disqualification
under
Sections
68
and
80
of
the
become
immediately
a
candidate
for
purposes
other
than
the
Omnibus
Election
Code
against
Eusebio
before
the
COMELEC.
printing
of
ballots.
The
clear
intention
of
Congress
was
to
preserve
Lanot
and
Eusebio
were
candidates
for
Pasig
City
Mayor,
while
the
election
periods
as
fixed
by
existing
law
prior
to
R.A.
No.
Peralta,
dela
Paz,
Yamat,
and
Cruz
were
candidates
for
Pasig
City
8436
and
that
one
who
files
to
meet
the
early
deadline
will
not
be
Counselor
in
the
May
10
2004
Elections.
considered
as
a
candidate
Petitioners
alleged
that
Eusebio
engaged
in
an
election
campaign
The
essential
elements
for
violation
of
Section
80
of
the
Omnibus
in
various
forms
on
various
occasions
outside
of
the
designated
Election
Code
are:
(1)
a
person
engages
in
an
election
campaign
or
campaign
period.
partisan
political
activity,
(2)
the
act
is
designed
to
promote
the
election
or
defeat
of
a
particular
candidate
or
candidates,
and
(3)
On
May
4,
2004,
Director
Ladra
submitted
her
recommendations
the
act
is
done
outside
the
campaign
period
to
the
COMELEC,
finding
that
Eusebio
be
disqualified.
In
a
resolution
dated
May
5,
2004,
the
COMELEC
first
division
adopted
Acts
committed
by
a
person
prior
to
his
being
a
candidate
on
said
findings.
March
23,
2004
even
if
constituting
election
campaigning
or
partisan
political
activities,
are
not
punishable
under
Section
80
of
In
a
memorandum
dated
on
election
day
itself,
Chairman
Abalos
the
Omnibus
Election
Code.
Such
acts
are
protected
as
part
of
enjoined
Director
Ladra
from
implementing
the
COMELEC
first
freedom
of
expression
of
a
citizen
before
he
becomes
a
candidate
divisions
resolution
due
to
Eusebios
motion
for
reconsideration.
for
elective
public
office
On
May
21,
2004,
the
COMELEC
en
banc
issued
the
second
questioned
issuance
resolving
to
declare
declare
Eusebio
as
Pasig
City
Mayor
pursuant
to
its
established
policy
to
expedite
the
canvass
of
votes
and
proclamation
of
winning
candidates
to
ease
the
post
election
tension
and
without
prejudice
to
[its]
action
in
[the]
x
x
x
case
since
Eusebio
had
119,
693
votes
while
Lanot
had
12.
Blo
Umpar
Adiong
vs
COMELEC
108,
941
votes.
The
remaining
returns
would
not
affect
Eusebios
G.R.
No.
103956,
March
31,
1992
lead
over
Lanot.
Gutierrez
Jr.,
J.
On
August
20,
2004,
the
COMELEC
en
banc
invoked
Section
1
of
FACTS:
On
January
13,
1992,
COMELEC,
seeking
to
enforce
Section
COMELEC
Resolution
No.
2050
in
justifying
the
annulment
of
the
82
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code
and
Section
11(a)
of
R.A.
No.
order
to
disqualify
Eusebio
and
the
referral
of
the
case
to
the
Law
6646,
promulgated
Resolution
No.
2347,
providing
for
the
Department
for
preliminary
investigation.
following:
The
COMELECs
prohibition
on
posting
of
decals
and
stickers
on
Sec.
15(a)
Lawful
Election
Propaganda
mobile
places
whether
public
or
private
except
in
designated
The
following
are
lawful
election
propaganda:
areas
provided
for
by
the
COMELEC
itself
is
null
and
void
on
(A)
Pamphlets,
leaflets,
cards,
decals,
stickers,
constitutional
grounds
handwritten
or
printed
letters,
or
other
written
or
printed
materials
not
more
than
8
&
The
restriction
as
to
where
the
decals
and
stickers
should
be
inches
in
width
and
14
inches
in
length:
posted
is
so
broad
that
it
encompasses
event
the
citizens
private
Provided,
That
decals
and
stickers
may
be
property
which
in
this
case
is
a
privately-owned
vehicle
posted
only
in
any
of
the
authorized
posting
areas
in
paragraph
(f)
of
Section
21
hereof
13.
