Group 3 - 1A Constitutional Law I

Article IX - Commission on Elections Reviewer

Section 1.

1. There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners

who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must
not have been candidates for any elective positions in the immediately preceding
elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of
the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

2. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent
of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment.
Of those first appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two
Members for five years, and the last Members for three years, without reappointment.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor.
In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
capacity.

Codal Breakdown

Par 1
Q: What is the COMELEC composed of?
A:
1) One Chairman
2) Six Commissioners

Q: What are the requirements for all members?

A:
1) Natural-born citizen of the Philippines
2) At least 35 years of age at the time of their appointment
3) Holders of a college degree
4) Must not have been a candidate for any elective position in the immediately preceding
election

Q: A majority of the members must be members of the what?

A: The Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years

Par 2
Q: Who shall appoint the Chairman and the Commissioners?
A: The President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments

Q: How long is their term of appointment?

A: 7 years without reappointment
Q: What is the term of office of those first appointed (meaning the first batch of appointees)?
A:
- 3 members for 7 years without reappointment
- 2 members for 5 years without reappointment
- 1 member for 1 year without reappointment

Q: What is the term of office for an appointee who fills a vacancy?

A: Only for the unexpired term of the predecessor

Q: What kind of appointment or designation is prohibited?

A: Temporary or acting capacity

Starting point for appointees: February 2, 1987. In reckoning the seven-year term, counting must start
from February 2 even if the appointee took office later. This is to preserve the staggering of the terms.

The provisions prohibit the appointment of Members in a temporary or acting capacity. Moreover,
Article 11, A, Section 1 provides for the independence of the Commissions. The choice of a
temporary chairman falls under the discretion of the Commission and cannot be exercised by the
President. (Brillantes Jr. v. Yorac, G.R. No. 93867, December 18, 1990.)
 Cayetano v. Monsod
September 3, 1991 | Paras, J. | Meaning of the practice of law

PETITIONER: ​Renato L. Cayetano

RESPONDENTS: ​Christian Monsod, Hon. Jovito R. Salonga, Commission on Appointments, and Hon.
Guillermo Carague in his capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management

SUMMARY:

The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1(1), Article IX-C:

There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who
shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least
thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any
elective positions in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including
the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years.

However, there seems to be no jurisprudence as to what constitutes practice of law as a legal definition to
an appointive office.

Monsod was nominated by President Corazon Aquino for the position of COMELEC Chairman in 1991.
Cayetano opposed the nomination on the ground that Monsod does not possess the required qualification of
having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.

The Commission on Appointments confirmed Monsod’s nomination. He then took his oath office and then
assumed his office as COMELEC Chairman.

Cayetano challenges the validity of the confirmation by the Commission, praying that it and the
appointment be declared null and void.

Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar. After graduating UP Law and passing the bar, he worked in the
law office of his father. While he was in the World Bank, he worked as an operations officer which
involved getting acquainted with the laws of member-countries, and coordinating legal work for the Bank.
He has also rendered legal and economic consultations to various companies. He was also once the
Solicitor General and National Chairman of NAMFREL which involved being knowledgeable in election
law. He has worked with the underprivileged sectors in the agrarian reform law and the urban land reform
bill as his advocacy.

DOCTRINE:
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts
which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of
service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge of skill.

ISSUE:
1. WON Monsod has met the 10 year requirement - YES

RATIO:

Black defines "practice of law" as:

"The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and
technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in
court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of
pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the
preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It
embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law.
An attorney engages in the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be
an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal
matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and collecting
fees for services rendered by his associate." (​Black's Law Dictionary, ​3rd ed.).

The framers of the Constitution give a liberal meaning to the practice of law. They said that as long as
it involves legal work, then it can be within the ambit of the practice of law.

Mr. Foz: ​"To avoid any misunderstanding which would result in excluding members of the
Bar who are now employed in the COA or Commission on Audit, we would like to make the
clarification that this provision on qualifications regarding members of the Bar does not
necessarily refer or involve actual practice of law outside the COA. We have to interpret
this to mean that as long as the lawyers who are employed in the COA are using their legal
knowledge or legal talent in their respective work within COA, then they are qualified to be
considered for appointment as members or commissioners, even chairman, of the
Commission on Audit.

