ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER) Professor: Atty.

Gallant Soriano

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW C. VALIDITY OF EXERCISE

QUASI-LEGISLATIVE OR RULE-MAKING POWER A. PERMISSIBILITY OF DELEGATION

CHAPTER 3 Whether or not there is (a) legislative grant of authority, (b) to
administrative bodies, (c) to issue rules and regulations
POWER OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION
Power given to administrative agencies to issue or promulgate rules and PERMISSIBLE DELEGATIONS
regulations necessary to carry out its functions 1. Delegation of Tariff Power to President (Sec. 28[2], Art. 6)
2. Delegation of Emergency Powers to President (Sec. 23[2], Art. 6)
RULES AND REGULATIONS 3. Delegation to People at Large (Sec. 2, Art. 17)
Those issued by administrative or executive officers in accordance with and 4. Delegation to Local Governments (Sec. 3, Art. 10)
as authorized by law 5. Delegation to Administrative Bodies (By legislative act and by implication)

RATIONALE Administrative Bodies have opportunity and
competence
NECESSITY To adapt to the increasing complexity of
modern life and variety of public functions
NATURE OF GRANT Relaxation of separation of powers and an
exception to non-delegation of legislative
powers
PASEI vs Torres
GR No. 98472, August 19, 1993
LOI 1190 is an administrative action. Unlike Presidential Decrees which by
usage have gained acceptance as laws promulgated by the President,
Letters of Instruction are presumed to be mere administrative issuances
except when the conditions set out in Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile exist.
Consequently, to be considered part of the law of the land, petitioners must
establish that LOI 1190 was issued in response to "a grave emergency or a
threat or imminence thereof, or whenever the interim Batasang Pambansa
or the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately on any
matter." The conspicuous absence of any of these conditions fortifies the
opinion that LOI 1190 cannot be any more than a mere administrative
issuance

Implicit in that power of control is the President's "authority to go over,

PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by his department secretaries."
Potestas Delegata Non Delegari Potest Moreover, if we discern the intent of LOI 1190 from the manner it was
BASIS: Delegated Power is a RIGHT and DUTY. If further delegated, such enforced, the unrebutted allegation of respondent – that 319 private
power becomes negated. employment agencies secured administrative presidential approval from
1982 to 1989 — shows that then President Marcos merely intended to
Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) vs Garcia regulate, and not ban altogether, new applications for licenses. For this
GR No. 115381, December 23, 1994 reason, Marcos could not have contemplated repealing Art. 25 of the Labor
Nowhere under E.O. No. 202 is LTFRB authorized to delegate the power to Code
fix rates to transport operators. This is tantamount to an undue delegation
of legislative power or authority Santiago vs COMELEC
GR No. 127325, March 19, 1997
ISSUES IN RULE-MAKING POWER COMELEC does not have the power under R.A. No. 6735 to promulgate rules
A. PERMISSIBILITY OF DELEGATION and regulations to implement the Constitutional provisions on initiative to
B. VALIDITY OF DELEGATION propose amendments to the Constitution