ABS-CBN
vs
COMELEC
G.R.
No.
133486,
January
28,
2000
Sec.
21(f)
Prohibited
forms
of
election
Panganiban,
J.
propaganda
It
is
unlawful:
FACTS:
ABS-CBN
prepared
to
conduct
radio-TV
coverage
of
the
(F)
To
draw,
paint,
inscribe,
post,
display
or
national
elections
and
to
make
an
exit
survey
of
the
vote
during
publicly
exhibit
any
election
propaganda
in
any
the
elections
for
national
officials
and
the
results
to
be
place,
whether
public
or
private,
mobile
or
broadcasted
immediately.
stationary,
except
in
the
COMELEC
common
posted
areas
and/or
billboards,
at
the
campaign
COMELEC
believed
that
such
survey
will
conflict
with
COMELEC
headquarters
of
the
candidate
or
political
party,
official
count
and
NAMFRELs
unofficial
quick
count.
Also
that
organization
or
coalition,
or
the
candidates
own
ABS-CBN
is
not
authorized
to
undertake
such
survey.
residential
house
or
one
of
his
residential
houses,
if
he
has
more
than:
Provided
that
such
Thus,
COMELEC
issued
a
resolution
for
the
issuance
of
a
posters
or
election
propaganda
shall
not
exceed
restraining
order
to
prohibit
ABS-CBN
from
conducting
an
exit
2
feet
by
3
feet
in
size
survey.
Petitioner
Blo
Umpar
Adiong,
a
senatorial
candidate
now
assails
ABS-CBN
then
filed
this
petition
contending
that
the
prohibition
the
COMELEC
Resolution
for
being
violative
of
Section
82
of
the
restrains
its
freedom
of
speech
and
of
the
press.
Omnibus
Election
Code
and
Section
11(a)
of
R.A.
No.
6646
ISSUE:
Whether
or
not
the
prohibition
is
valid
ISSUE:
Whether
or
not
the
COMELEC
may
prohibit
the
posting
of
decals
and
stickers
on
mobile
places,
public
or
private,
and
limit
HELD:
NO.
The
prohibition
is
invalid.
The
conduct
of
exit
polls
is
a
their
location
or
publication
to
the
authorized
posting
areas
that
it
valid
exercise
of
the
freedom
of
speech.
fixes
The
constitution
provides
that
no
law
shall
be
passed
abridging
HELD:
NO.
Such
prohibition
amounts
to
censorship
which
cannot
the
freedom
of
speech
and
of
the
press.
Free
speech
and
free
press
be
justified
by
the
Constitution.
consists
of
the
liberty
to
discuss
publicly
and
truthfully
any
matter
of
public
interest
without
prior
restraint.
However,
such
freedom
is
not
absolute.
It
is
subject
to
limitations
and
it
is
not
immune
to
As
to
the
contention
of
the
COMELEC
that
exit
poll
has
a
clear
and
regulation
by
the
state
in
the
exercise
of
its
police
power.
present
danger
of
destroying
the
credibility
and
integrity
of
the
electoral
process,
such
contention
is
purely
speculative
and
There
are
2
tests
to
determine
the
validity
of
restrictions
to
the
untenable.
freedom
of
speech:
Therefore,
an
absolute
ban
on
exit
polls
cannot
be
justified.
There
1)
Clear
and
present
danger
test
the
evil
consequence
of
the
are
other
valid
and
reasonable
ways
and
means
to
achieve
the
comment
of
utterance
must
be
extremely
serious
and
the
degree
COMELEC
end
of
avoiding
and
minimizing
disorder
and
confusion
of
imminence
extremely
high
before
the
utterance
can
be
that
may
be
brought
by
exit
surveys.