Mr. Ople: ​Is he, in effect, saying that service in the COA by a lawyer is equivalent to the
requirement of a law practice that is set forth in the Article on the Commission on Audit?

Mr. Foz: We must consider the fact that the work of COA although it is auditing, will
necessarily involve legal work; it will involve legal work. And, therefore, lawyers who are
employed in COA now would have the necessary qualifications in accordance with the
provision on qualifications under our provisions on the Commission on Audit. And,
therefore, the answer is yes​.

Corollary to this is the term "private practitioner" and which is in many ways synonymous with the
word "lawyer." Today, although many lawyers do not engage in private practice, it is still a fact that
the majority of lawyers are private practitioners.
It might be helpful to define ​private practice.​ The term, as commonly understood, means "an
individual or organization engaged in the business of delivering legal services."

The appearance of a lawyer in litigation in behalf of a client is at once the most publicly familiar role
for lawyers as well as an uncommon role for the average lawyer. Most lawyers spend little time in
courtrooms, and a large percentage spend their entire practice without litigating a case.

Most lawyers will engage in non​-litigation legal work or in litigation work that is constrained in very
important ways, at least theoretically, so as to remove from it some of the salient features of
adversarial litigation.

Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term "practice of law", particularly the modern
concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers
of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer​-economist, a lawyer-​manager,
a lawyer-​entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-​negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-​legislator of both the
rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

Section 2​​. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum, and recall.
2. Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or
involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Decisions, final
orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay
offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.
3. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including
determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and
inspectors, and registration of voters.
4. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of
the Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring
free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
5. Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition
to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens'
arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered.
Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and
adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be
refused registration. Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to political
parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates related to elections, constitute interference in national
affairs, and, when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration with
the Commission, in addition to other penalties that may be prescribed by law.
6. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion
of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including
acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
7. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, including limitation
of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of
election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.
8. Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has deputized, or the
imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to, its
directive, order, or decision.
9. Submit to the President and the Congress, a comprehensive report on the conduct of each election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.

Codal Breakdown

Par 1
Q: What will they enforce and administer?
A: All laws and regulations

Q: What are these laws and regulations relative to?

A: The conduct of an :
1) Election
2) Plebiscite
3) Initiative
4) Referendum
5) Recall

Par 2
Q: Over what kind of cases do they exercise exclusive jurisdiction?
A: All contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial,
and city officials.

Q: Over what kind of cases do they exercise appellate jurisdiction?

A: They exercise appellate jurisdiction over:
1) All contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general
jurisdiction OR
2) All contests involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction

Q: What kind of decisions, final orders, and rulings of the COMELEC are final, executory, and
not appealable?
A: Election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices

Par 3
Q: What kind of questions or matters do they decide?
A: The decide all questions affecting elections, including:
1) Determination of the number and location of polling places
2) Appointment of elections officials and inspectors
3) Registration of voters

Q: What is the exception?

A: Except those involving the right to vote
Par 4
Q: Who do they deputize?
A: They deputize law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, including
1) AFP

Q: For what purpose do they do this?

A: For the exclusive purpose of ensuring an election that is
1) Free
2) Orderly
3) Honest
4) Peaceful and
5) Credible

Par 5 (1)
Q: Who can they register after sufficient publication?
A: They can register the following:
1) Political parties
2) Organizations OR
3) Coalitions

Q: What must these political parties, orgs, and coalitions present in addition to other
requirements
A: Their platform or program of government

Q: What will they accredit?

A: The Citizens’ arms of the COMELEC

Q: Who are not allowed to be registered?

A: Religious denominations and sects

Q: Who shall be refused registration?

A: Those who:
1) Seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means
2) Refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution OR
3) Are supported by any foreign government

Par 5 (2)

Q: What shall constitute interference in national affairs?

A: Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to political parties,
organizations, coalitions, or candidates

Q: What is the nature of these financial contributions?