Habana Notes 2014-2015 1

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial
functions, to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation of
legislative authority… However, in every case of permissible delegation,
there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if
the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be
executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes a
standard — the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable
— to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.
RA No. 6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate
legislation. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid.
B. VALIDITY OF DELEGATION
Whether or not the grant meets the following:
1. COMPLETENESS TEST
Statute is complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves
the legislative so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when
it reaches him except enforce it
U.S. vs Ang Tang Ho
GR No. 17122
“Whenever, for any cause, conditions arise resulting in extraordinary rise in
the price of palay, rice or corn”
Under what conditions the rules may be issued?
What constitutes extraordinary increases in price of cereals?
INCOMPLETE! Why? There is still something left for the delegate to do other
than enforce!
2. SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST
Statute fixes a standard mapping out the boundaries of the delegate’s
authority
Ynot vs IAC
G.R. No. 74457
Transportation of carabaos case
EO 626-A is unconstitutional. One searches in vain for the usual standard
and the reasonable guideline or better still, the limitations that said officers
must observe when they make their distribution. There is none! The
reasonable connection between the means employed and the purpose
sought to be achieved by the questioned measure is missing.
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
C. VALIDITY OF EXERCISE
Whether or not the regulation conforms with (a) what the statute provides,
(b) whether the same is reasonable
LIMITATIONS ON RULE- MAKING POWER
1. NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION
2. NOT INCONSISTENT WITH STATUTE
3. CANNOT AMEND AN ACT OF CONGRESS
4. CANNOT EXCEED PROVISIONS OF BASIC LAW
5. REASONABLE, AND NOT UNFAIR OR DISCRIMINATORY
1. NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION
DAR vs Sutton
GR No. 162070, October 19, 2005
AO No. 9, seeking to regulate livestock farms by including them in the
coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for
their ownership, is unconstitutional, because the 1987 Constitutional
Commission deliberations show a clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all lands
exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and poultry-raising.
DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by
the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has exceeded its
powers
2. NOT INCONSISTENT WITH STATUTE
Statutory provisions control what rules and regulations may be promulgated
by administrative bodies
Solicitor General vs MMA
GR No. 102782, December 11, 1991
MMA Ordinance No. 11 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative power.
P.D. 1605 prevails.
The measures in question do not merely add to the requirement of PD 1605
but, worse, impose sanctions the decree does not allow and in fact actually
prohibits. In so doing, the ordinances disregard and violate and in effect
partially repeal the law. It is for Congress to determine, in the exercise of its
own discretion, whether or not to impose such sanctions, either directly
through a statute or by simply delegating authority to this effect to the local
governments in Metropolitan Manila. Without such action, PD 1605 remains
effective and continues to prohibit the confiscation of license plates of motor
2
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
vehicles (except under the conditions prescribed in LOI 43) and of driver's
licenses as well for traffic violations in Metropolitan Manila
3. CANNOT AMEND AN ACT OF CONGRESS
It may not Amend, Alter, Modify, Supplant, Enlarge or Expand, Restrict or
Limit the provisions or coverage of statute
BOIE-Takeda vs Dela Serna
GR No. 92174, December 10, 1993
P.D. 851 indicates that the statute covers “Basic Salary”. However, the DOLE
Implementing Guidelines includes “Commissions” as part of “Basic Salary”.
Implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions of the law it is
designed to implement
BOIE-Takeda and Philippine Fuji Xerox Corporation
Victoria Milling Company, Inc. vs SSC
GR No. L-16704, March 17, 1962
Circular No. 22 purports merely to advise employers – members of the
System of what, in the light of the amendment of the law, they should
include in determining the monthly compensation of their employees upon
which the social security contributions should be based, and that such
circular did not require presidential approval and publication in the Official
Gazette for its effectivity
There can be no doubt that there is a distinction between an administrative
rule or regulation and an administrative interpretation of a law whose
enforcement is entrusted to an administrative body. When an administrative
agency promulgates rules and regulations, it "makes" a new law with the
force and effect of a valid law, while when it renders an opinion or gives a
statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law. Rules and
regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority
conferred upon the administrative agency by law, partake of the nature of a
statute, and compliance therewith may be enforced by a penal sanction
provided in the law.
A rule is binding on the courts so long as the procedure fixed for its
promulgation is followed and its scope is within the statutory authority
granted by the legislature, even if the courts are not in agreement with the
policy stated therein or its innate wisdom. On the other hand, administrative
interpretation of the law is at best merely advisory, for it is the courts that
finally determine what the law means
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
4. CANNOT EXCEED PROVISIONS OF BASIC LAW
- They must be within the scope and purview of the statutory authority
granted by the legislature
United BFHA vs BF Homes
GR No. 131683
Sec. 5(b), PD 902-A
Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation’s jurisdiction over homeowners’
dispute is limited to controversies that arise out of the following intra-
corporate relations:
1. Between and among members of the association
(Member-member)
2. Between any or all of them and the association of which they are
members or associates
(Members-Association)
3. Between such association and the State, insofar as it concerns
their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity
(Association-State)
Sec. 1(b), Rule 2 of HIGC’s Revised Rules of Procedure
Said revised rules ADDED the phrase “general public or other entity”. In
effect, it added another type of dispute over which the HIGC has
jurisdiction.
“…the rules of administrative officers and boards, which have the effect of
extending, or which conflict with the authority0granting statute, do not
represent a valid exercise of the rule-making power but constitute an
attempt by an administrative body to legislate. ”
5. REASONABLE, AND NOT UNFAIR OR DISCRIMINATORY
They must not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the promulgation of rules
and regulations; and the rules and regulations issued must be reasonably
adopted to secure the end in view.
Lupangco vs CA
GR No. 77372, April 29, 1988
the questioned resolution was adopted for a commendable purpose which is
"to preserve the integrity and purity of the licensure examinations."
However, its good aim cannot be a cloak to conceal its constitutional
infirmities. On its face, it can be readily seen that it is unreasonable in that
an examinee cannot even attend any review class, briefing, conference or
the like, or receive any hand-out, review material, or any tip from any
school, college or university, or any review center or the like or any
3
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
reviewer, lecturer, instructor, official or employee of any of the
aforementioned or similar institutions
It is an axiom in administrative law that administrative authorities should not
act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules and regulations. To be
valid, such rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairly adapted to
secure the end in view. If shown to bear no reasonable relation to the
purposes for which they are authorized to be issued, then they must be held
to be invalid
REQUISITES FOR VALID ADMINISTRATIVE RULES WITH PENAL
SANCTIONS
1. The law which authorizes the promulgation of rules and regulations must
itself provide for the imposition of a penalty for their violation
2. It must fix or define such penalty
3. The violation for which the rules and regulations impose a penalty must
be punishable or made a crime under the law itself
4. The rules and regulations must be published in the Official Gazette
People vs Maceren
The law-making body cannot delegate to an executive official the power to
declare what acts should constitute an offense. It can authorize the issuance
of regulations and the imposition of penalty provided for in the law itself
A penal statute is strictly construed. While the administrative agency has the
right to make rules and regulations to carry into effect a law already
enacted, that power should not be confused with the power to enact a
criminal statute. An administrative agency can have only the administrative
or policing powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred upon it
US vs Panlilio
The orders of the Bureau of Agriculture, while they may possibly be said to
have the force of law, are statutes and particularly not penal statutes, and a
violation of such orders is not a penal offense unless the statute itself
somewhere makes a violation thereof unlawful and penalizes it. Nowhere in
Act No. 1760 is a violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture made a
penal offense, nor is such violation punished in any way therein
People vs Santos
Inasmuch as the only authority granted to the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce, by Sec. 4 of Act No. 4003, is to issue from time to time such
instructions, orders, rules and regulations consistent with said Act, as may
be necessary and proper to carry into effect the provisions thereof and for
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
the conduct of proceedings arising under such provisions; and inasmuch as
said Act No. 4003, as stated, contains no provisions similar to those
contained in the above quoted conditional clause of Sec. 28 of A.O. No. 2,
the conditional clause in question supplies a defect of the law, extending it.
This is equivalent to legislating on the matter, a power which has not been
and cannot be delegated to him, it being exclusively reserved to the then
Philippine Legislature by the Jones Law, and now to the excess of the
regulatory power conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce, but also an exercise of a legislative power which he does not
have, and therefore said conditional clause is null and void and without
effect
Perez vs LPG Refillers
A penal statute is not rendered uncertain and void because general terms
were used therein. The lawmakers have no positive constitutional or
statutory duty to define each and every word in an enactment, as long as
the legislative will is clear, or at least, can be gathered from the whole act.
B.P. Blg. 33 lists the various modes by which criminal acts involving
petroleum products may be committed; while the DOE Circular at bar merely
filled up the details and the manner through which B.P. Blg. 33 may be
carried out.
For an administrative regulation, such as the Circular in this case, to have
the force of penal law, the following must concur:
(1) the violation of the administrative regulation must be made a crime by
the delegating statute itself; and
(2) the penalty for such violation must be provided by the statute itself
People vs Que Po Lay
As a rule, circular and regulations of the Central Bank in question prescribing
a penalty for its violation should be published before becoming effective.
This is based on the theory that before the public is bound by its contents
especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must first be
published for the people to be officially and specifically informed of such
contents including its penalties
Art. 2 of the NCC equally provides that laws shall take effect after 15 days
following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it
is otherwise provided
Tañada vs Tuvera
4
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER) Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano

QUASI-JUDICIAL OR ADJUDICATORY POWERS
CHAPTER 4
QUASI-JUDICIAL/ADJUDICATORY POWER
The power of an administrative agency to hear and determine, or to
ascertain facts and decide by the application of rules to the ascertained facts
In the strict sense, it is the power to hear, try and determine all sorts of
cases at law and equity which are brought before the courts.
ELEMENTS OF ADJUDICATORY POWERS
1. Presence of parties (Specific & Adversarial)
2. Adjudication made by a person other than a judge
3. Adjudication made by an agency other than a court
QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS
exemplified by the powers of administrative agencies to permit the issuance
of securities, to grant certificates of public convenience or necessity, to
grant broadcasting licenses, and any other of similar nature
DIRECTING POWERS
It is illustrated by the following
(1) Corrective powers of public utility commissions
(2) Powers of assessment under the revenue laws
(3) Reparations under public utility laws
(4) Awards under workmen’s compensation laws
(5) Powers of abstract determination such as definition-valuation,
classification, and fact-finding
DISPENSING POWERS
It is exemplified by
(A) authority to exempt from or relax a general prohibition
(B) authority to relieve from an affirmative duty

In form and as a matter of legislative terminology, it may be

The actions, discretion, etc. of
public administrative officers or
bodies [that] are required to
investigate facts, or ascertain the
existence of facts, hold hearings,
and draw conclusions from them,
as a basis for their official action
and to exercise discretion of a
judicial nature
CLASSIFICATIONS OF ADJUDICATORY POWERS
1. ENABLING
2. DIRECTING
3. DISPENSING
4. SUMMARY
5. EQUITABLE
One which an officer or tribunal
performs in the context of a given
set of facts in a prescribed manner
and without regard to the exercise
of his own judgment upon the
propriety or impropriety of the act
done
indistinguishable from a licensing power, but it differs from it in purpose.
The licensing power sets or assumes a standard, while the dispensing power
sanctions a deviation from a standard
SUMMARY POWERS
It is used to designate administrative power to apply compulsion or force
against person or property to effectuate a legal purpose without a judicial
warrant to authorize such action
In the absence of a statutory grant of power, administrative agencies
generally may not themselves enforce their determinations, at least not by
direct and positive action and such powers are not lightly to be implied
EQUITABLE POWERS
An administrative tribunal having power to determine the law upon a
particular state of facts has the right to, and must, consider and make
proper application of the rules of equity

ENABLING POWERS
It is usually characterized by the grant or denial of permit or authorization
The chief application of this power is, of course, in the granting or denial of
licenses to engage in a particular business or occupation, but it is also
In certain situations, particular administrative agencies are expressly given
power to determine what is “fair and equitable” and equitable principles are
necessarily applied in their decisions
Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting (PADS) Task Force vs CA
G.R. No. 83578; March 16, 1989

