AKBAYAN v COMELEC
GR No. 147066 Mar 26, 2001
FACTS:
 Petitioners — representing the youth sector — seek to direct the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) to conduct a special registration before the May 14, 2001
General Elections, of new voters ages 18 to 21. According to petitioners, around
four million youth failed to register on or before the December 27, 2000 deadline set
by the respondent COMELEC under Republic Act No. 8189.
 Acting on the clamor of the students and civic leaders, Senator Raul Roco,
Chairman of the Committee on Electoral Reforms, Suffrage, and People's
Participation, through a Letter dated January 25, 2001, invited the COMELEC to a
public hearing for the purpose of discussing the extension of the registration of
voters to accommodate those who were not able to register before the COMELEC
deadline.
 A request to conduct a two-day additional registration of new voters on February 17
and 18, 2001 was passed but it was denied by the COMELEC. Section 8 of
Republic Act No. 8189 explicitly provides that no registration shall be conducted
during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election
and that the Commission has no more time left to accomplish all pre-election
activities.
 Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners AKBAYAN-Youth, SCAP, UCSC, MASP,
KOMPIL II (YOUTH) et al. filed before this Court the instant Petition
for Certiorari and Mandamus, docketed as G.R. No. 147066, which seeks to set
aside and nullify respondent COMELEC's Resolution and/or to declare Section 8
of R.A. 8189unconstitutional insofar as said provision effectively causes the
disenfranchisement of petitioners and others similarly situated. Likewise, petitioners
pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent COMELEC to
conduct a special registration of new voters and to admit for registration petitioners
and other similarly situated young Filipinos to qualify them to vote in the May 14,
2001 General Elections.
ISSUE:
Whether or not this Court can compel respondent COMELEC, through the
extraordinary writ of mandamus, to conduct a special registration of new voters during
the period between the COMELEC's imposed December 27, 2000 deadline and the
May 14, 2001 general elections.
RULING:
 Section 8 of R.A. 8189 applies in the present case, for the purpose of upholding the
assailed COMELEC Resolution and denying the instant petitions, considering that
the aforesaid law explicitly provides that no registration shall be conducted during
the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election.
 Provisions of Section 28, R.A. 8436 would come into play in cases where the pre-
election acts are susceptible of performance within the available period prior to
election day. In more categorical language, Section 28 of R.A. 8436 isanchored on
the sound premise that these certain "pre-election acts" are still capable of being
reasonably performed vis-à-vis the remaining period before the date of election and
the conduct of other related pre-election activities required under the law.
 The exercise of the right of suffrage, as in the enjoyment of all other rights, is
subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements embodied in
our Constitution, statute books and other repositories of law
 Substantive aspect, Section 1, Article V of the Constitution provides:
"SECTION 1. SUFFRAGE MAY BE EXERCISED BY ALL CITIZENS OF THE
PHILIPPINES NOT OTHERWISE DISQUALIFIED BY LAW, WHO ARE AT LEAST
EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, AND WHO SHALL HAVE RESIDED IN THE
PHILIPPINES FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR AND IN THE PLACE WHEREIN THEY
PROPOSE TO VOTE FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING
THE ELECTION. NO LITERACY, PROPERTY, OR OTHER SUBSTANTIVE
REQUIREMENT SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THE EXERCISE OF SUFFRAGE."
 As to the procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to vote is necessarily
conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo: among others,
the process of registration. Specifically, a citizen in order to be qualified to exercise
his right to vote, in addition to the minimum requirements set by the fundamental
charter, is obliged by law to register, at present, under the provisions of
Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the "Voter's Registration Act of 1996."
 The act of registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage. For
registration is part and parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable element in
the election process. Thus, contrary to petitioners' argument, registration cannot
and should not be denigrated to the lowly stature of a mere statutory requirement.
Proceeding from the significance of registration as a necessary requisite to the right
to vote, the State undoubtedly, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may then
enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of voter's registration for the ultimate
purpose of conducting honest, orderly and peaceful election, to the incidental yet
generally important end, that even pre-election activities could be performed by the
duly constituted authorities in a realistic and orderly manner — one which is not
indifferent and so far removed from the pressing order of the day and the prevalent
circumstances of the times.
 While it may be true that respondent COMELEC set the registration deadline on
December 27, 2000, this Court is of the Firm view that petitioners were not totally
denied the opportunity to avail of the continuing registration under R.A. 8189.
Stated in a different manner, the petitioners in the instant case are not without fault
or blame. They admit in their petition that they failed to register, for whatever
reason, within the period of registration and came to this Court and invoked its
protective mantle not realizing, so to speak, the speck in their eyes. Impuris minibus
nemo accedat curiam. Let no one come to court with unclean hands.
 COMELEC, in denying the request of petitioners to hold a special registration, acted
within the bounds and confines of the applicable law on the matter — Section 8
of RA 8189. In issuing the assailed Resolution, respondent COMELEC simply
performed its constitutional task to enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of an election, inter alia, questions relating to the registration
of voters; evidently, respondent COMELEC merely exercised a prerogative that
chiefly pertains to it and one which squarely falls within the proper sphere of its
constitutionally-mandated powers. Hence, whatever action respondent takes in the
exercise of its wide latitude of discretion, specifically on matters involving voters'
registration, pertains to the wisdom rather than the legality of the act. Accordingly, in
the absence of clear showing of grave abuse of power of discretion on the part of
respondent COMELEC, this Court may not validly conduct an incursion and meddle
 with affairs exclusively within the province of respondent COMELEC — a body
accorded by no less than the fundamental law with independence.
 Court likewise takes judicial notice of the fact that the President has
issued Proclamation No. 15 calling Congress to a Special Session on March 19,
2001, to allow the conduct of Special Registration of new voters. House Bill No.
12930 has been filed before the Lower House, which bill seeks to amend R.A.
8189 as to the 120-day prohibitive period provided for under said law. Similarly,
Senate Bill No. 2276 was filed before the Senate, with the same intention to amend
the aforesaid law and, in effect, allow the conduct of special registration before the
May 14, 2001 General Elections. This Court views the foregoing factual
circumstances as a clear intimation on the part of both the executive and legislative
departments that a legal obstacle indeed stands in the way of the conduct by the
Commission on Elections of a special registration before the May 14, 2001 General
Elections.