A: Financial contributions related to elections

Q: What happens if these are accepted?

A: It shall be
1) Additional ground for cancellation of their registration with the Commission
2) In addition to other penalties that may be prescribed by law
Par 6

Q: What can they petition in court?

A: the inclusion or exclusion of voters

Q: When do they do this?

A: upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative

Q: What can they investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute

A: Cases of violations of election laws.

Q: What do these violations of election laws include?

A: Acts or omissions constituting:
1) Election fraud
2) Offenses
3) malpractices

Par 7

Q: What can they recommend to Congress?

A: The following:
1) Effective measures to minimize election spending, including limitation of places where
propaganda materials shall be posted
2) Prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance
candidacies.

Par 8

Q: What can they recommend to the President?

A: The following:
1) Removal of any officer or employee it has deputized
2) Imposition of any other disciplinary action

Q: For what reason do they do this?

A: for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order, or decision

Par 9

Q: What do they submit to the President and Congress?

A: A comprehensive report on the conduct of each
1) Election
2) Plebiscite
3) Initiative
4) Referendum
5) Recall

Administrative Powers
● The COMELEC is an administrative agency, which posses powers that are executive,
quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.
Overview of Comelec Jurisdiction
● Original jurisdiction over all contests relating to election, returns and qualification of all
elective regional, provincial and city officials
● Appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial
courts of general jurisdiction or, involving elective barangay officials decidedly trial courts of
limited jurisdiction.
○ Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving
elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable
● The Commission has the jurisdiction to issue writs of ​certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto
and ​habeas corpus.
○ This is only in aid of its appelate jurisdiction over election protest cases involving
elective municipal officials decided by courts of general jurisdiction (​Carlos v. Judge
Angeles)​
○ Exception:
■ If there is a grave abuse of discretion or any other jurisdictional error exists.
● During the election period, supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises
or permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities, media of
communication or information, all grants, special privileges, or concessions of the
Government
○ Aims to ensure equal opportunity for public information campaigns with the objective
of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections
● The COMELEC has jurisdiction over intra-party disputes, having the authority to ascertain
the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers (​Atienza v. COMELEC​)
Election Contests
● Plebiscites are within the jurisdiction of Comelec and ​not of regular courts (​Buac and Bautista
v. Comelec​).
● The commission has jurisdiction over intra-party disputes, pursuant to its constitutional
mandate to promote free, orderly and honest elections (​LDP v. Comelec​).
● The commission may promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation of election
laws (​Gallardo v. Tabamo​).
● Comelec’s jurisdiction ​ends when a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken oath and
assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives or Senate.
○ Comelec’s jurisdiction ceases in contention of municipal office when there is a
proclamation (​Arcenas v, Comelec).

Pre-proclamation Contests

● Administrative or quasi-judicial ● Governed by requirements of judicial

● Governed by requirements of process
administrative due process

Powers ​not​​ Given

● May not transfer municipalities from one congressional district to another, pursuant to the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commissions on the subject (​Montejo v. Commission​).
● Elections of Sangguniang Kabataan are ​not​ subject to supervision of the Comelec.
 ● Commission ​cannot review contests involving the election of officers of a barangay
federation.
● Does ​not​ have the power to decide questions involving “the right to vote”.
○ The right to vote is a matter of judicial determination. COMELEC may file petitions
in court for inclusion/exclusion of voters
● The commission may ​not exercise the power of contempt under the purview of its executive
or ministerial functions.
○ It may exercise such power but only in furtherance of its quasi-judicial functions
Deputizing law enforcement agencies
● The commission covers criminal and administrative cases, HOWEVER, under section 2(8) it
may merely issue a recommendation to the President (​Tan v. Comelec​).
● Acts of delegated officers are in legal contemplation acts of the COMELEC
● Covers not just criminal cases but also administrative cases
Registration of parties and organizations
● General rule:
○ All political parties and organizations that present their platform or program of
government and satisfy the requirements prescribed by law may register
● Exception:
○ Religious denominations, sects, organizations, those which seek to achieve their goals
through violence and refuse to adhere or uphold the Constitution, or are supported
and/or accepting financial contributions from foreign governments.
Prosecution of election offenses
● The commision has exclusive jurisdiction to try election offenses committed by public
officers.
● Exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations in cases involving election offenses
● The commision has the power to annul an entire municipal election on the ground of
post-election terrorism
● The commission must bow down to the the legislature, which has the power to determine the
kind of election offenses that the former may prosecute.
● COMELEC may disallow Presidential grant of executive clemency, parole, or suspension of
sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and regulations