Habana Notes 2014-2015 5

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
1. A “QUASI-JUDICIAL” body is defined as “an organ of government other
than a court and other than a legislature, which affects the rights of private
parties through either adjudication or rule-making”
2. Under P.D. No. 1936, as amended by P.D. No. 2002, PADS Task Force is
not meant to exercise quasi-judicial functions, that is, to try and decide
claims and execute its judgments. It is tasked alone by the Decree to handle
the prosecution of such activities, but nothing more.
3. PADS Task Force is not a co-equal or coordinate with the RTC. The fact
that said Task Force has been empowered to issue warrants of arrest, seach
and seizure does not make it a semi-court
4. As used in the Constitution, “RESPONSIBILITY” mean not only skill and
competence but more significantly, neutrality and independence comparable
to the impartiality presumed of a judicial officer. A prosecutor can in no
manner be said to be possessed of the latter qualities
Cojuangco Jr. Vs PCGG
G.R. No. 92319-20; October 2, 1990
1. Pursuant to E.O. Nos. 1 & 14, the PCGG has the power to investigate and
prosecute ill-gotten wealth cases of the former President Marcos, his
relatives and associates, and graft and corrupt practices cases that may be
assigned by the President to the PCGG, whose power to investigate includes
the authority to conduct preliminary investigations
2. Since the PCGG has already found a prima facie case against the
petitioner and intervenors when it cause the sequestration of the properties
and the issuance of the freeze order of the properties of petitioner, it cannot
possibly conduct the preliminary investigation of said criminal complaints
with the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge” as it has prejudged the
matter
DIFFERENT STEPS IN THE EXERCISE OF ADJUDICATORY POWERS
*Source: Santiago Jr. Vs Bautista
a. Ascertain the facts based on pleadings and evidence introduced
b. Determine what is the applicable law and legal rights of the parties
c. Decide controversy and render judgment
3. Under R.A. No. 6770, the authority of the Ombudsman to investigate
offenses involving public officers is not exclusive but is CONCURRENT with
other similarly authorized agencies of the government like the PCGG
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
TWO STAGES OF PCGG’S GENERAL POWER OF INVESTIGATION
1. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION STAGE
The fact-finding inquiry which is usually conducted by the law enforcement
agents whereby they gather evidence and interview witnesses after which
they assess the evidence and if they find sufficient basis, file the complaint
for the purpose of preliminary investigation
2. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Stage where it is ascertained if there is sufficient evidence to bring a person
to trial
SMART & PilTel vs NTC
G.R. No. 151908; August 12, 2003
1. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power is the power to make rules and
regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines
of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separation
of powers. Quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power is the power to hear and
determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to
decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in
enforcing and administering the same law
2. In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation
issued by an administrative agency, a party need not exhaust administrative
remedies before going to court. This principle applies only where the act of
the administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-
judicial function, and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-making
or quasi-legislative power
3. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an
administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution is within the
jurisdiction of the regular courts
Guerzon vs CA
1. An Administrative Agency has only such powers as are expressly granted
to it by law and those that are necessarily implied in the exercise thereof
2. Under P.D. 1206, Sec. 7, the Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU) has no
power to decide contractual disputes between gasoline dealers and oil
companies. Its jurisdiction is limited to cases involving violation or non-
compliance with any term or condition of any certificate, license or permit
issued by it or of any of its orders, decisions, rules or regulations
6
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER) Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano

3. P.D. 1206 requires that notice of hearing and opportunity to be heard be

given to the offender before any administrative penalty provided under Sec.
7(e) may be imposed

Antipolo Realty vs NHA

G.R. No. L-50444; August 31, 1987
Note: The NHA shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate
trade and business in accordance with the provisions of this decree
(Sec. 3, P.D. 957 [Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Decree])

1. Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial authority to Administrative

Agencies is well-recognized in our jurisdiction, basically because the need for
special competence and experience has been recognized as essential in the
resolution of questions of complex or specialized character and because of a
companion recognition that the dockets of our regular courts have remained
crowded and clogged

2. In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial powers which an

Administrative Agency may exercise is defined in the enabling act of such
agency

Thus, the extent to which the NHA has been vested with quasi-judicial
authority must be determined by referring to the terms of P.D. No. 957

3. Having failed to comply with its contractual obligation to complete certain

specified improvements in the subdivision within the specified period of 2
years from the date of the execution of the Contract to Sell, petitioner
(Antipolo Realty) was not entitled to exercise its options under Clause 7 of
the Contract. Hence, petitioner could neither rescind the Contract to Sell nor
treat the instalment payments made by the private respondent or forfeited
in its favor