OCCENA V COMELEC
127 SCRA 404 (1984)
FACTS:
 This petition for prohibition seeks the declaration as unconstitutional of Sections 4
and 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 222, otherwise known as the Barangay Election Act
of 1982, insofar as it prohibits any candidate in the Barangay election of May 17,
1982 "from representing or allowing himself to be represented as a candidate of any
political party ... or prohibits a political party, political group, political committee ...
from intervening in the nomination of a candidate in the barangay election or in the
filing of his certificate of candidacy, or giving aid or support directly or indirectly,
material or otherwise, favorable to or against his campaign for election."
 SEC. 4. Conduct of elections. — The barangay election shall be, non-partisan and
shall be conducted in an expeditious and inexpensive manner.
 The constitutionality of the prohibition vis-a-vis non-political groups is not
challenged.
ISSUES:
 Whether the ban on the intervention of political parties in the election of barangay
officials is violative of the constitutional guarantee of the right to form associations
arid societies for purposes not contrary to law.
 Whether the ban is incompatible with a democracy and a parliamentary system of
government.
RULING:
 Examining Section 4 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982, be it noted that
thereunder, the right to organize is intact. Political parties may freely be formed
although there is a restriction on their activities, i.e., their intervention in the election
of barangay officials on May 17, 1982 is prescribed. But the ban is narrow, not total.
It operates only onconcerted or group action of political parties. Members of political
and kindred organizations, acting individually, may intervene in the barangay
election. As the law says: "Nothing (therein) ... shall be construed as in any manner
affecting or constituting an impairment of the freedom of individuals to support or
oppose any candidate for any barangay office." Moreover, members of the family of
a candidate within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity as well as the
personal campaign staff of a candidate (not more than 1 for every 100 registered
voters in Ms barangay) can engage in individual or group action to promote the
election of their candidate.
 Aside from the narrow character of the restriction thus impose, the limitation is
essential to meet the felt need of the hour. Explaining the reason for the non-
partisan character of the barangay election when he sponsored Parliamentary
Bill 2125 which later became BP Blg. 222, Minister of State for Political Affairs
Leonardo B. Perez said it would be a more prudent policy to insulate the barangays
from the influence of partisan politics; that it was a constitutional convention that
was really of the people, for the people and by the people.
 The ban against the participation of political parties in the barangay election is an
appropriate legislative response to the unwholesome effects of partisan bias in the
impartial discharge of the duties imposed on the barangay and its officials as the
basic unit of our political and social structure.
 The primary purpose of the prohibition then is also to avert the clear and present
danger of another substantive evil, the denial of the equal protection of the laws.
The candidates must depend on their individual merits and not on the support of
political parties or organizations
 The political parties and the other organized groups have built-in advantages
because of their machinery and other facilities, which, the individual candidate who
is without any organization support, does no have.
 The freedom of association also implies the liberty not to associate or join with
others or join any existing organization. A person may run independently on his own
merits without need of catering to a political party or any other association for
support. And he, as much as the candidate whose candidacy does not evoke
sympathy from any political party or organized group, must be afforded equal
chances. As emphasized by Senators Tolentino and Salonga, this ban is to assure
equal chances to a candidate with talent and imbued with patriotism as well as
nobility of purpose, so that the country can utilize their services if elected.
 The petitioner argues that in a democracy, all elections necessarily must be
partisan. This is not so. For in a representative democracy such as ours, there is
merely a guarantee of participation by the people in the affairs of government thru
their chosen representatives, without assurance that in every instance concerted
partisan activity in the selection of those representatives shall be allowed, unless
otherwise mandated expressly or impliedly by the Constitution.
 Nor does a parliamentary system of government carry the guarantee that elections
in all levels of government shall be partisan. Under the Constitution, there is an
implicit guarantee of political party participation in the elections for President and
members of the Batasang Pambansa. For the outcome of the elections for
President determines the subsequent accreditation of political parties.
 On the other hand, the presence and participation of majority and minority parties
are essential to the proper working of the Batasang Pambansa, the operation of
which assumes that there is a ruling political party that determines the program of
government and a fiscalizing political party or parties to curb possible abuses of the
dominant group.
 Outside of the cases where the Constitution clearly requires that the selection of
particular officials shall be thru the ballot and with the participation of political
parties, the lawmaking body, in the exercise of its power to enact laws regulating
the conduct of elections, may in our view ban or restrict partisan elections. We are
 not aware of any constitutional provision expressly or impliedly requiring that
barangay officials shall be elected thru partisan electoral process. Indeed, it would
be within the competence of the National Assembly to prescribe that the barangay
captain and councilmen, rather than elected, shall be appointed by designated
officials such as the City or Municipal Mayors or Provincial Governors. If barangay
officials could thus be made appointive, we do not think it would be constitutionally
obnoxious to prescribe that they shall be elective, but without political party or
partisan involvement in the process in order to promote objectivity and lack of
partisan bias in the performance of their duties that are better discharged in the
absence of political attachment.
MONTESCLAROS V COMELEC
GR No. 152295, July 9, 2002
FACTS:
 Petitioners claim that they are in danger of being disqualified to vote and be voted
for in the SK elections should the SK elections on May 6, 2002 be postponed to a
later date. Petitioners allege that public respondents connived, confederated and
conspired to postpone the May 6, 2002 SK elections and to lower the membership
age in the SK to at least 15 but less than 18 years of age. petitioner Antoniette V.C.
Montesclaros sent a letter to the Comelec, demanding that the SK elections be held
as scheduled on May 6, 2002. In his letters, the Comelec Chairman intimated that it
was operationally very difficult to hold both elections simultaneously in May 2002.
Instead, the Comelec Chairman expressed support for the bill of Senator Franklin
Drilon that proposed to hold the Barangay elections in May 2002 and postpone the
SK elections to November 2002. The Bicameral Committees consolidated bill reset
the SK and Barangay elections to July 15, 2002 and lowered the membership age
in the SK to at least 15 but not more than 18 years of age.