Atienza v. COMELEC
Facts:
Petitioners Atienza ​et al. ​filed a petition for mandatory and prohibitory injunction before the
COMELEC to enjoin private respondent Roxas from assuming the presidency of the LP, claiming that
the National Executive Council (NECO) assembly that elected him was invalidly convened: as there
was no quorum, Atienza, incumbent LP chairman wasn’t invited, and private respondent Drilon
arbitrarily thumbed down Atienza’s allies and railroaded the proceedings.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it upheld the NECO
membership that elected Roxas as LP president; and
2. Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it resolved the issue
regarding the validity of the NECO meeting without first resolving the expulsion of Atienza,
et al.​ from the party.
Ruling:
1. The list of NECO members petitioner is invoking, was drawn before the May 2007 elections
that changed the NECO membership and had to be redrawn to comply with the amended LP
Constitution. Thus the NECO was validly convened in accordance with the amended LP
Constitution.
2. COMELEC didn’t selectively exercise its jurisdiction when it ruled on the composition of the
NECO but refused to delve into the legality of petitioner’s expulsion from the party.
COMELEC’s jurisdiction over intra-party disputes is limited. It does not have blanket
authority to resolve any and all controversies involving political parties. Political parties are
generally free to conduct their activities without interference from the state. The COMELEC
may intervene in disputes internal to a party ONLY when necessary to the discharge of its
constitutional functions.

Doctrine:
Sec 2(5), Art IX-C: The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in
addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit
citizens' arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be
registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to
uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall
likewise be refused registration.
(​Kalaw v. COMELEC)​
The powers and functions of COMELEC in Sec 2, Art IX-C of the Constitution, include the
ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its legitimate officers responsible for the acts.
The COMELEC’s power to register political parties necessarily involved the determination of the
persons who must act on its behalf. Thus the COMELEC may resolve an intra-party leadership
dispute in a proper case brought before it, AS AN INCIDENT OF ITS POWER TO REGISTER
POLITICAL PARTIES.
 Arroyo v DOJ
18 September 2012 | Peralta, J | Section 2(6)

PETITIONER​​: JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO/ Benjamin Abalos/ Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

RESPONDENTS​​: DOJ / Leila De Lima (as SOJ) / COMELEC

SUMMARY​​: Petitioners question the creation and legality of Joint Order No. 001-2011 creating
a joint DOJ- COMELEC Preliminary Investigative Committee and Fact-finding Team
specifically created to investigate alleged electoral violations and electoral fraud in the 2004 and
2007 national elections. Petitioners argue that this violates the equal protection clause and their
right to due process. Also, by creating the joint committee, petitioners claim that COMELEC’s
independence from the executive is compromised, by involving DOJ in the process.

The court held that the Joint Order is constitutional, based on Article IX Section 2(6), and under
the Omnibus Election Code, while the COMELEC is given the power to exclusively conduct
preliminary investigations, the same law authorizes the COMELEC to avail itself of the
assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government. The SC finds no impediment for the
COMELEC and DOJ to create the joint preliminary investigation committee and fact-finding
team.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions. The joint order and the initial report are valid, but the
rules of procedure on the conduct of the preliminary investigation is declared ineffective for lack
of publication. (citing Tanada V. Tuvera)

DOCTRINE: ​It is within the ambit of COMELEC’s functions and powers to file, upon a verified
complaint, or on its own initiative, investigate, and where appropriate, prosecute cases of
violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and
malpractices.