Habana Notes 2014-2015 7

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
CHAPTER 5
CHARACTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
1. Adversary in nature
Every proceeding is adversary in substance if it may result in an order in
favour of one person against another, and the proceeding is nonetheless an
adversary one because the primary purpose of the agency is to protect the
public interests
2. Quasi-judicial or judicial in nature
If it involves:
(a) taking an evaluation of evidence
(b) determination of facts based upon the evidence presented
(c) rendering an order or decision supported by the facts proved
3. Civil, not criminal, in nature
Such proceeding has been held civil rather than criminal even though the
charge before the agency is based upon a violation of the penal law
4. Not an action at law
It is neither an action at law, nor a litigation between private parties. Under
some statutes, an administrative proceeding is not a private one but is a
public one looking to public ends.
Bantolino vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils
G.R. No. 153660; June 10, 2003
Administrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical niceties
of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law. Indeed, the
Revised Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence may be given only
stringent application, i.e. by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect.
Under the Rules of the Commission, the Labor Arbiter is given the discretion
to determine the necessity of a formal trial or hearing. Hence, trial-type
hearings are not even required as the cases may be decided based on
verified position papers, with supporting documents and their affidavits
First Lepanto Ceramics vs CA
G.R. No. 110571; October 7, 1994
The BOI is the agency tasked with evaluating the feasibility of an investment
project and to decide which investment might be compatible with its
development plans. The exercise of administrative discretion is a policy
decision and a matter that can best be discharged by the government
agency concerned and not by the courts. BOI has allowed the amendment
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
of First Lepanto’s product line because that agency “believes that allowing
First Lepanto to manufacture wall tiles as well will give it the needed
technical and market flexibility, a key factor, to enable the firm to eventually
penetrate the world market and meet its export requirements”
…while the administration grapples with the complex and multifarious
problems caused by unbridled exploitation of these resources, the judiciary
will stand clear. A long line of cases establish the basic rule that the courts
will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of
government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming
under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies
SOURCES OF RULES OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
1. Statute creating the agency
2. Rules promulgated by the agency by authority of law
RULES ON ADJUDICATION UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Book 7, Administrative Code of 1987
1. Every agency shall, in the public interest, encourage amicable settlement,
compromise, and arbitration
2. In any contested case, all parties shall be entitled to notice and hearing.
The notice shall be served at least 5 days before the date of hearing and
shall state the date, time and place of hearing
3. Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in
writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it
is based. The agency shall decide each case within 30 days following its
submission
4. The decision of the agency shall become final and executory 15 days after
the receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within
that period an (1) administrative appeal or (2) judicial review if proper, has
been perfected
5. Unless otherwise provided by law, or executive order, an appeal from a
final decision of the agency may be taken to the Department Head
6. Administrative appeals shall be perfected within 15 days after receipt of a
copy of the decision complained of by the party adversely affected, by filing
with the agency which adjudicated the case a notice of appeal serving
copies thereof upon the prevailing party and the appellate agency, and
paying the required fees
8
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
7. If a motion for reconsideration is denied, the movant shall have the right
to perfect his appeal during the remainder of the period for appeal,
reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial.
8. In any contested case, the decision of the appellate agency shall become
final and executory 15 days after the receipt by the parties of a copy thereof
DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION
The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement
of notice and real opportunity to be heard. As applied to administrative
proceedings, it simply means an opportunity to explain one’s side or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of
This administrative due process includes:
1. The right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the
proceedings that may affect a person’s legal right
2. The right to reasonable opportunity to appear personally or with the
assistance of counsel and defend his rights and to introduce witnesses and
relevant evidence in his favour, by testimony or otherwise, and to controvert
the evidence of the other party
3. The right to a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction, so constituted
as to give him reasonable assurance of honest and impartiality; and
4. The right to a finding or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial
evidence presented at the hearing or at least ascertained in the records, or
disclosed or made known to the parties affected
Villa vs Lazaro
G.R. No. 69871; August 24, 1990
Administrative proceedings are not exempt from the operation of certain
basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as due process
requirements in investigations and trials. And this administrative due process
is recognized to include
(A) the right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the
proceedings that may affect a person’s legal right
(B) reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his rights, introduce
witnesses and relevant evidence in his favour
(C) a tribunal so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty
and impartiality, and one of competent jurisdiction; and
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
(D) a finding or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the records or disclosed to
the parties affected
…and, it being clear that some, at least, of those essential elements did not
obtain or were not present in the proceedings complained of, any judgment
rendered, or order issued, therein was null and void, could never become
final, and could be attacked in any appropriate proceeding
At any rate, the Court will not permit the result of an administrative
proceeding riddled with the serious defects already pointed out to negate an
earlier judgment on the merits on the same matter regularly rendered by
competent court
Paterok vs Bureau of Customs
G.R. No. 90660-61; January 21, 1991
A notice of hearing posted on the bulletin board of the public respondent in
a forfeiture proceeding where the owner of the alleged prohibited article is
known does not constitute sufficient compliance with proper service of
notice and procedural due process
Time and again, the Court has emphasized the imperative necessity for
administrative agencies to observe elementary rules of due process. And no
rule is better established under the due process clause of the Constitution
than that which requires notice and opportunity to be heard before any
person can be lawfully deprived of his rights
N.B.: The Court held that there was no sufficient compliance with
requirement of notice and hearing under the due process clause. But
notwithstanding the procedural infirmity, the Court ruled that the petition
cannot be granted
The seizure and forfeiture proceedings was based on a violation of B.P. Blg.
73, specifically a law that promotes energy conservation and prohibits the
importation, manufacture or assembling of gasoline-powered passenger
motor cars with engine displacement of over 2,800 cubic centimetres
(the Mercedes Benz to be forfeited exceeds engine displacement of 2.8k,
thus is prohibited from being imported, mala prohibita)
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
The right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations
because the inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are
facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and
9
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
employees with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government
service
Lumiqued vs Exevea
G.R. No. 117565; November 18, 1997
The right to counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required by
the Constitution or the law.
In Nera vs Auditor General, the Court said:
“…There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a party in a non-
criminal proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel and that,
without such representation, he shall not be bound by such proceedings.
The assistance of lawyers; while desirable, is not indispensable. The legal
profession was not engrafted in the due process such that without the
participation of its members, the safeguard is deemed ignored or violated.
The ordinary citizen is not that helpless that he cannot validly act at all
except only with a lawyer at his side”
In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the
opportunity to explain one’s side. One may be heard, not solely by verbal
presentation but also, and perhaps even much more creditably as it is more
practicable than oral arguments, through pleadings. An actual hearing is not
always an indispensable aspect of due process. As long as a party was given
the opportunity to defend his interests in due course; he cannot be said to
have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the
very essence of due process. Moreover, this constitutional mandate is
deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of
EVIDENCE IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
The degree of proof by which a case must be established before an
administrative tribunal is not satisfied by proof creating an equipoise, but it
does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases or
preponderance of evidence as in civil cases. A statute may specially provide
for a greater or lesser degree of proof than simple preponderance
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
If the findings are supported by substantial evidence, even if not
overwhelming or preponderant as in civil cases, they must be respected.
This is the rule in Philippine jurisdiction.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
conclusion even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine,
otherwise and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is a contrary
evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, for the court in determining
wherein lies the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief,
cannot substitute its own judgment or criteria for that of the administrative
agency
Casimiro vs Tandog
G.R. No. 146137; June 8, 2005
The law requires that the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt
in administrative cases is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion
Well-entrenched is the rule that substantial proof, and not clear and
convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient basis for
the imposition of any disciplinary action upon an employee. The standard of
substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer has reasonable ground
to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his
participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and confidence
demanded by his position
Globe Telecom vs NTC
G.R. No. 143964; July 26, 2004
The question of the proper legal classification of VAS is uniquely technical,
tied as it is to the scientific and technological application of the service or
feature. Owing to the death of substantive technical findings and data from
the NTC on which a judicial review may reasonably be premised, it is not
opportunely proper for the Court to make its own technical evaluation of
VAS, especially in relation to SMS. Judicial fact-finding of the de novo kind is
generally abhorred and the shift of decisional responsibility to the judiciary is
not favoured as against the substantiated and specialized determination of
administrative agencies. With greater reason should this be the standard for
the exercise of judicial review when the administrative agency concerned
has not in the first place come out with a technical finding based on
evidence
RIGHT TO FULL HEARING
It includes the right of the party interested or affected to:
1. Present his case or defense, and submit evidence, oral or documentary, in
support thereof
2. Know the claims of the opposing party and to meet them
3. Cross-examine witnesses for a full and true disclosure of the facts
4. Submit rebuttal evidence
10
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER) Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano

JUDICIAL REVIEW acted on the

CHAPTER 6 matter

JUDICIAL REVIEW
Any form of judicial scrutiny of a matter which arises when such action is FUNCTION Determines who Determines the Determines
brought into question before a court initially decides timing of judicial timing of
review judicial
PERIOD TO RENDER JUDICIAL DECISIONS review
Sec. 14, 1987 Administrative Code
Within 30 days following its submission
APPLICATION Adjudicatory Adjudicatory Rule-making
FORM OF DECISION function functions functions
Sec. 14, 1987 Administrative Code
In writing, stating clearly & distinctly the facts and law on which it is based
RATIONALE (A) Take (A) Obviate resort to (A) Prevent
DOCTRINES ON JUDICIAL REVIEW advantage of courts premature
A. PRIMARY JURISDICTION administrative adjudication
B. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES expertise (B) Give agency
C. RIPENESS FOR REVIEW chance to correct its (B)
(B) Attain errors Protection
uniformity of from judicial
MATRIX OF DOCTRINES ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS application of (C) Principle of interference
regulatory laws comity and
convenience
DOCTRINE PRIMARY EXHAUSTION OF RIPENESS
JURISDICTION ADMINISTRATIVE FOR
REMEDIES REVIEW A. PRIMARY JURISDICTION

Villaflor vs CA
MEANING (A) Competence There is an available Interest of G.R. No. 95694; October 9, 1997
or Jurisdiction is administrative plaintiff is Under the doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction, courts will not resolve a
vested upon an remedy provided by subjected to controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an
administrative law, no judicial or administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise
body to act upon recourse can be imminently of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience
a matter made until all such threatened and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and
remedies have been with intricate matters of fact
(B) No resort to availed of and substantial
courts may be exhausted injury The said doctrine is applicable to this case since the questions on the
made before identity of the land and the factual qualification of private respondent as an
such awardee of a sales application require technical determination of the Bureau
administrative of Lands and thus behoves the court of jurisdiction to try this case
body shall have