ISSUE:
RESPONDENTS ACTED WHIMSICALLY, ILLEGALLY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
THUS CONSTITUTED (SIC) WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING
TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN THEY INTENDED TO
POSTPONE THE SK ELECTIONS.
RULING:
 In the instant case, petitioners seek to enforce a right originally conferred by law on
those who were at least 15 but not more than 21 years old. Now, with the passage
of RA No. 9164, this right is limited to those who on the date of the SK elections are
at least 15 but less than 18 years old. The new law restricts membership in the SK
to this specific age group. Not falling within this classification, petitioners have
ceased to be members of the SK and are no longer qualified to participate in the
July 15, 2002 SK elections. Plainly, petitioners no longer have a personal and
substantial interest in the SK elections.
 The petition must also fail because no grave abuse of discretion attended the
postponement of the SK elections. RA No. 9164 is now the law that prescribes the
qualifications of candidates and voters for the SK elections. This law also fixes the
date of the SK elections. Petitioners are not even assailing the constitutionality of
RA No. 9164. RA No. 9164 enjoys the presumption of constitutionality and will apply
to the July 15, 2002 SK elections.
 The Comelec exercised its power and duty to enforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum
and recall and to recommend to Congress effective measures to minimize election
spending. The Comelecs acts enjoy the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties. These acts cannot constitute proof, as claimed by
petitioners, that there exists a connivance and conspiracy (among) respondents in
contravention of the present law.
 Petitioners contend that the postponement of the SK elections would allow the
incumbent SK officers to perpetuate themselves in power, depriving other youths of
the opportunity to serve in elective SK positions. This argument deserves scant
consideration. While RA No. 9164 contains a hold-over provision, incumbent SK
officials can remain in office only until their successors have been elected or
qualified. On July 15, 2002, when the SK elections are held, the hold-over period
expires and all incumbent SK officials automatically cease to hold their SK offices
and their ex-officio public offices.
 DISMISSED
BENITO V COMELEC
GR No. 134913 Jan 19,2001
ONE LINER: The power to throw out or annul an election should be exercised with the
utmost care and only under circumstances which demonstrate beyond doubt either
that the disregard of the law had been so fundamental or so persistent and continuous
that it is impossible to distinguish what votes are lawful and what are unlawful, or to
arrive at any certain result whatsoever, or that the great body of voters have been
prevented by violence, intimidation and threats from exercising their franchise
FACTS:
 Petitioner ZAIPAL D. BENITO and private respondent IBRAHIM PAGAYAWAN were
two (2) of eight (8) candidates vying for the position of municipal mayor in
Calanogas, Lanao del Sur during the May 11, 1998 elections. On the day of the
election, voting started peacefully at the polling place. Shortly before noon,
however, the proceedings were interrupted when some thirty (30) armed men
appeared at the school premises and fired shots into the air. This sowed panic
among the voters and election officials, causing them to scatter in different
directions.
 Both parties contest alleged events transpiring after the interruption of the
voting. By petitioners account, the ballot boxes and other election materials were
taken to the municipal hall by the military forces providing security. From then on,
the voting allegedly never resumed, even when voters who had not yet cast their
ballots returned to their respective polling places after the lawless elements had left.
 In direct opposition, private respondent avers that voting in fact resumed when the
armed men left at about 1:00 oclock in the afternoon. There were no further
untoward incidents until voting closed at 3:00 oclock. As proof, private respondent
submitted a Final Incident Report issued by the same Captain Manquiquis.
 Considering that private respondent would still lead petitioner by seven (7) votes
even if all forty-one (41) votes from the three (3) excluded precincts were counted in
the latters favor, private respondent was proclaimed mayor of Calanogas.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT
HOLDING A SPECIAL ELECTION IN PRECINCT NOS. 15A, 6A & 6A1 AND 17A ON
GROUND OF FAILURE OF ELECTION OR OF A SUSPENDED ELECTION BEFORE
THE CLOSING OF THE VOTING AT 3:00 OCLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON OF THE
MAY 11, 1998 ELECTION DAY ON GROUND OF THREATS, VIOLENCE AND
TERRORISM
RULING:
 It is the COMELEC en banc which has the exclusive power to postpone, to declare
a failure of election, or to call a special election.
 Coming to the merits of the petition, we are not sufficiently persuaded that the
public respondent COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in denying BENITOs
petition to declare a failure of election in precincts 15A, 6A/6A1 and 17A of
Calanogas.
 Naturally, petitioner and private respondent attest to the authenticity of the affidavits
favorable to them. To illustrate, petitioner insists that the genuineness of the
affidavits attached to the amended petition he filed before the COMELEC is
allegedly confirmed by the second set of affidavits in turn repudiating those relied
upon by private respondent in his answer. Just as the COMELEC was reluctant to
treat petitioners claim as gospel truth, so too do we hesitate to accord weight to this
rigmarole of sworn statements.
 The Commission gives more weight to the report made by Captain Manquiquis
whose final report to the Commission says that the voting resumed an hour after
the firing occured which disrupted the voting in all the five precincts clustered in
Disimban Elementary School.
 After a careful consideration of the parties submissions, we find that the COMELEC
did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying BENITOs petition to declare a failure
to election and to call a special election. It is indeed odd that petitioner singles out
only precincts 15A, 6A/6A1 and 17A as the subjects of his petition when there were
two (2) other precincts in the same school. It was only in his reply with
memorandum did he signify his lack of objection to a declaration of failure of
election in precincts 2A/2A1 and 13A, as prayed for by candidate Amoran
Macaborods answer with counter-petition. Likewise, he never objected to the
inclusion of the two (2) other precincts during the canvassing and counting of votes.
 Denied
TO FOLLOW:
SUMBING v DAVIDE
BASHER v COMELEC
MITMUG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
GR No. 106270-73 Feb. 10, 1994
FACTS:

The turnout of voters during the 11 May 1992 election in Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao
del Sur, was abnormally low in the 67 precincts in the municipality; particularly in
forty-nine (49) precincts where the average voter turnout was 22.26%, i.e., only
2,330 out of 9,830 registered voters therein cast their votes. Five (5) of these
precincts did not conduct actual voting at all.