On
the
contrary,
exit
polls
can
punished.
be
vital
tools
in
eliminating
the
evils
of
election-fixing
and
fraud
2)
Dangerous
tendency
rule
if
the
words
uttered
create
a
dangerous
tendency
which
the
state
has
a
right
to
prevent
then
14.
Social
Weather
Stations,
Inc.
vs
COMELEC
such
words
are
punishable.
In
this
test,
it
is
not
necessary
that
G.R.
No.
147571,
May
5,
2001
some
definite
or
immediate
acts
of
force,
violence,
or
unlawfulness
Mendoza,
J.
be
advocated.
FACTS:
Social
Weather
Stations,
Inc.
(SWS)
and
Kamahalan
In
this
jurisdiction,
the
courts
use
the
clear
and
present
danger
Publishing
Corporation,
a
newspaper
of
general
circulation
test.
publishing
the
Manila
Standard,
brought
this
action
for
prohibition
In
this
case,
the
restriction
to
conduct
exit
polls
would
curtail
the
to
enjoin
the
COMELEC
from
enforcing
Section
5.4
of
R.A.
No.
freedom
of
expression.
9006,
which
provides:
Surveys
affecting
national
candidates
shall
not
be
published
15
days
before
an
election
and
surveys
affecting
Exit
polls
is
a
species
of
electoral
survey
conducted
by
qualified
local
candidates
shall
not
be
published
7
days
before
an
election
individuals
or
groups
of
individuals
for
the
purpose
of
determining
the
probable
result
of
an
election
by
confidentially
asking
ISSUE:
Whether
or
not
Section
5.4
of
R.A.
No.
9006
constitutes
an
randomly
selected
voters
whom
they
have
voted
for,
immediately
unconstitutional
abridgment
of
freedom
of
speech,
expression,
and
after
they
have
officially
cast
their
ballots.
The
results
of
the
the
press
survey
are
announced
to
the
public,
usually
through
the
mass
media,
to
give
an
advance
overview
of
how,
in
the
opinion
of
the
HELD:
YES.
Section
5.4
of
R.A.
No.
9006
lays
a
prior
restraint
on
polling
individuals
or
organizations,
the
electorate
voted.
Aside
freedom
of
speech,
expression,
and
the
press
from
that
definition,
exit
polls
generate
important
research
data
which
may
be
used
to
study
influencing
factors
and
trends
in
First.
Sec.
5.4
fails
to
meet
criterion
(3)
of
the
OBrien
test
because
voting
behavior.
the
causal
connection
of
expression
to
the
asserted
government
interest
makes
such
interest
not
unrelated
to
the
suppression
of
Thus,
an
absolute
prohibition
would
be
unreasonably
restrictive
free
expression
because
it
effectively
prevents
the
use
of
exit
poll
date
not
only
for
election
day
projections
but
also
for
long-term
research.
Second.
Even
if
the
governmental
interest
sought
to
be
promoted
is
unrelated
to
the
suppression
of
speech
and
the
resulting
restriction
of
free
expression
is
only
incidental,
Section
5.4
expenditures,
pursuant
to
Section
14
of
R.A.
No.
7166
(Statement
nonetheless
fails
to
meet
criterion
(4)
of
the
OBrient
test,
namely,
of
Contributions
and
Expenditures).
The
COMELEC
denied
the
that
the
restriction
be
not
greater
than
is
necessary
to
further
the
motion
for
reconsideration
of
petitioner
and
deemed
final.
governmental
interest
Petitioner
went
to
the
COMELEC
En
Banc,
which
denied
the
There
is
no
basis
for
the
COMELECs
claim
that
this
petition
for
petition
in
a
Resolution
dated
April
28,
1994.
Petitioner
then
filed
prohibition
is
inappropriate.
Prohibition
has
been
found
a
petition
for
certiorari
before
the
SC.