Habana Notes 2014-2015 11

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
Commissioner of Customs vs Navarro
G.R. No. L-33146; May 31, 1977
The prevailing doctrine is that the exclusive jurisdiction in seizure and
forfeiture cases vested in the Collector of Customs precludes a court of first
instance from assuming cognizance over such a matter. It is the settled rule,
therefore, that the Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over
imported goods, for the purposes of enforcement of the customs laws, from
the moment the goods are actually in its possession or control, even if no
warrant of seizure or detention had previously been issued by the Collector
of Customs in connection with seizure and forfeiture proceedings
It cannot be said, as respondents contend, that the issuance of said warrant
was only an attempt to divest the respondent Judge of jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case. The court presided by respondent Judge did not
acquire jurisdiction over the goods in question when the petition for
mandamus was filed before it, and so there was no need of divesting it of
jurisdiction
Centeno vs Centeno
G.R. No. 140825; October 13, 2000
Section 1 of the Revised Rules of DARAB provides that “The Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original and
appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases,
controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657,
Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as
amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other
agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. Such jurisdiction
also extends over… f) Cases involving cancellation of CLT’s”
Here, it is evident that the present case is an off-shoot of the previous case
for the cancellation of the CLT against petitioners. Respondent merely
asserts its right arising from the previous decision of the DAR. Because of
this, the DARAB has an exclusive jurisdiction over the case at bar
Nuesa vs CA
G.R. No. 132048; March 6, 2002
The DARAB has primary, original and appellate jurisdiction “to determine
and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or
incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program under R.A. 6657, E.O. Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A. 3844
as amended by R.A. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their
implementing rules and regulations.” In order for the DARAB to have
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
jurisdiction, there must be an agrarian reform dispute meaning the existence
of a tenurial agreement between the parties
Here, the facts show that there was no tenurial, agrarian leasehold relation
between the parties. Thereby, it divests the DARAB of jurisdiction over the
case. Also, the fact that the disputed land was being possessed and
cultivated by other people shows blatant violation of the conditions of the
order of award in favour of Verdillo and thereby disqualifying him from
acquiring the said land
Regional Director DECS (Region 7) vs CA
G.R. No. 110193; January 27, 1994
There cannot be a full determination on whether the actions taken by them
have been proper or improper, or whether they have acted in good faith or
bad faith, pending a full hearing that would give all the parties a chance to
ventilate their respective claims
It behooves the court, in the interest of good order and conformably with
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to suspend its action on the cases before
it pending the final outcome of the administrative proceedings. Writ of
preliminary injunction issued by the RTC is hereby DISMISSED and it is
directed to suspend further hearings until after a final determination on the
administrative proceedings would have been made
B. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
GENERAL RULE
Resort first to appropriate Administrative Agencies in the
resolution of controversies
Laguna CATV Network vs Maraan
G.R. No. 139492; November 19, 2002
If a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by
giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on
the matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be
exhausted first before the court’s judicial power can be sought. The party
with an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the prescribed
administrative procedure to obtain relief but also pursue it to its appropriate
conclusion before seeking judicial intervention in order to give the
administrative agency an opportunity to decide the matter itself correctly
and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the court. The underlying
principle of the rule rests on the presumption that the administrative agency,
12
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter will decide the same
correctly
As provided under Art. 128 of the Labor Code, an order issued by the duly
authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor may be appealed to the
latter. Thus, petitioner should have first appealed to the Secretary of Labor
instead of filing with the CA a motion for extension of time to file a petition
for review
EXCEPTIONS
1. When Administrative Remedy is Permissive only
2. When Issue involved is Purely Legal Question
3. When Administrative Action is Patently Illegal
4. No Administrative Order Yet
5. When Exhaustion does not provide a Plain, Speedy or Adequate
Remedy
6. When it would amount to a Nullification of Claim
7. In cases of Qualified Political Agency
8. Constitutionality
9. When there is Irreparable Damage or Injury
10. In cases of Strong Public Interest
11. When there is Estoppel by the Administrative Agency
* Violation of due process
* When Exhaustion would be Unreasonable
* When Subject Matter is Private Land in a Land Case Proceeding
* When Circumstances indicate Urgency of Judicial Intervention
* When no Administrative review is provided by law
* When the Issue of Non-Exhaustion has been rendered Moot
1. Administrative Remedy is Permissive only
Exhaustion is not a condition sine qua non
Corpus vs Cuaderno Sr.
G.R. No. L-17860; March 30, 1962
Sec. 16(i) of the Civil Service Law provides that “Except as otherwise
provided by law, the Commissioner of Civil Service shall have “final authority
to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension of all permanent
officials and employees in the competitive or classified service and upon all
matters relating to the conduct, discipline and efficiency of such officials and
employees; X X X”. Considering the fact that the Charter of the Central Bank
provides for its own power, through the Monetary Board, relative to the
investigation, suspension or removal of its own employees except the
Governor, coupled with the fact that petitioner has admitted that he belongs
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
to the non-competitive or unclassified service, it is evident that an appeal to
the Commissioner of the Civil Service is not required or at most is permissive
and voluntary
2. Where the issue involved is purely legal question
Interpretation of law is court’s prerogative
Madrigal vs Lecaroz
G.R. No. 46218; October 23, 1990
The unbending jurisprudence in this jurisdiction is to the effect that a
petition for quo warranto and mandamus affecting titles to public office must
be filed within one (1) year from the date the petitioner is ousted from his
position.
The fatal drawback of Madrigal’s cause is that he came to court out of time.
As aforestated, it was only after 4 years and 20 days from the abolition of
his position that he filed the petition for mandamus and damages. This
single circumstance has closed the door for any judicial remedy in his favor
Actually, the recourse of Madrigal to the CSC was unwarranted. It is
fundamental that in a case where pure questions of law are raised, the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies cannot apply
because issues of law cannot be resolved with finality by the
administrative officer. Appeal to the administrative officer of orders
involving questions of law would be an exercise in futility since
administrative officers cannot decide such issues with finality
3. Patently illegal act of Administrative Bodies
Lack or Excess of jurisdiction
Cabada vs Alunan III
G.R. No. 119645; August 22, 1996
Under Section 7 of E.O. No. 262, the Secretary of the DILG has the power of
supervision and control of his Department. The NAPOLCOM did not have
authority over the appeal and the petition for review, and just because both
mentioned the DILG Secretary as Chairman or Presiding Officer of the
NAPOLCOM did not bring them within the jurisdiction of the NAPOLCOM
4. No administrative order yet
Ripeness for review
Datiles & Co. vs Sucaldito
G.R. No. 42380; June 22, 1990
13
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
It is a well-settled rule that, for prohibition to lie against an executive officer,
the petitioner must first exhaust administrative remedies. This doctrine rests
upon the assumption that the administrative body, board or officer, if given
the chance to correct its/his mistake or error, may amend its/his decision on
a given matter. It follows therefore that there has to be some sort of a
decision, order or act, more or less final in character, that is ripe for review
and properly the subject of an appeal to a higher administrative body or
officer, for the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies to operate.
In the present case, however, there is no administrative order or act as
above described, that can be appealed from. The respondent Regional
Director has not rendered any decision, or made any final finding of any
sort, and is in fact just about to conduct an investigation which happens to
be the very act sought to be prevented. Consequently, administrative
remedies that must be exhausted, although available, cannot be resorted to.
There being urgency in stopping public respondent Guieb's investigation but
no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
petitioner's recourse to the respondent court for relief by way of a petition
for prohibition was proper
5. No other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of the law
Urgency of situation
NFA vs CA
G.R. No. 115121-25; February 9, 1996
In this case, private respondents' contracts were terminated in the midst of
bidding preparations and their replacements hired barely 5 days after their
termination. In fact, respondent Masada, a prequalified bidder, submitted all
requirements and was preparing for the public bidding only to find out that
contracts had already been awarded by negotiation. Indeed, an appeal to
the NFA Board or Council of Trustees and the Secretary of Agriculture
pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 was not a
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. The
urgency of the situation compelled private respondents to go to court to
stop the implementation of these negotiated security contracts.
6. Nullification of claim
Time is of the essence
Gravador vs Mamigo
G.R. No. L-24989; July 21, 1967
Suit for quo warranto to recover a public office must be brought within one
year. Before filing this case the petitioner waited for 8 months for the school
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
officials to act on his protest. To require him to tarry a little more would
obviously be unfair to him since, when this case was filed, he had only four
months left within which to bring the case to court. There was neither
manner nor form of assurance that the decision of the Director of Public
Schools would be forthcoming. The rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies does not apply where insistence on its observance would result in
the nullification of the claim being asserted
7. Qualified Political Agency
Redundant exercise
Almine vs CA
G.R. No. 80719; September 26, 1989
The failure to appeal to the Office of the President from the decision of the
Minister of Agrarian Reform in this case is not a violation of the rule on
exhaustion of administrative remedies as the latter is the alter ego of the
President
A perusal of Section 3 of Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court reveals that
questions as to whether a landowner should or should not be allowed to
retain his landholdings are exclusively cognizable by the Minister (now
Secretary) of Agrarian Reform whose decision may be appealed to the Office
of the President and not to the Court of Agrarian Relations. These cases are
thus excluded from those cognizable by the then CAR, now the Regional
Trial Courts. There is no appeal from a decision of the President. However,
the said decision may be reviewed by the courts through a special civil
action for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, as the case may be under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
Thus, the respondent appellate court erred in holding that it has no
jurisdiction over the petition for review by way of certiorari brought before it
of a decision of the Minister of Agrarian Reform allegedly made in grave
abuse of his discretion and in holding that this is a matter within the
competence of the Court of Agrarian Reform. The CA has concurrent
jurisdiction with this Court and the RTC over petitions seeking the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus
8. Constitutionality
Judicial prerogative
SMART vs NTC
G.R. No. 151908; August 12, 2003
14
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER) Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano

In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued
by an administrative agency, a party need not exhaust administrative
remedies before going to court. This principle applies only where the act of
the administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-
judicial function, and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-making
or quasi-legislative power.
what could be a debilitating uncertainty with the conceded ability of the
judiciary to work out a solution of the problem posed is a potent argument
for minimizing the emphasis laid on its technical aspect
11. Estoppel
Agency is bound by its actions

9. Irreparable damage or injury Vda. de Tan vs Veterans Backpay Commission

Self-preservation Phil. Reports L-12944; March 30, 1959
The respondent Commission is in estoppel to invoke the rule on the
U.P. Board of Regents vs Rasul exhaustion of administrative remedies, considering that in its resolution, it
G.R. No. 91551; August 16, 1991 declared that the opinions of the Secretary of Justice were “advisory in
Anent the issue regarding respondent Estrella's failure to exhaust all nature, which may either be accepted or ignored by the office seeking the
administrative remedies, the Court holds that this case has special opinion, and any aggrieved party has the court for recourse”, thereby
circumstances that made it fall under the jurisprudentially accepted leading the petitioner to conclude that only a final judicial ruling in her
exceptions to the rule. As the facts show, respondent Dr. Estrella was about favour would be accepted by the Commission.
to be replaced by the Nomination Committee. He must have believed that
airing his protest with the Board of Regents would only be fruitless and that C. RIPENESS FOR REVIEW
unless he goes to the courts, irreparable damage or injury on his part will be
caused by the implementation of the proposed reorganization
QUESTIONS MEANING RULE
10. Strong public interest OPEN TO
Avoid uncertainty REVIEW

Arrow Transportation Corp. vs Board of Transportation

G.R. No. L-39655; March 21, 1975 OF LAW When doubt or Administrative Agency determines
It is undeniable that at the time the petition was filed, there was pending difference arise as to facts of a controversy and apply
with the respondent Board a motion for reconsideration. Ordinarily, its what the law is the law
resolution should be awaited. Prior thereto, an objection grounded on pertaining to a
prematurity can be raised certain state of facts Reviewing court decides whether
the correct rule of law was
This Court was impelled to go into the merits of the controversy at this applied, and whether there was
stage, not only because of the importance of the issue raised but also evidence before the administrative
because of the strong public interest in having the matter settled tribunal to support the findings

Executive Order No. 101, which prescribes the procedure to be followed by

respondent Board, makes it "imperative to provide, among other urgently OF FACT When doubt or Not subject to review if supported
needed measures, more expeditious methods in prescribing, redefining, or difference arise as to by substantial evidence
modifying the lines and mode of operation of public utility motor vehicles the truth or falsity of
that now or thereafter, may operate in this country” alleged facts Exceptions:
(A) When expressly allowed by
One of the most noted authorities on Administrative Law, Prof. Kenneth Culp law
Davis, discussing the ripeness concept, is of the view that the resolution of

Habana Notes 2014-2015 15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER) Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano

(B) Fraud, imposition or mistake

other than error in judgment

(C) Error in appreciation of

pleadings and interpretation of
evidence submitted

Habana Notes 2014-2015 16

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER) Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano

ELECTION LAW
ELECTION
GENERAL PROVISIONS The means by which the people choose, through the use of the ballot, their
CHAPTER 1 officials for definite and fixed periods and to whom they entrust, for the time
being as their representatives, the exercise of powers of government
SUFFRAGE
It is the right to vote in the election of officers chosen by the people and in KINDS OF ELECTION
the determination of questions submitted to the people 1. GENERAL
One provided for by law for the election to offices throughout the State, or
Art. 5, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution certain subdivisions thereof, after the expiration of the full term of former
Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise officers
disqualified by law, who are at least 18 years of age, and who shall have
resided in the Philippines for at least 1 year and in the place wherein they 2. SPECIAL
propose to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the election. One provided for by law under special circumstances
No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on
the exercise of suffrage SYSTEM OF ELECTION IN THE PHILIPPINES
Since 1901, the Philippines uses the Australian system, first conceived by
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SUFFRAGE IN PHILIPPINE LAWS Francis Dutton, a member of the Legislature of South Australia. The
distinguishing feature of the system is strict secrecy in balloting.
1935 Constitution 1. Only male citizens
2. At least 21 years of age THEORIES ON SUFFRAGE
3. 1 yr residence in the Philippines, 6 mo. in the 1. FEUDAL
municipality 2. NATURAL RIGHT
4. There is a literacy requirement 3. SOCIAL EXPEDIENCY
(able to read and write) 4. TRIBAL
5. ETHICAL

1973 Constitution 1. All citizens THEORY OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY

2. At least 18 years of age Art. 2, Sec. 1 of 1987 Constitution
3. 1 yr residence in the Philippines, 6 mo. in the The Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in
municipality the people and all government authority emanates from them
4. No literacy requirement
DISQUALIFICATIONS FROM EXERCISE OF SUFFRAGE
Sec. 118, B.P. 881 (Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines)
1987 Constitution 1. All citizens The following shall be disqualified from voting:
2. At least 18 years of age (A) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer
3. 1 yr residence in the Philippines, 6 mo. in the imprisonment for not less than 1 year, such disability not having been
municipality removed by plenary pardon or granted amnesty: Provided, however, That
4. No literacy requirement any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall automatically
reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of 5 years after service of
sentence

Habana Notes 2014-2015 17

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER) Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano

(B) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by competent
court or tribunal of having committed any crime involving disloyalty to the
duly constituted government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-
subversion and firearm laws, or any crime against national security, unless
restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance with law: Provided,
That he shall regain his right to vote automatically upon expiration of 5
years after service of sentence

(C) Insane or incompetent persons as declared by competent authority

Note: Unregistered voters are also disqualified to exercise suffrage

Habana Notes 2014-2015 18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
PRE-ELECTION ACTIVITIES
CHAPTER 2
A. REGISTRATION
REGISTRATION
Sec. 3(a), R.A. 8189 (Voter’s Registration Act of 1996)
The act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by
a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality
wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters
upon approval by the Election Registration Board
OBLIGATION TO REGISTER AND VOTE
Sec. 4, B.P. 881 (Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines)
It shall be the obligation of every citizen qualified to vote to register and
cast his vote
NECESSITY OF REGISTRATION
Sec. 115, B.P. 881 (Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines)
In order that a qualified elector may vote in any election, plebiscite or
referendum, he must be registered in the permanent list of voters for the
city or municipality in which he resides
BIOMETRICS
Sec. 2(b), R.A. 10367 (Mandatory Biometrics Voter Registration)
The quantitative analysis that provides a positive identification of an
individual such as voice, photograph, fingerprint, signature, iris and/or such
other identifiable features
Yra vs Abaño
Philippine Reports No. 30187; November 15, 1928
1. Secs. 404, 431 & 432 of the Election Law and Sec. 2174 of the
Administrative Code construed
A candidate who was elected to the office of the municipal president and
who at the time of the election was registered as a voter of Manila and not
of the municipality in which he was a candidate, is nevertheless eligible to
the office, and proceedings in the nature of quo warranto (Sec. 408 of the
Election) cannot be successfully maintained
2. Election Law makes use of the term “qualified voter in his
municipality” and “qualified elector therein”
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
To be a qualified voter does not necessarily mean that the person must be a
registered voter. It is sufficient for the candidate to possess all of the
qualifications prescribed in Sec. 431 and none of the disqualifications
prescribed in Sec. 432
The fact that a candidate failed to register as an elector in the municipality
does not deprive him of the right to become a candidate and to be voted for
3. One may be a qualified voter without exercising the right to vote
Registering does not confer the right; it is but a condition precedent to the
exercise of the right. Registration regulated the exercise of the right of
suffrage. It is not a qualification for such right.
4. The question of residence for the purposes of the Election Law is
largely one of intention
Akbayan-Youth vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 147066; March 26, 2001
1. In a representative democracy, the right of suffrage, although accorded a
prime niche in the hierarchy of rights embodied in the fundamental law,
ought to be exercised within the proper bounds and framework of the
Constitution and must properly yield to pertinent laws skilfully enacted by
the legislature
2. The act of registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of
suffrage. 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 honesty, 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
3. Sec. 8 of R.A. 8189, providing that no registration shall be conducted
during the period starting 120 days before a regular election, applies in the
present case, while the provisions of Sec. 28 of R.A. 8436 (Automated
Elections Act) would come into play in cases where the pre-election acts are
susceptible of performance within the available period prior to election day.
Section 28 of R.A. 8436 is anchored on the sound premise that these certain
“pre-election acts” are still capable of being reasonably performed vis-a-vis
the remaining period before the date of election and the conduct of other
related pre-election activities required under the law
19
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
4. It is an accepted doctrine in administrative law that the determination of
administrative agency as to the operation, implementation, and application
of a law would be accorded great weight
5. The law obliges no one to perform an impossibility
6. The law aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights
Macalintal vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 157013; July 10, 2003
1. Members to the Constitutional Commission intended to enfranchise as
much as possible all Filipino citizens abroad who have not abandoned their
domicile of origin
2. The execution of the affidavit itself is not the enabling or enfranchising
act; The affidavit is not only proof of the intention of the immigrant or
permanent resident to go back and resume residency in the Philippines, but
more significantly, it serves as an explicit expression that he had not in fact
abandoned his domicile of origin
3. Sec. 5(d) does not only require an affidavit or a promise to “resume
actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than 3 years
from approval of his/her registration,” the Filipinos abroad must also declare
that they have not applied for citizenship in another country
4. Sec. 5(d) itself provides for a deterrence which is that the Filipino who
fails to return as promised stands to lose his right of suffrage
5. SC does not find Sec. 5(d) of R.A. 9189 to be unconstitutional
DISQUALIFICATIONS
Sec. 5, R.A. 9189 (Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003)
The following shall be disqualified from voting under this Act:
(A) Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with
Philippine laws
(B) Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship and
who have pledged allegiance to a foreign country;
(C) Those who have committed and are convicted in a final judgment by a
court or tribunal of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than
1 year, including those who have committed and been found guilty of
Disloyalty as defined under Art. 137 of the Revised Penal Code, such
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty: Provided,
however, That any person disqualified to vote under this subsection shall
automatically acquire the right to vote upon expiration of 5 years after
service of sentence; Provided, further, That the Commission may take
cognizance of final judgments issued by foreign courts or tribunals only on
the basis of reciprocity and subject to the formalities and processes
prescribed by the Rules of Court on execution of judgments
(D) An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as
such in the host country, unless he/she executes, upon
registration, an affidavit prepared for the purpose by the
Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical
permanent residence in the Philippines not later than 3 years from
approval of his/her registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall
also state that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another
country. Failure to return shall be cause for the removal of the
name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the National
Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification
to vote in absentia
(E) Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared insane or
incompetent by competent authority in the Philippines or abroad, as verified
by the Philippine embassies, consulates or foreign service establishments
concerned, unless such competent authority subsequently certifies that such
person is no longer insane or incompetent
6. The canvassing of the votes and the proclamation of the winning
candidates for president and vice-president for the entire nation must
remain in the hands of Congress
7. By vesting itself with the powers to approve, review, amend, and revise
the IRRs for The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, Congress went
beyond the scope of its constitutional authority
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
Sec. 10, R.A. 8189 (Voter’s Registration Act of 1996)
A qualified voter shall be registered in the permanent list of voters on a
precint of the city or municipality wherein he resides to be able to vote in
any election. To register as a voter, he shall personally accomplish an
application form for registration as prescribed by the Commission in 3 copies
before the Election Officer on any date during office hours after having
acquired the qualifications of a voter
20
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
The application shall contain the following data:
(A) Name, surname, middle name, and/or maternal surname
(B) Sex
(C) Date, and place of birth
(D) Citizenship
(E) Civil status, if married, name of spouse
(F) Profession, occupation or work
(G) Periods of residence in the Philippines and in the place of registration
(H) Exact address with the name of the street and house number for
location in the precint maps maintained by the local office of the
Commission, or in case there is none, a brief description of his residence,
sitio and barangay
(I) A statement that the applicant possesses all the qualifications of a voter
(J) A statement that the applicant is not a registered voter of any precint
(K) Such information or data as may be required by the Commission
The application for registration shall contain 3 specimen signatures of the
applicant, clear and legible rolled prints of his left and right thumbprints,
with four identification size copies of his latest photograph, attached thereto,
to be taken at the expense of the Commission
Before the applicant accomplishes his application for registration, the
Election Officer shall inform him of the qualifications and disqualifications
prescribed by law for a voter, and thereafter, see to it that the accomplished