COMELEC ordered the holding of a special election in the five (5) precincts which
failed to function during election day. On 30 July 1992 another special election was
held for a sixth precinct.

In the interim, petitioner filed a petition seeking the annulment of the special
election conducted on 30 May 1992 alleging various irregularities such as the
alteration, tampering and substitution of ballots.

COMELEC ruled that there must be a situation where there is absolute inability to
vote before a failure of election can be declared. Since voting was actually
conducted in the contested precincts, there was no basis for the petition.
ISSUE:
WON there was failure of election
RULING:
 There was no failure of election.
 A closer examination of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, particularly Sec. 2,
Rule 26, thereof which was lifted from Sec. 6, B.P. 881, otherwise known as the
Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, indicates otherwise. It reads —
Sec. 2. Failure of election. — If, on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes the election in any precinct has
not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour
fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the
preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody of
canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such
cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the
election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any
interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or
continuation of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a
failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not
held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than
thirty (30) days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect.
 Before COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of
election, two (2) conditions must concur:
1.no voting has taken place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by
law or, even if there was voting, the election nevertheless results in
failure to elect; and,
2. the votes not cast would affect the result of the election.
 In the case before us, it is indubitable that the votes not cast will definitely affect the
outcome of the election. But, the first requisite is missing, i.e., that no actual voting
 took place, or even if there is, the results thereon will be tantamount to a failure to
elect. Since actual voting and election by the registered voters in the questioned
precincts have taken place, the results thereof cannot be disregarded and
excluded. COMELEC therefore did not commit any abuse of discretion, much less
grave, in denying the petitions outright. There was no basis for the petitions since
the facts alleged therein did not constitute sufficient grounds to warrant the relief
sought.
 For, the language of the law expressly requires the concurrence of these conditions
to justify the calling of a special election.
 Indeed, the fact that a verified petition is filed does not automatically mean that a
hearing on the case will be held before COMELEC will act on it. The verified petition
must still show on its face that the conditions to declare a failure to elect are
present. In the absence thereof, the petition must be denied outright.
 Considering that there is no concurrence of the two (2) conditions in the petitions
seeking to declare failure of election in forty-three (43) more, precincts, there is no
more need to receive evidence on alleged election irregularities.
 Instead, the question of whether there have been terrorism and other irregularities
is better ventilated in an election contest. These irregularities may not as a rule be
invoked to declare a failure of election and to disenfranchise the electorate through
the misdeeds of a relative few. Otherwise, elections will never be carried out with
the resultant disenfranchisement of innocent voters as losers will always cry fraud
and terrorism.
 There can be failure of election in a political unit only if the will of the majority has
been defiled and cannot be ascertained. But, if it can be determined, it must be
accorded respect. After all, there is no provision in our election laws which requires
that a majority of registered voters must cast their votes. All the law requires is that
a winning candidate must be elected by a plurality of valid votes, regardless of the
actual number of ballots cast. Thus, even if less than 25% of the electorate in the
questioned precincts cast their votes, the same must still be respected.
CANICOSA vs COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
282 SCRA 512
FACTS:
 CANICOSA and LAJARA were candidates for mayor in Calamba, Laguna. After
obtaining a majority of some 24,000 votes Lajara was proclaimed. Canicosa then
filed a Petition to Declare Failure of Election and to Declare Null and Void the
Canvass and Proclamation on alleged widespread frauds and anomalies in casting
and counting of votes, preparation of election returns, violence, threats, intimidation,
vote buying, unregistered voters voting, and delay in the delivery of election
documents and paraphernalia from the precincts to the Office of the Municipal
Treasurer. Canicosa particularly averred the following:
(a) the names of the registered voters did not appear in the list of voters in their
precincts;
(b) more than one-half of the legitimate registered voters were not able to vote with
strangers voting in their stead;
(c) he was credited with less votes than he actually received and that the control
data of the election returns was not filled up in some precincts;
(d) ballot boxes brought to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer were unsecured, i.e.,
without padlocks nor self-locking metal seals; and, there was delay in the delivery of
election returns.
 But the COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition on the ground that the
allegations therein did not justify a declaration of failure of election.
ISSUE:
WON there was a failure of election
RULING:
 There was no failure of election. We will discuss each of Canicosa’s contention to
further understand the ruling.
 Section 6 of BP Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code provides
three (3) instances where a failure of election may be declared, namely:
(a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account
of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes;
(b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by
law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud, or other analogous causes; or
(c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election
returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to
elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
causes.
None of the grounds invoked by Canicosa falls under any of those enumerated.
A. On the first contention: that the names of the registered voters in the
various precincts did not appear in their respective lists of voters.
 This is not a ground to declare a failure of election. The filing of a petition for
declaration of failure of election therefore is not the proper remedy.
 Fifteen (15) days before the regular elections the final list of voters was posted in
each precinct pursuant to Sec. 148 of RA No. 7166. Based on the lists thus posted
Canicosa could have filed a petition for inclusion of registered voters with the
regular courts. The question of inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters involves
the right to vote which is not within the power and authority of COMELEC to rule
upon. The determination of whether one has the right to vote is a justiciable issue
properly cognizable by our regular courts.
 Canicosa could have also filed with the COMELEC a verified complaint seeking the
annulment of the book of voters pursuant to Sec. 10, of RA No. 7166
 Since Canicosa failed to resort to any of the above options, the permanent list of
voters as finally corrected before the election remains conclusive on the question as
to who had the right to vote in that election, although not in subsequent elections.
B. Second contention: that more than one-half (1/2) of the legitimate registered
voters were not able to vote, instead, strangers voted in their behalf.
 Again, this is not a ground which warrants a declaration of failure of
election. Canicosa was allowed to appoint a watcher in every precinct. The
 watcher is empowered by law to challenge any illegal voter.Thus, Secs. 199 and
202, Art. XVII, of the Omnibus Election Code, provide:
Sec. 199. Challenge of illegal voters. - (a) Any voter, or watcher may
challenge any person offering to vote for not being registered, for using the name of
another or suffering from existing disqualification. In such case, the board of election
inspectors shall satisfy itself as to whether or not the ground for the challenge is true
by requiring proof of registration or identity of the voter x x x x
Sec. 202. Record of challenges and oaths. - The poll clerk shall keep a
prescribed record of challenges and oaths taken in connection therewith and the
resolution of the board of election inspectors in each case and, upon the termination
of the voting, shall certify that it contains all the challenges made x x x x
C. Third contention: that he was credited with less votes than he actually
received and that the control data of the election returns was not filled up should have
been raised in the first instance before the board of election inspectors or board of
canvassers.