Petitioner
argues
that
he
appropriate
for
testing
the
constitutionality
of
various
election
cannot
be
held
liable
for
failure
to
file
a
statement
of
contributions
laws,
rules
and
regulations
and
expenditures
because
he
was
a
"non-candidate,"
having
withdrawn
his
certificates
of
candidacy
three
days
after
its
filing.
Petitioner
posits
that
"it
is
.
.
.
clear
from
the
law
that
candidate
must
have
entered
the
political
contest,
and
should
have
either
won
or
lost"
15.
G.R.
No.
115245
July
11,
1995
JUANITO
C.
PILAR,
petitioner,
Issue:
Whether
or
not
petitioner
is
no
longer
required
to
file
a
vs.
SOCE
by
virtue
of
his
withdrawal
from
candidacy.
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS,
respondent.
QUIASON,
J.:
Held:
No.
Section
14
of
R.A.
No.
7166
states
that
"every
candidate"
has
the
obligation
to
file
his
statement
of
contributions
and
Doctrine:
The
law
makes
no
distinction
or
qualification
as
to
expenditures.
Well-recognized
is
the
rule
that
where
the
law
does
whether
the
candidate
pursued
his
candidacy
or
withdrew
the
not
distinguish,
courts
should
not
distinguish,
Ubi
lex
non
same,
the
term
"every
candidate"
must
be
deemed
to
refer
not
distinguit
nec
nos
distinguere
debemos.
The
COMELEC,
the
body
only
to
a
candidate
who
pursued
his
campaign,
but
also
to
one
tasked
with
the
enforcement
and
administration
of
all
laws
and
who
withdrew
his
candidacy.
regulations
relative
to
the
conduct
of
an
election,
plebiscite,
initiative,
referendum,
and
recall,
issued
Resolution
No.
2348
in
implementation
or
interpretation
of
the
provisions
of
Republic
Act
Facts:
On
March
22,
1992,
petitioner
Juanito
C.
Pilar
filed
his
COC
No.
7166
on
election
contributions
and
expenditures.
Section
13
of
Resolution
No.
2348
categorically
refers
to
"all
candidates
who
for
the
position
of
member
of
the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
of
Isabela.
On
March
25,
1992,
petitioner
withdrew
his
certificate
of
filed
their
certificates
of
candidacy."
Furthermore,
Section
14
of
the
law
uses
the
word
"shall."
As
a
general
rule,
the
use
of
the
candidacy.
The
COMELEC
imposed
upon
petitioner
the
fine
of
P10,000.00
for
failure
to
file
his
statement
of
contributions
and
word
"shall"
in
a
statute
implies
that
the
statute
is
mandatory,
and
imposes
a
duty
which
may
be
enforced
,
particularly
if
public
policy
is
in
favor
of
this
meaning
or
where
public
interest
is
Ramirez.
Libanan
prayed
that
the
HRET
should
issue
an
order
to
involved.
We
apply
the
general
rule.
annul
the
election
and
proclamation
of
Ramirez
and
to
thereafter
so
proclaim
petitioner
as
the
duly
elected
Representative
of
the
Lone
District
of
Eastern
Samar.
Ramirez
denied
the
allegations
and
16.
[G.R.
No.
129783.
December
22,
1997]
He
counter-protested
the
results
of
the
elections
in
certain
precincts
where,
he
claimed,
Libanan
engaged
in
massive
vote
MARCELINO
C.
LIBANAN,
petitioner
buying,
lansadera,
terrorism
and
tearing
of
the
list
of
voters
to
disenfranchise
voters
therein
listed.
The
evidence
and
the
issues
vs.
HOUSE
OF
REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL
and
submitted
by
the
parties
for
consideration
by
the
HRET
related
JOSE
T.
RAMIREZ,
respondents.
mainly
to
the
proper
appreciation
of
the
ballots
objected
to,
or
claimed
by,
the
parties
during
the
revision.