FACTS:
This is a consolidated case from three petitions from Mike Arroyo, Former Comelec Chair
Benjamin Abalos, and former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. A joint fact-finding team
composed of the DOJ and COMELEC was tasked to investigate electoral fraud and
manipulation cases in the 2004 and 2007 elections. Petitioners also assail the Rule of
Procedure on the conduct of the Preliminary Investigation on the alleged election fraud.

Antecedent Facts:
Acting on the discovery of alleged new evidence and the surfacing of new witnesses
indicating the occurrence of massive electoral fraud and manipulation of election results in the
2004 and 2007 National Elections, on August 2, 2011, the Comelec issued Resolution No.
9266 approving the creation of a committee jointly with the DOJ, which conducted
preliminary investigation on the alleged election offenses and anomalies committed during the
2004 and 2007 elections. The team also promulgated its rules of procedure.
 The team’s initial report concluded that there was a manipulation of results in the provinces of
North and South Cotabato and Maguindanao. This report recommended that GMA and
Abalos be subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage for conspiring and
manipulating results in said provinces, and for Mike Arroyo to be further investigated. The
joint committee issued a resolution which was endorsed to COMELEC. COMELEC Law
Department then filed with the RTC of Pasay City an information against petitioners and
others for violation of RA 9369 (election automation law-tampers, increases or decreases the
votes received)

ISSUES:

WON Joint Order No. 001-2011 “Creating and Constituting a Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary
Investigation Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections Electoral
Fraud and Manipulation Cases” is constitutional -YES

WON the COMELEC has jurisdiction under the law to conduct preliminary investigation jointly with
the DOJ.
A. Whether or not due process was observed by the Joint DOJ-COMELEC
Fact-Finding Team and Preliminary Investigation Committee, and the COMELEC in
the conduct of the preliminary investigation and approval of the Joint Panel’s
Resolution.

WON the independence of the COMELEC has been abdicated: NO

RATIO:

Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution enumerates the powers and functions of the Comelec.
Paragraph (6) thereof vests in the Comelec the power to:

(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or
exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws,
including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.

This is made to enable COMELEC to insure the free, orderly, and honest conduct of elections.

Pursuant to law and the Comelec’s own Rules, investigations may be conducted either by the Comelec
itself through its law department or through the prosecutors of the DOJ.

Also, under the constitution, the Constitutional Commissions are independent bodies which are not
under the control of the President (executive), and under the Omnibus Election Code, COMELEC was
given the right to avail the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government such as the
prosecutors of the DOJ.
Recommendatory Powers

(7) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, including
limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms
of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidates.

(8) Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has deputized, or the
imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its
directive, order, or decision.

(9) Submit to the President and the COngress a comprehensive report on the conduct of each election
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.

Section 3. ​The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its
rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre- proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.

Codal Breakdown

Q: How can the COMELEC sit to decide cases?

A: En banc or in two divisions

Q: What shall they do to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation

controversies?
A: Promulgate rules of procedure

Q: How are all election cases heard and decided?

A: In division

Q: How are motions for reconsideration of decisions decided?

A: En Banc

1. While the constitution requires that rules of procedure must hasten the process of election
cases, the court has ruled that a strict construction of the provision should not be applied.
Overly strict adherence to the provision may result in erroneous decisions which would
subvert the will of the electorate (​Alvarez v. Comelec,​ GR 142527, March 1, 2001)
2. The constitutional provision requiring motions for reconsideration of decisions to be decided
by COMELEC ​en banc refers to a resolution of substantive issues. As such, procedural issues
like a dismissal due to lack of interest by concerned party may be heard by a division.
(​Salazar Jr. v. COMELEC,​ GR 85742, April 19, 1990)
3. The constitution provides that electoral cases should be decided by COMELEC sitting in a
division. As such, electoral cases decided by the court ​en banc at first instance will be null
and void. (​Soller v COMELEC,​ GR 139853, Sept. 5, 2000)
Section 4. ​The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or regulate the enjoyment or
utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities,
media of communication or information, all grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned
or controlled corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure equal
opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for
public information campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the objective of
holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

Codal Breakdown
Q: What may the COMELEC supervise or regulate during election period?
A: The enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of
1) Transportation and other public utilities
2) Media of communication or information
3) All grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the Government or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including GOCC or its subsidiary

Q: What shall such supervision or regulation ensure?