Section 179, Art. XV, of the Omnibus Election Code clearly provides for the rights and
duties of watchers. That is:
- the right to witness and inform themselves of the proceedings of the board
of election inspectors
- 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
- to be furnished with a certificate of the number of votes in words and figures
cast for each candidate, duly signed and thumbmarked by the chairman and all the
members of the board of election inspectors x x x x
 To safeguard and maintain the sanctity of election returns, Sec. 212, Art. XVIII, of
the Omnibus Election Code states that upon the accomplishment of the election
returns, each copy thereof shall be sealed in the presence of the watchers and the
public, and placed in the proper envelope, which shall likewise be sealed and
distributed as herein provided.
 Furthermore, it is provided in Sec. 215 of the Omnibus Election Code that after the
announcement of the results of the election and before leaving the polling place, it
shall be the duty of the board of election inspectors to issue a certificate of the
number of votes received by a candidate upon request of the watchers. All
members of the board of election inspectors shall sign the certificate.
 From the foregoing provisions, it is clear that in case of inconsistency as to the
number of votes written in the election returns and the certificate of votes, a petition
for correction of election returns must immediately be filed with COMELEC by all or
a majority of the members of the board of election inspectors or any candidate
affected by the error or mistake. In order to make out a case for correction of
election returns, there must be an error and at least a majority of the members of
the board of election inspectors agrees that such error existed. Canicosa never
mentioned that he petitioned for the correction of the election returns before the
COMELEC.
D. Fourth contention: that the ballot boxes brought to the Office of the
Municipal Treasurer were unsecured, i.e., without padlocks nor self-locking
metal seals; and, there was delay in the delivery of election returns.
 These bare allegations cannot impel us to declare failure of election. Assuming that
the election returns were delivered late, we still cannot see why we should declare
a failure to elect. The late deliveries did not convert the election into a mockery or
farce to make us conclude that there was indeed a failure of election.
 In fine, the grounds cited by Canicosa in his petition do not fall under any of the
instances enumerated in Sec. 6 of the Omnibus Election Code.
 Before COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of
election, at least two (2) conditions must concur:
(a) no voting has taken place in the precincts on the date fixed by law, or even if
there was voting, the election nevertheless resulted in failure to elect; and
(b) the votes that were not cast would affect the result of the election.
 From the face of the instant petition, it is readily apparent than an election took
place and that it did not result in a failure to elect.
 Another averment was that it was an error on the part of COMELEC sitting en
banc to rule on his petition. He maintains that his petition should have first been
heard by a division of COMELEC and later by the COMELEC en banc upon motion
for reconsideration, pursuant to Sec. 3, Art. IX-C, of the Constitution.
 [8]But this provision applies only when the COMELEC acts in the exercise of its
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions and not when it merely exercises purely
administrative functions. The grounds of his petition, as abovementioned, are
clearly matters that require the exercise by the COMELEC of its administrative
functions. It is only in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers that
the COMELEC is mandated to hear and decide cases first by Division and then,
upon motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc. This is when it is
jurisdictional. In the instant case, as aforestated, the issues presented demand only
the exercise by the COMELEC of its administrative functions.
BATABOR V. COMELEC
GR No. 160428 july 21, 2004
FACTS:
 This case is about a barangay election held in Barangay Maidan, Tugaya, Lanao
del Sur in 2002.
 Petitioner is seeking reelection, but lost to his opponent, the respondent. (94-123
votes)
 Petitioner is seeking a declaration for failure of election because he claims that after
lunch, the Chairwoman of the Board of Election Inspectors of 3 precints suddenly
tore the unusued ballots and padlocked the ballot boxes. Petitioner was not present
at that time, and he claims that there were more than 100 who were not able to cast
their votes.
 COMELEC denied this on the following grounds: (a) the declaration of failure of
election in Precincts 3A, 4A and 5A of Barangay Maidan, Tugaya, Lanao del Sur;
(b) the annulment of the proclamation that Mocasin Abangon Batondiang is the duly
elected Punong Barangay of Barangay Maidan; and (c) the holding of a special
election in the questioned precincts.
 Respondent asserts that the petitioner’s claims are not backed by substantive
evidence.
ISSUE:
 WON there was a failure of election
 formalized his appeal.
RULING:
 None.
 First, the power to declare a failure of elections is vested exclusively upon the
COMELEC in Sec. 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. SC held that the COMELEC in
this case did not commit grave abuse of discretion in NOT declaring a failure of
election.
 In Benito v. Comelec, the SC laid down the 2 conditions before a failure of election
may be declared: “(1) no voting has been held in any precinct or precincts due to
fraud, force majeure, violence or terrorism; and (2) the votes not cast therein are
sufficient to affect the results of the election. The cause of such failure may arise
before or after the casting of votes or on the day of the election.”
 While the alleged 100 missed votes are sufficient to affect its result, the petitioner
failed to prove that the voting did not take place in the said 3 precincts.
 In the Statement of Canvass of Votes, it showed that at least 220 voted.
 There were 220 votes (69.62% of the 316 registered voters) which cast their vote.
This high turnout is not an indication of a failure of elections.
 There can be failure of election in a political unit only if the will of the majority has
been defiled and cannot be ascertained – not when there is a high voters turnout.
 In fact, petitioner only seeks to nullify the proclamation of only one candidate.
COMELEC cannot annul the proclamation of just one candidate on the ground of
failure of elections because a special election, due to a failure, affects all elective
positions in the place where there was a failure of elections.