No
evidence
was
presented
in
support
of
the
other
allegations
of
the
protest
(like
VITUG,
J.:
the
alleged
tampering
of
election
returns)
and
of
the
counter-
protest
(such
as
the
alleged
tearing
of
some
of
the
pages
of
the
computerized
list
of
voters
to
disenfranchise
legitimate
voters
and
Doctrine:
Fraud
is
not
presumed.
It
must
be
sufficiently
the
use
of
goons
to
terrorize
and
compel
voters
to
vote
for
established.
Moreover,
Section
211
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code
Libanan),
nor
were
these
issues
discussed
in
the
memoranda
of
provides
in
part
that
'in
the
reading
and
appreciation
of
ballots,
the
parties.
The
HRET
thus
concentrated,
such
as
can
be
rightly
every
ballot
shall
be
presumed
to
be
valid
unless
there
is
clear
and
expected,
its
attention
to
the
basic
appreciation
of
ballots.
The
good
reason
to
justify
its
rejection.
HRET
ruled
in
favor
of
respondent
Ramirez.
Libanan
moved
for
a
reconsideration
of
the
decision
of
the
HRET
arguing,
among
other
grounds,
that
the
absence
of
the
BEI
Chairman's
signature
at
the
Facts:
Petitioner
Marcelino
Libanan
and
private
respondent
Jose
back
of
the
ballots
could
not
but
indicate
that
the
ballots
were
not
Ramirez
were
among
the
candidates
for
the
lone
congressional
those
issued
to
the
voters
during
the
elections.
seat
of
Eastern
Samar
in
the
May
1995
elections.
After
the
canvass
of
the
returns
was
made
on
13
May
1995,
the
Provincial
Board
of
Canvassers
of
Eastern
Samar
proclaimed
respondent
Ramirez
to
Issue:
Whether
or
not
the
HRET
committed
grave
abuse
of
have
been
duly
elected
Representative
of
the
District.
Libanan
filed
discretion
in
ruling
that
the
absence
of
the
signature
of
the
an
election
protest
before
the
HRET
claiming,
among
other
things,
Chairman
of
the
BEI
in
the
ballots
did
not
render
the
ballots
that
there
were
massive
electoral
irregularities
perpetrated
or
spurious.
instigated
by
Ramirez.
He
also
maintained
that
the
election
returns
and/or
ballots
in
certain
precincts
were
tampered
with,
substituted,
or
systematically
marked
in
favor
of
respondent
Held:
No.
No
spurious
ballot
was
found
in
this
case.
For
a
ballot
to
be
rejected
for
being
spurious,
the
ballot
must
not
have
any
of
the
KAPUNAN,
J.
following
authenticating
marks:
a)
the
COMELEC
watermark;
b)
the
signatures
or
initial
of
the
BEI
Chairman
at
the
back
of
the
ballot;
and
c)
red
and
blue
fibers.
In
the
present
case,
all
the
ballots
examined
by
the
Tribunal
had
COMELEC
watermarks.
In
Doctrine:
Expert
opinions
are
not
ordinarily
conclusive
in
the
the
instant
case,
there
is
no
evidence
to
support
protestant's
sense
that
they
must
be
accepted
as
true
on
the
subject
of
their
allegation
that
the
ballots
he
enumerated
in
his
Motion
for
testimony,
but
are
generally
regarded
as
purely
advisory
in
Reconsideration
are
substitute
ballots.
The
absence
of
the
BEI
character;
the
courts
may
place
whatever
weight
they
choose
upon
Chairman's
signature
at
the
back
of
the
ballot
cannot
be
an
such
testimony
and
may
reject
it,
if
they
find
that
it
is
consistent
indication
of
ballot
switching
or
substitution.
At
best,
such
with
the
facts
in
the
case
or
otherwise
unreasonable.
absence
of
BEI
Chairman's
signature
is
a
prima
facie
evidence
that
the
BEI
Chairmen
concerned
were
derelict
in
their
duty
of
authenticating
the
ballots.
Such
omission,
as
stated
in
the
Facts:
Danilo
Manalastas,
Ferdinand
Meneses
and
Ernesto
Decision,
is
not
fatal
to
the
validity
of
the
ballots.