A: Equal opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable rates therefor

Q: For what purpose do they do this?

A: For public information campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the objective
of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

CAYETANO v. COMELEC ​The conduct of plebiscite ​and determination of its result have always
been the business of the COMELEC and not the regular courts. Such a case involves the appreciation
of ballots, which is best left to the COMELEC. As an independent constitutional body exclusively
charged with the power of enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall, the COMELEC has the
indisputable expertise in the field of election and related laws. Its acts, therefore, enjoy the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

MARIA LAARNI CAYETANO v. COMELEC ​Only ​final orders of the COMELEC in Division
may be raised before the COMELEC ​en banc. Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution
mandates that only motions for reconsideration of final decisions shall be decided by the COMELEC
en banc

REGULATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, MEDIA, FRANCHISES

Transportation and other public utilities as well as mass media play a very important role in elections
and can be used to disrupt free, orderly and honest elections.

During election periods they may be supervised or regulated by the COMELEC.

Power subsists not just during the period of voting for public officers but also during referenda and
plebiscites especially if constitutional amendments are at issue.
Print media may not be compelled to allocate free space to the COMELEC would amount to a
prohibited taking of property without compensation.

Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules,
and regulations shall be granted by the President without the favorable recommendation of the
Commission.

Q: Is the recommendation of the Commission required before the President to grant pardon, to
a person who has been convicted of violating election laws, rules and regulations?
A: Yes. Article IX, Sec. 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution requires for the Commission to make a
recommendation to the President before the President can pardon a person who has been convicted of
violating election laws, rules and regulations.

Q: Is the recommendation of the Commission also required in cases where the President grants
amnesty to those who have been convicted of violating election laws, rules and regulations?
A: Yes. Article IX, Sec. 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution also provides that in cases of amnesty
being granted by the President to those who have been convicted of violating election laws, rules and
regulations, the Commission’s recommendation is required before amnesty is granted.

Q: Is the recommendation of the Commission also required in cases where the President grants
parole to someone who has been convicted of violating election laws, rules and regulations?
A: Yes. Article IX, Sec. 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution also provides that in cases of parole
being granted by the President to someone who has been convicted of violating election laws, rules
and regulations, the Commission’s recommendation is required before parole is granted.

Q: Is the recommendation of the Commission also required in cases where the President
suspends the sentence of someone who has been convicted of violating election laws, rules and
regulations?
A: Yes. Article IX, Sec. 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution also provides that in cases of the
President suspending the sentence of someone who has been convicted of violating election laws,
rules and regulations, the Commission’s recommendation is required before the suspension of the
sentence is granted.
 GR No. 206666 Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC (RISOS-VIDAL)
January 21, 2015 | Leonardo-De Castro | Article IX – RECOMMENDATORY POWERS

PETITIONER: ​Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal and Alfredo S. Lim

RESPONDENTS: ​Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Joseph Ejercito Estrada

SUMMARY: ​Vidal and Lim assailed the proclamation of Joseph Ejercito Estrada as the Mayor of
Manila in 2013. Lim in particular, invoked that Estrada was disqualified from running for and holding
office due to his previous conviction for Plunder which was pardoned by President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo in 2007.

DOCTRINE: ​Recommendatory powers of the COMELEC

FACTS:
1. Joseph Ejercito Estrada was convicted for Plunder, but was later pardoned by President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo in 2007.
2. He then tried to return to politics by running for President of the Philippines in 2010, but he
lost.
3. In 2013, he ran for Mayor of Manila and won. Thus, he was proclaimed as the Mayor of
Manila in the same year.
4. However, Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal, along with former Manila Mayor Alfredo S. Lim, filed a
case against COMELEC and Estrada, assailing that Estrada is ineligible to run and hold office
because of his previous conviction for Plunder.
5. Risos-Vidal claimed that the pardon that was extended to Estrada (which he also accepted) is
a conditional pardon. Furthermore, she invoked Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code which
provides that those who are granted a pardon do not get their eligibility to run for and hold
public office restored.