SARDEA V. COMELEC
225 SCRA 374
FACTS:
 This is about an election that happened in Mauban, Quezon. Petitioners are
alleging COMELEC "acted with grave abuse of discretion…"
 May 13, 1992 (two days after the election) - During the canvassing of election
returns, supporters of petitioner Sardea, the defeated mayoralty candidate,
"stormed the municipal building" and "destroyed . . . all election materials and
paraphernalia including, among others, the copies of election returns furnished to
respondent Board”
 The Municipal Board of Canvassers convened and assessed the extent of the
damage wrought by the demonstrators. It discovered that the election returns in the
possession of the MTC Judge of Mauban were intact, so it ordered the retrieval of
said election returns for use in the canvass. However, this was suspended and
moved again because the number of returns had to be determined first.
 The Municipal Board of Canvassers reconvened on May 18, 1992, informed the
parties that it would continue the canvassing of the election returns based on the
copies from the MTC of Mauban.
 A lawyer representing Sardea objected and filed a petition alleging that the
Canvassers did not have the authority from Comelec to use copies. This was
denied because the Canvassers had directions from the Acting Executive Director
of COMELEC. The proceedings were again suspended, and the petitioner
 COMELEC held a special meeting again to authorize the canvassers to use the
copies. Sardea filed a petition at the Election Registrar of Mauban. The next day,
the winners were proclaimed.
 Petitioner filed two complaints: The first questioned the usage of the copies of the
ER from the MTC. The second assailed the proceedings and composition of the
Municipal Board of Canvassers. Both are pre-proclamation controversies, and both
petitions were dismissed. SC said that: the first one was correctly dismissed
because it was proper for an election contest, while the second, although SC held
that this was correctly filed, was moot and academic because the winning
candidates were already proclaimed.
ISSUE:
WON there was a failure of election
RULING:
 NO.
 Again, recall the 2 conditions before a failure of elections should be declared: "(1)
that no voting has been held in any precinct or precincts because of force mejeure,
violence or terrorism, and (2) that the votes not cast therein suffice to affect the
results of the elections. The language of the law clearly requires the concurrence of
the[se] two circumstances to justify the calling of a special election."
 The destruction and loss of copies of election returns, which was caused by the
violence, is not one of the causes that would warrant a failure of election since the
election took place as scheduled on May 11. Also, there were still valid election
returns, and the incident did not affect the results.
 There is a failure of elections only when the will of the electorate has been muted
and cannot be ascertained. If the will of the people is determinable, the same must
as far as possible be respected.
 Petitioners argue that BP 881 was amended by RA 7166 such that copies of ER’s
that are in possession with the MTC may not be used for canvass but are merely for
comparison to determine authenticity of the other copies. But, the repealing clause
of RA 7166 enumerates the provisions of the OEC which are repealed, and Sec.
233 is not among them. So, by applying Stat Con, they should be construed as to
harmonize each other. Section 233 of B.P. 881 ought to be harmonized with Section
27, par. b(5) of R.A. 7166. Section 27, par. b(5) of R.A. 7166 presupposes that
other copies of the election returns are existent and may be compared with the
copies of the MTC. It does not preclude the use of such authentic copies in the
canvass when the copies submitted to the Board of Canvassers have been lost or
destroyed. Therefore, the usage of copies was not contrary to law.
PANGANDAMAN V COMELEC (FIXING OF DATE IN SPECIAL ELECTIONS)
319 SCRA 283
FACTS:
 Prohibition with TRO and preliminary injunction Order of COMELEC to the holding
and scheduling of special elections on 8 municipalities. Petitioners pray that the
COMELEC declare there be failure of elections on their municipalities and hold
special elections. Petitions were reinforced by reports received by the Commission
from its field officers and deputies. A pre-trial for all cases in Lanao del Sur involving
failure of elections was set and parties, their counsels, and the election officers of
concerned municipalities appeared.
 During the pre-trial of the above cases, it was shown and admitted by the parties
that total failure of election[s] took place in 12 municipalities since no precinct was
able to function during the election day. Partial failure of Elections also happened in
5 municipalities.
 **for the description per place on what happened during elections period, refer to
full text .. not important for the topic on Fixing of Date in Special Election
 The petition for declaration of failure of election in the municipality of Calanogas,
Lanao del Sur will be covered by a different resolution. To avoid the risk of another
failure of elections and to encourage public trust in the process and results of the
special elections, COMELEC made changes in the elections most notably, that the
AFP and PNP who are assigned to the affected areas shall serve as members of
the Board of Election Inspectors.
ISSUE:
Petitioner asserts that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Omnibus Order
1.] By insisting on holding special elections more than 30 days after the failure to
elect, in certain municipalities, in contravention of the clear and explicit provisions of
Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code;
2.] By failing to declare a total failure of elections in the entire province of Lanao del
Sur and to certify the same to the President of the Philippines and Congress so that
the necessary legislation may be enacted for the holding of a special election;
3.] By ordering only elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Philippine National Police who are not assigned to the affected areas as members of
the Board of Election Inspectors, in contravention to the Omnibus Election Code;
4.] By insisting on machine counting despite the proven unreliability and
undependability of the counting of votes with use of computer machines.
HELD:
 In support of his cause, petitioner insists on a strict compliance with the holding of
special elections not later than thirty (30) days after failure to elect pursuant to
Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code
1st Issue: Petitioner argues that section 6 is mandatory because of the word shall. He
further asserts that the prescribed time frame actually delimits COMELECs authority to
call for a special election and that instead, the power to call for a special election after
the 30th day now resides in Congress.
 SC - provision invoked cannot be construed in the manner as argued by petitioner
for it would defeat the purpose and spirit for which the law was enacted. [a]dmonish
against a too literal reading of the law as this is apt to constrict rather than fulfill its
purpose and defeat the intention of its authors. That intention is usually found not in
the letter that killeth but in the spirit that vivifieth xxx
 Section 2 (1) of Article IX (C) of the Constitution gives the COMELEC the broad
power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of
an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall. There can hardly be any
doubt that the text and intent of this constitutional provision is to give COMELEC all
the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the objective of holding free,
orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.
 SC affirmed COMELECs actions in conducting elections. As stated in the case of
Sumulong v. COMELEC xxx. There are no readymade formulas for solving public
problems. Time and experience are necessary to evolve patterns that will serve the
ends of good government. In the matter of the administration of laws relative to the
conduct of election xxx we must not by any excessive zeal take away from the
Commission on Elections that initiative which by constitutional and legal mandates
properly belongs to it.