What
should,
Punzalan
were
among
the
four
(4)
candidates
for
mayor
of
the
instead,
be
given
weight
is
the
consistent
rule
laid
down
by
the
municipality
of
Mexico,
Pampanga
during
the
May
8,
1995
HRET
that
a
ballot
is
considered
valid
and
genuine
for
as
long
as
it
elections.
The
Municipal
Board
of
Canvassers
(MBC)
proclaimed
bears
any
one
of
these
authenticating
marks,
to
wit:
(a)
the
Ferdinand
Meneses
as
the
duly
elected
mayor.
Manalastas
and
COMELEC
watermark,
or
(b)
the
signature
or
initials,
or
Punzalan
filed
election
protests.
The
election
protests
sought
the
thumbprint
of
the
Chairman
of
the
BEI;
and,
(c)
in
those
cases
nullification
of
the
election
of
Meneses,
allegedly,
due
to
massive
where
the
COMELEC
watermarks
are
blurred
or
not
readily
fraud,
irregularities
and
other
illegal
electoral
practices
during
the
apparent
to
the
naked
eye,
the
presence
of
red
and
blue
fibers
in
registration
and
the
voting
as
well
as
during
the
counting
of
votes.
the
ballots.
It
is
only
when
none
of
these
marks
appears
extant
Because
of
these
irregularities,
the
trial
court
was
constrained
to
that
the
ballot
can
be
considered
spurious
and
subject
to
rejection
examine
the
contested
ballots
and
the
handwritings
appearing
thereon
and
came
up
with
the
declaration
that
Punzalan
was
the
winner
in
the
elections.
Meneses
sought
to
annul
the
declaration
of
17.
G.R.
No.
126669
April
27,
1998
Punzalan
as
the
winner.
The
same
was
annulled
and
the
COMELEC
declared
Meneses
as
Mayor
with
the
modification
to
the
number
of
ERNESTO
M.
PUNZALAN,
petitioner,
votes.
Punzalan
filed
a
petition
to
SET
ASIDE
the
COMELECs
vs.
resolutions
contending
that
the
it
acted
with
grace
abuse
of
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS
and
FERDINAND
D.
discretion
when
it
declared
as
valid
the
ballots
credited
to
MENESES,
respondents.
Meneses,
which
did
not
bear
the
signature
of
the
BEI
Chairman
at
the
back.
He
argues
that
the
trial
court's
findings
on
the
authenticity
of
said
handwritings
must
prevail
over
the
findings
of
interfered
with
by
this
Court.
Anent
Punzalan's
assertion
that
the
the
COMELEC
because:
1)
the
finding
of
the
Regional
Trial
Court
trial
court's
finding
which
was
arrived
at
after
an
adversarial
was
based
first
on
the
findings
of
the
revisors
with
the
assistance
proceeding
wherein
an
expert
witness
testified
and
was
cross-
of
an
expert
witness
in
the
person
of
Atty.
Desiderio
Pagui;
(2)
the
examined,
should
not
be
interfered
with
by
the
COMELEC
whose
finding
of
the
Regional
Trial
Court
was
arrived
at
after
an
finding
was
arrived
at
without
the
benefit
of
a
hearing
or
the
aid
of
adversarial
proceeding
where
both
parties
were
represented
by
an
expert,
it
is
axiomatic
that
the
COMELEC
need
not
conduct
an
their
lawyers
and
the
expert
witness
was
cross-examined;
and
(3)
adversarial
proceeding
or
a
hearing
to
determine
the
authenticity
on
the
other
hand,
the
findings
of
the
public
respondent
were
of
ballots
or
the
handwriting
found
thereon.
Neither
does
it
need
made
unilaterally,
without
any
hearing
and
without
the
presence
to
solicit
the
help
of
handwriting
experts
in
examining
or
of
the
lawyers
of
the
parties
and
of
the
parties
themselves
comparing
the
handwriting.