ISSUES:
1. WON Estrada was granted a conditional pardon. NO
2. WON the pardoning power of the President can be limited by legislature – NO
3. WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving Estrada a
favorable recommendation prior to the issuance of the pardon to him by President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo - NO

RATIO:

1. The pardon that was granted to Estrada is an absolute pardon. This means that his full civil
and political rights have been restored, including his right to run for and hold public office.
2. The President’s pardoning power cannot be limited by legislature because any act of Congress
by way of statute cannot operate to delimit the President’s power to grant pardon.
Furthermore, Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code cannot abridge or diminish the
Constitution’s mandate over the extent of the President’s pardoning power.
 3. THE COMELEC DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN GIVING
ESTRADA THE FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION THAT RESULTED TO
PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO EXTENDING PARDON TO HIM
BECAUSE THE COMELEC DID NOT EXERCISE THEIR POWER TO DECIDE ON
THE ISSUE IN A MANNER THAT INVOLVES PASSION, PREJUDICE OR
PERSONAL HOSTILITY.

OSMENA v. COMELEC ​The law was also held ​violative of Section 9, Article IX of the 1987
Constitution by changing the campaign period. Filing of Certificate of Candidacy and campaign
period must be ninety (90) days before the election and shall end thirty (30) days thereafter. RA 7056
provides for a different campaign period, as follows:

a.) For President and Vice-Presidential elections, one hundred thirty (130) days before the day of
election;
b.) For Senatorial elections, ninety (90) days before the day of the election; and
c.) For the election of Members of the House of Representatives and local elective provincial, city and
municipal officials forty-five (45) days before the day of the elections.

NPC v. COMELEC ​The COMELEC is expressly ​authorized by the Constitution to supervise or

regulate the enjoyment or utilization of the franchises or permits for the operation of media of
communication and information in order to ensure "equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to
reply" as well as uniform and reasonable rates of charges for the use of such media facilities in
connection with "public information campaigns and forums among candidates".

Thus a law which considers unlawful any sale or donation of print space and airtime for "campaign or
other political purposes" except to the COMELEC is valid as it constitutes supervision or regulation
of media operations as contemplated in Section 11(4) of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution
 GMA Network v COMELEC
2 September 2014 | Peralta, J | Section 5

PETITIONER​​: GMA Network et al

RESPONDENTS​​: COMELEC

SUMMARY​​: GMA Network, along with other broadcasting companies in the Philippines, assailed the
regulations by the COMELEC in relation to the conduct of the 2013 national and local elections dealing
with political advertisements. To be specific, Sec 9 of COMELEC Resolution no. 9615 which limits
advertisements for candidates and political parties to a total aggregate of 120 and 180 minutes, respectively.
This is contrary to a previous resolution for 2007 and 2010, which interpreted RA 9006 the number of
minutes per station, unlike in 2013 where it limited to the total aggregate. Compared to the earlier
computation, this is vague and restrictive as alleged by the petitioners. Petitioners claim Sec 7, 9, and 14 of
violate the Equal Protection Clause and Freedom of Speech, Express, and Press of the Constitution and not
in line with RA 9006. COMELEC contends however that the petitioners do not have locus standi, did not
follow the proper certiorari, and did not abused their discretion in promulgating the Resolution. COMELEC
intended to “level the playing field” in doing this. The Court disagreed with COMELEC and declared Sec 9
unconstitutional because it unduly restricts and constrains the ability of candidates to be able to campaign
themselves in the media. It is unreasonable and arbitrary, and does not constitute a compelling state interest
in the restriction on the freedom of candidates and political parties to communicate their ideas,
philosophies, platforms, and programs of the government.

DOCTRINE: ​COMELEC cannot pass a resolution which restricts the candidates ability to campaign that is
contrary to the law it is enforcing.

FACTS:
1. COMELEC promulgated Resolution 9615.
2. It limited political ads for candidates and party lists to 120 and 180 hours respectively in an
aggregate computation.
3. GMA Network and others contested because it is in violation of the equal protection clause,
not in line with RA 9006, violated freedom of speech, expression, and press.
4. COMELEC disagreed as it intended what the law told them to do so.