 The purpose of the governing statutes on the conduct of elections
 [i]s to protect the integrity of elections to suppress all evils that may violate its purity
and defeat the will of the voters. xxx the Commission must be given a considerable
latitude in adopting means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the
great objective for which it was created to promote free, orderly, and honest
elections. The choice of means taken by the Commission on Elections, unless they
are clearly illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion, should not be interfered
with.
 Guided by the above-quoted pronouncement, the legal compass from which the
COMELEC should take its bearings in acting upon election controversies is the
principle that clean elections control the appropriateness of the remedy. In fixing the
date for special elections the COMELEC should see to it that: 1.] it should not be
later than thirty (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.
 The first involves a question of fact. The second must be determined in the light of
the peculiar circumstances of a case. Thus, the holding of elections within the next
few months from the cessation of the cause of the postponement, suspension or
failure to elect may still be considered reasonably close to the date of the election
not held.
 COMELEC cannot be faulted for tardiness. The dates set for the special elections
were actually the nearest dates from the time total/partial failure of elections was
determined, xx the dates chosen by the COMELEC for the holding of special
elections were only a few days away from the time a total/partial failure of elections
was declared and, thus, these were dates reasonably close thereto, given the
prevailing facts herein. It bears stressing that in the exercise of the plenitude of its
powers to protect the integrity of elections, the COMELEC should not and must not
be straitjacketed by procedural rules in the exercise of its discretion to resolve
election disputes.
2nd issue: Respondent COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by failing to declare a
total failure of elections in the entire province of Lanao del Sur and to certify the same
to the President and Congress so that the necessary legislation may be enacted for
the holding of a special election, likewise fails to persuade.
 Petitioner himself concedes that there was total failure of elections in twelve (12)
municipalities and partial failure in eleven (11). Whether there has been a total
failure of elections in the entire province of Lanao del Sur is a factual issue which
this Court will not delve into considering that the COMELEC, through its deputized
officials in the field, is in the best position to assess the actual conditions prevailing
in that area. Absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion, the findings of fact of
the COMELEC or any administrative agency exercising particular expertise in its
field of endeavor, are binding on the Court.
3rd Issue: COMELEC violated the Omnibus Election Code when it ordered elements
of the AFP and the PNP who are not assigned to the affected areas as members of
the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) is likewise unconvincing vis--vis the underlying
reason of the public respondent to have an effective and impartial military presence to
avoid the risk of another failure of elections.
4th Issue: Machine counting being allegedly undependable and unreliable should not
be resorted to as the reasoning of petitioner, by itself, invokes the answer. If the
COMELEC saw it fit to order a machine counting of votes in the municipalities
enumerated, it could only mean that the decree of R.A. No. 8436 could be
implemented without the interference of the claimed unreliability, inaccuracy and
undependability of the computer sets. The absence of any satisfactory proof to
support petitioners allegations to the contrary reduces them to mere self-serving
claims.
 SolGen suggests issue already moot. Petitioner himself admits that special
elections were conducted on a staggered basis. The petition questions the
membership of the Board of Election Inspectors for being composed of elements of
the AFP and PNP well as the machine counting of the votes when these events
have been superseded by the recent issuance of the Certificates Of Canvass Of
Votes And Proclamation Of The Winning Candidates For Provincial
Offices. Supervening events rendered petition moot.
HASSAN V COMELEC (NOTICE OF SPECIAL ELECTION)
264 SCRA 125
FACTS:
 Hadji Nor Basher L. Hassan and Private Respondent Mangondaya P. Hassan
Buatan were Vice-Mayor Candidates in Mandalum Lanao del Sur. Because of
threats of violence and terrorism during the election period, there was a failure of
elections in 6 out of the 24 precincts.
 Ballot boxes were burned, while in other precincts, members of the Board of
Election Inspectors failed to report to their respective polling places.
 COMELEC recommended the holding of the special elections in the 6 precincts
appointing police/military personnel to substitute for the Board of Election
Inspectors. The special election was in favor of Private respondent Buatan.
 Petitioner Hadji Nor Basher L. Hassan filed a petition with the COMELEC docketed
as SPA 95-283 assailing the validity of the May 29 re-scheduled special elections
on the following grounds:
a) The voting which started at 10:00 A.M. was forcibly ended at around 2:00
p.m. because of exchanges of rapid gunfiring and grenade launching
between unknown elements and the Army or PNP soldiers;
b) The voting was moved to Liangan Elementary (Arabic) School, located about
15 kilometers away from the respective polling places;
c) Notices in the transfer of venue of the voting was sent only on
the night of May 28, 1995 and only to a few but not to all concerned;
d) Only 328 out of the 1,645 registered voters of said 5 precincts were able to
vote constituting only about 21.1% and disenfranchising 78% of the
registered voters thereof; and
e) The regular members of the BEI did not report for duty and were substituted
by military personnel.[3]
COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition for a declaration of a failure of elections.
HELD:
 There was a failure of the Elections.
 The COMELEC explained that:
Jurisprudence holds that terrorism may not as a rule be invoked to declare a failure
of elections and to disenfranchise the greater number of the electorate through the
misdeeds of only a relative few.