In
fact,
even
evidence
aliunde
is
not
necessary
to
enable
the
Commission
to
determine
the
authenticity
of
the
ballots
and
the
genuineness
of
the
handwriting
on
the
Issue:
Whether
or
not
the
COMELEC
acted
with
grace
abuse
of
ballots
as
an
examination
of
the
ballots
themselves
is
already
discretion
amounting
to
lack
or
excess
of
jurisdiction
in
declaring
sufficient.
valid
(a)
the
ballots
wherein
the
signatures
of
the
BEI
chairmen
were
different
from
their
respective
signatures
appearing
on
several
COMELEC
documents,
(b)
those
group
of
ballots
allegedly
18.
G.R.
No.
L-25444
January
31,
1966
written
by
one
(1)
hand
and
(c)
a
number
of
single
ballots
written
by
two
(2)
persons.
WENCESLAO
RANCAP
LAGUMBAY,
petitioner,
vs.
THE
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS
and
CESAR
CLIMACO,
respondents.
Held:
No.
The
appreciation
of
the
contested
ballots
and
election
documents
involves
a
question
of
fact
best
left
to
the
determination
of
the
COMELEC,
a
specialized
agency
tasked
with
BENGZON,
C.J.:
the
supervision
of
elections
all
over
the
country.
It
is
the
constitutional
commission
vested
with
the
exclusive
original
jurisdiction
over
election
contests
involving
regional,
provincial
and
city
officials,
as
well
as
appellate
jurisdiction
over
election
Facts:
This
petition
prays
for
revision
of
an
order
of
the
protests
involving
elective
municipal
and
barangay
officials.
Commission
on
Elections
declining
to
reject
the
returns
of
certain
Consequently,
in
the
absence
of
grave
abuse
of
discretion
or
any
precincts
of
some
municipalities
in
Mindanao,
which
were
jurisdictional
infirmity
or
error
of
law,
the
factual
findings,
obviously
manufactured.
It
appearing
therein
that
contrary
to
conclusions,
rulings
and
decisions
rendered
by
the
said
all
statistical
probabilities
in
the
first
set,
in
each
precinct
the
Commission
on
matters
falling
within
its
competence
shall
not
be
number
of
registered
voters
equaled
the
number
of
ballots
and
the
number
of
votes
reportedly
cast
and
tallied
for
each
and
tribunals.
That
is
the
general
rule,
where
testimonial
or
every
candidate
of
the
Liberal
Party,
the
party
in
power;
whereas,
documentary
evidence,
is
necessary;
but
where
the
fraud
is
so
all
the
candidates
of
the
Nacionalista
Party
got
exactly
zero;
and
in
palpable
from
the
return
itself
(res
ipsa
loquitur
the
thing
the
second
set,
again
contrary
to
all
statistical
probabilities
speaks
for
itself),
there
is
no
reason
to
accept
it
and
give
it
prima
all
the
reported
votes
were
for
candidates
of
the
Liberal
Party,
all
facie
value.
At
any
rate,
fraud
or
no
fraud,
the
verdict
in
these
fifty
of
whom
were
credited
with
exactly
the
samenumber
of
votes
in
precincts
may
ultimately
be
ascertained
before
the
Senate
each
precinct,
ranging
from
240
in
one
precinct
to
650
in
another
Electoral
Tribunal.4
All
we
hold
now,
is
that
the
returns
show
precinct;
whereas,
all
the
candidates
of
the
Nacionalista
Party
"prima
facie"
that
they
do
not
reflect
true
and
valid
reports
of
were
given
exactly
zero
in
all
said
precincts.
regular
voting.
n
view
of
the
foregoing,
and
overlooking
some
intemperate
language
which
detracts
from
the
force
of
the
arguments,
we
hereby
deny
the
motion
to
reconsider
our
Issue:
Whether
or
not
the
COMELEC
erred
in
not
rejecting
resolution
of
December
24,
1965,
as
well
as
the
petition
for
a
re-
obviously
manufactured
election
returns
hearing.