ISSUES:
1. If Resolution 9615 is unconstitutional (YES)

RATIO:

1. Aggregate based limits are unreasonable, limits ability of candidates to share ideas.
2. RA 9006 did not intend to limit airtime for the whole candidate, only for the station it is
campaigning in.
Section 6. A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of
the people, subject to the provisions of this article.

What are Political Parties?

Section 199 of the 1978 Election Code defined Political Parties as “any group of persons pursuing the
same political ideals in government may register with the Commission and be entitled to the same
rights and privileges.” (​Geronimo vs COMELEC​, 104 SCRA 17, 39, April 3, 1981)

What is the importance of registration of a political party?

1. Registration confers juridical personality of the political party.

2. It informs the public of the party’s existence and ideals.
3. It identifies the party and it offers for purposes of regulation by the COMELEC. (Bernas SJ,
The 1987 Philippine Constitution Primer)

Do coalitions have to register in order to enjoy the benefits of a registered political party?

Yes, because the coalition is distinct in personality from that of the coalescing parties. (​Liberal Party
vs COMELEC​, GR 191771, May 6, 2010)

To register for purposes of the electoral process, must an organization be a political party?

No. Section 2(5) in the Commission on Elections provides that “Register, after sufficient publication,
political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present
their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the Commission on Elections.
(Bernas SJ, The 1987 Philippine Constitution Primer)

Is there a distinction between an accredited political party and a registered political party?

The concept of accreditation no longer appears in the new Constitution. For purposes of the electoral
process, all parties, organizations, and coalitions are considered equal. (Bernas SJ, The 1987
Philippine Constitution Primer)

Section 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid,
except for those registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.

Is block-voting allowed?

In effect Section 7 prohibits block-voting “​except for those registered under the party-list system.”
(Bernas SJ, The 1987 Philippine Constitution Primer)

Section 8. Political Parties, or organization or coalitions registered under the party-list system,
shall not be represented in the voters’ registration boards of election inspectors, boards of
canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in
accordance with law.
What party system does the Constitution promotes?

It promotes a ​multi-party o​ r​ open party system​. Free and open party system refers to a disengagement
from the sterile two-party system of the past and the multi-party system will be allowed to develop.
(Bernas SJ, Green Book)

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

Codal Breakdown
Q: When does the election period usually commence?
A: 90 days before the day of the election

Q: When does it end?

A: 30 days after the day of the election

Q: What is the exception to this rule?

A: Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special cases

Election period
·Period of time needed for administering an election
·Can go beyond the date for casting ballots
·Election period occurs 90 days before day of election and 30 days thereafter
O COMELEC can fix, in special cases, a different election period (“Unless otherwise fixed by
the Commission in special cases,”)

Campaign period
·Period of active solicitation of votes
·May be set by the legislature for period less than the “election period” as provided in Section 9.

Section 10.​​ Bona fide candidates for any public office shall be ​free​​ from any form of ​harassment
and discrimination.

Codal Breakdown
Q: Bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from what?
A: Any form of harassment and discrimination

Equal protection of candidates

·The State protects groups of individuals (political parties) and individuals (unaffiliated or partyless)
without any discrimination
O Specification of Bill of Rights Report No. 1 of COMELEC Committee of 1971 ConCon

Section 11. Funds certified​​ by the Commission as necessary to ​defray the expenses​​ for holding
regular and special elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be ​provided in the
regular or special appropriations​​ and, once approved, shall be released automatically ​upon
certification by the Chairman of the Commission.

Codal Breakdown
Q: Where are the funds certified by the Commission as necessary to conduct regular and special
elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls sourced from?
A: Regular or special appropriations

Q: What happens when they are approved?

A: They shall be automatically released upon certification by the Chairman of COMELEC

Fiscal autonomy
·COMELEC has its own funds in the regular and special appropriations act and AUTOMATICALLY
released upon certification of the Chairman of COMELEC
·Exempted from pre-audit