The COMELEC Team, decided to transfer the polling places to Liangan Elementary
School which was 15 kilometers away from the polling place. Voting on May 29 had
to be suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting because
of threats of violence, grenade launching and gunfires. The Memorandum and Offer
of Evidence submitted by the petitioner are quite revealing, among which are the
following:
1. Burned ballot Boxes,
2. (2) Certification by the Madalum Acting Election Officer on the appointment of
substitute members, because of failure of the regular members thereof to report
for duty in the special election;
3. Minutes of Voting for Pct. 9, showing that 59 of the 418 registered voters
voted; voting started at 11:40 a.m. and ended at 2:25 p.m.; only 58 valid ballots
were found inside the ballot box; and the reported violence and terrorism
 4. Joint affidavit of the Hassans stating that unidentified gunmen began
indiscriminately fired their guns around the polling place which provoked the
military serving the precincts to close the ballot boxes and the other military men
guarding the polling place reacted and also fired their guns which caused panic
to the voters around;
That to our evaluation at the closing of the voting at 2:00 p.m. only more or less
20 percent of the registered voters in each of the five precincts have casted their
votes
Notice
It is essential for the validity of the election that the voters have notice in some form,
either actual or constructive of the time, place and purpose thereof. The time for
holding it must be authoritatively designated in advance. The requirement of notice
even becomes stricter in cases of special elections where it was called by some
authority after the happening of a condition precedent, or at least there must be a
substantial compliance therewith so that it may fairly and reasonably be said that the
purpose of the statute has been carried into effect. The sufficiency of notice is
determined on whether the voters generally have knowledge of the time, place and
purpose of the elections so as to give them full opportunity to attend the polls and
express their will or on the other hand, whether the omission resulted in depriving a
sufficient number of the qualified electors of the opportunity of exercising their
franchise so as to change the result of the election
There was insufficiency. The low turnout of voters is more than sufficient proof that the
elections conducted on that day was vitiated. A less than a days notice of time and
transfer of polling places 15 kilometers away from the original polls certainly deprived
the electors the opportunity to participate in the elections.
COMELEC erred in stating that the votes uncast would not have in any way affected
the results of the elections. While the difference between the two candidates is only
219 out of the votes actually cast, the COMELEC totally ignored the fact
In short, there was failure of election. The proper remedy is an action before the
Comelec en banc to declare a failure of election or to annul the election. RA 7166
provides that: The postponement, declaration of failure of election and the calling of
special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Omnibus Election Code
shall be decided by the Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its members.
The causes for the declaration of a failure of election may occur before or after the
casting of votes or on the day of the election (CARLOS vs COMELEC)that there were
more than a thousand registered voters who failed to vote. Aside from Precinct 7-A
where the ballot box had been burned and which had 219 voters, the COMELEC
failed to consider the disenfranchisement of about 78% of the registered voters in the
five (5) precincts of Madalum. Out of the 1,546 registered voters, only 328 actually
voted because of the insufficient and ineffectual notice given of the time and place of
elections
Election is invalid.
Related notes regarding failure of elections
***2 Conditions before COMELEC acts on a verified petition to declare failure of
election:
No voting took place in the polling places on the date fixed by law, or even if there
was voting, the election resulted in failure to elect
The votes that were not cast affect the results of the election. (Mitmug vs
COMELEC)
2 conditions to declare failure of election:
No voting took place in any polling place due to fraud, force majeure, violence or
terrorism
Votes not cast are sufficient to affect results of election. (Labor vs COMELEC)
FAILURE OF ELECTION
There are only three (3) instances where a failure of election may be declared,
namely:
1) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of
force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes;
2) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law
for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud,
or other analogous causes; or
3) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns
or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on
account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes.
(Canicosa vs Comelec)
Before COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of
election, at least two (2) conditions must concur:
1) no voting has taken place in the precincts on the date fixed by law, or even if there
was voting, the election nevertheless resulted in failure to elect; and
2) the votes that were not cast would affect the result of the election. (Canicosa vs
Comelec)
HOW DO YOU INITIATE:
A verified petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing. (Canicosa
vs Comelec)
Two (2) conditions must exist before a failure of election may be declared:
1) no voting has been held in any precinct or precincts due to fraud, force majeure,
violence or terrorism; and
2) the votes not cast therein are sufficient to affect the results of the election. (Batabor
vs Comelec)
LUCERO VS. COMELEC (Repeated case) special election under Section 6, then it could have easily done so in Section 4 of R.
G.R. No. 113107 July 20, 1994 A. No. 7166.
 Court granted the special election because it is statistically probable that it will affect
 The two requirements for a special election under Section 6 of the Omnibus the result of the election.
Election Code is that: (1) it should be not later than thirty 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, BENITO v COMELEC (supra)
suspended, or which resulted in failure to elect.
 These requirements were met in the instant case. The first involves questions of
fact. The second must be determined in the light of the peculiar circumstances of a
case. In the instant case, the delay was not attributable to the poor voters of
Precinct No. 13 or to the rest of the electorate of the Second Legislative District of
Northern Samar. The delay was primarily caused by the legal skirmishes or
maneuvers of the petitioners which muddled simple issues.
 In the course of the deliberations on these cases, the Court considered the possible
application, by analogy, of Section 10, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution providing
that no special election in the event of a vacancy in the Offices of the President and
Vice President "shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before
the date of the next presidential election," and of the second paragraph of Section 4
of R. A. No. 7166 which provides:
 In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the Senate or House of
Representatives at least one (1) year before the expiration of the term, the
Commission shall call and hold a special election to fill the vacancy not earlier than
sixty (60) days nor longer than ninety (90) days after the occurrence of the vacancy.
However, in case of such vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall be held
simultaneously with the next succeeding regular election.
 The underlying philosophy for the prohibition to hold the special election if the
vacancy occurred within a certain period before the next regular election, as the
case may be, is obviously the avoidance of the expense to be incurred in the
holding of a special election.
 The Court ultimately resolved that the aforesaid constitutional and statutory
proscriptions are inapplicable to special elections which may be called under
Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. First, the special election in the former is
to fill permanent vacancies in the Office of the President, Vice President, and
Members of Congress occurring after the election, while the special election under
the latter is due to or by reason of a failure of election. Second, a special election
under Section 6 would entail minimal costs because it is limited to only the precincts
involved and to the candidates who, by the result of the election in a particular
constituency, would be affected by the failure of election. On the other hand, the
special election for the Offices of the President, Vice President, and Senators would
be nation-wide, and that of a Representative, district-wide. Third, Section 6, when
specifically applied to the instant case, presupposes that no candidate had been
proclaimed and therefore the people of the Second Legislative District of Northern
Samar would be unrepresented in the House of Representatives until the special
election shall ultimately determine the winning candidate, such that if none is held,
they would have no representation until the end of the term. under the aforesaid
constitutional and statutory provisions, the elected officials have already served
their constituencies for more than one-half of their terms of office. Fourth, if the law
had found it fit to provide a specific and determinate time-frame for the holding of a