application contains all the data therein required and that the applicant’s
specimen signatures, fingerprints, and photographs are properly affixed in
all copies of the voter’s application
B. CHALLENGES TO REGISTRATION
CHALLENGES TO RIGHT TO REGISTER
Sec. 18, R.A. 8189
Any voter, candidate or representative of a registered political party may
challenge in writing any application for registration, stating the grounds
therefor. The challenge shall be under oath and be attached to the
application, together with the proof of notice of hearing to the challenger
and the applicant
Oppositions to contest a registrant’s application for inclusion in the voter’s
list must, in all cases, be filed not later than the second Monday of the
month in which the same is scheduled to be heard or processed by the
Election Registration Board. Should the second Monday of the month fall on
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
non-working holiday, oppositions may be filed on the next following working
day. The hearing on the challenge shall be heard on the third Monday of the
month and the decision shall be rendered before the end of the month
WHO MAY CHALLENGE
Any voter, candidate or representative of a registered political party
REQUISITES FOR A VALID CHALLENGE
1. It must be in writing, stating the grounds therefor
2. It must be under oath
3. It must be attached to the application for registration, together with proof
of notice of hearing to the challenger and the applicant
4. It must be filed, in all cases, not later than the 2 nd Monday of the month
in which the same is scheduled to be heard or processed by the Election
Registration Board.
C. INCLUSION & EXCLUSION
COMMON RULES GOVERNING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE
MATTER OF INCLUSION, EXCLUSION, & CORRECTION OF NAMES
OF VOTERS
Sec. 32, R.A. 8189
(A) Petition for inclusion, exclusion or correction of names of voters shall be
filed during office hours
(B) Notice of the place, date and time of the hearing of the petition shall be
served upon the members of the Board and the challenged voter upon filing
of the petition. Service of such notice may be made by sending a copy
thereof by personal delivery, by leaving it in the possession of a person of
sufficient discretion in the residence of the challenged voter, or by registered
mail. Should the foregoing procedures not be practicable, the notice shall be
posted in the bulletin board of the city or municipal hall and in 2 other
conspicuous places within the city or municipality
(C) A petition shall refer only to 1 precint and implead the Board as
respondents
(D) No costs shall be assessed against any party in these proceedings.
However, if the court should find that the application has been filed solely to
harass the adverse party and cause him to incur expenses, it shall order the
culpable party to pay the costs and incidental expenses
21
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
(E) Any voter, candidate or political party who may be affected by the
proceedings may intervene and present his evidence
(F) The decision shall be based on the evidence presented and in no case
rendered upon a stipulation of facts. If the question is whether or not the
voter is real or fictitious, his non-appearance on the day set for hearing shall
be prima facie evidence that the challenged voter is fictitious; and
(G) The petition shall be heard and decided within 10 days from the date of
its filing. Cases appealed to the RTC shall be decided within 10 days from
receipt of the appeal. In all cases, the court shall decide these petitions not
later than 15 days before the election and the decision shall become final
and executory
JURISDICTION IN INCLUSION & EXCLUSION CASES
Sec. 33, R.A. 8189
The Municipal & Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTCs & MeTCs) shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of
voters in their respective cities or municipalities. Decisions of the Municipal
or Metropolitan Trial Courts may be appealed by the aggrieved party to the
RTC within 5 days from receipt of notice thereof. Otherwise, said decision
shall become final and executory. The RTC shall decide the appeal within 10
days from the time it is received and the decision shall immediately become
final and executory. No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
PETITION FOR INCLUSION OF VOTERS IN THE LIST
Sec. 34, R.A. 8189
Any person whose application for registration has been disapproved by the
Board or whose name has been stricken out from the list may file with the
court a petition to include his name in the permanent list of voters in his
precint at any time except 105 days prior to a regular election or 75 days
prior to a special election. It shall be supported by a certificate of
disapproval of his application and proof of service of notice of his petition
upon the Board. The petition shall be decided within 15 days after its filing
If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the permanent list of voters,
the Board shall place the application for registration previously disapproved
in the corresponding book of voters and indicate in the application for
registration the date of the order of inclusion and the court which issued the
same
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
PETITION FOR INCLUSION
WHO: Any person whose application for registration has been disapproved
by the Board or whose name has been stricken out from the list
WHERE: MTCs & MeTCs
WHEN: At any time (during office hours) except 105 days prior to a regular
election or 75 days prior to a special election
REQUISITES FOR A VALID PETITION FOR INCLUSION
1. It must be filed by any person whose application for registration has been
disapproved by the Board or whose name has been stricken out from the list
2. It must be filed with the MTC or MeTC
3. It must be filed at any time (during office hours) except 105 days prior to
a regular election or 75 days prior to a special election
4. It must be supported by a certificate of disapproval of his application and
proof of service of notice of his petition upon the Board
PETITION FOR EXCLUSION OF VOTERS IN THE LIST
Sec. 35, R.A. 8189
Any registered voter, representative of a political party or the Election
Officer, may file with the court a sworn petition for the exclusion of a voter
from the permanent list of voters giving the name, address and the precint
of the challenged voter at any time except 100 days prior to a regular
election or 65 days before a special election. The petition shall be
accompanied by proof of notice to the Board and to the challenged voter
and shall be decided within 10 days from its filing
If the decision is for the exclusion of the voter from the list, the Board shall,
upon receipt of the final decision, remove the voter’s registration record
from the corresponding book of voters, enter the order of exclusion therein,
and thereafter place the record in the inactive file.
PETITION FOR EXCLUSION
WHO: Any registered voter, representative of a political party or the
Election Officer
WHERE: MTCs & MeTCs
WHEN: At any time (during office hours) except 100 days prior to a regular
election or 65 days before a special election
REQUISITES FOR A VALID PETITION FOR EXCLUSION
1. It must be filed by any registered voter, representative of a political party
or the Election Officer
2. It must be filed with the MTC or MeTC
22
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
3. It must be filed at any time (during office hours) except 100 days prior to
a regular election or 65 days before a special election
4. It must be accompanied by proof of notice to the Board and to the
challenged voter
PERMANENT LIST OF VOTERS
Sec. 4, B.P. 881
There shall be a permanent list of voters per precint in each city or
municipality consisting of all registered voters residing within the territorial
jurisdiction of every precint indicated by the precint maps
Such precint-level list of voters shall be accompanied by an addition/deletion
list for the purpose of updating the list
For the purpose of the 1997 general registration, the Commission shall
cause the preparation and posting of all precint maps in every barangay
nationwide. 5 days before the 1997 general registration, individual precint
maps shall be posted at the door of each polling place. Subsequently, the
Election Officer shall be responsible for the display, throughout the year, of
precint maps in his office and in the bulletin board of the city or municipal
hall.
The precint assignment of a voter in the permanent list of voters shall not
be changed or altered or transferred to another precint without the express
written consent of the voter: Provided, however, That the voter shall not
unreasonably withhold such consent. Any violation thereof shall constitute
an election offense which shall be punished in accordance with law
ANNULMENT OF BOOK OF VOTERS
Sec. 39, R.A. 8189
The Commission shall, upon verified petition of any voter or election officer
or duly registered political party, and after notice and hearing, annul any
book of voters that is not prepared in accordance with the provisions of this
Act or was prepared through fraud, bribery, forgery, impersonation,
intimidation, force or any similar irregularity, or which contains data that are
statistically improbable. No order, ruling or decision annulling a book of
voters shall be executed within 90 days before an election
Ututalum vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 84843-44; January 22, 1990
1. Padding list of voters is not a listed ground for a pre-proclamation
controversy
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
2. To allow the COMELEC to consider and apply the new Registry List would
be to empower it to annul a previous election because of the subsequent
annulment of a questioned registry in a proceeding where petitioner himself
was not a party
3. Preparation of a voter’s list is not a proceeding before the Board of
Canvassers
D. QUALIFICATIONS & DISQUALIFICATIONS
VOTER’S QUALIFICATIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
Art. 5, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution
Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least 18 years of age, and who shall have
resided in the Philippines for at least 1 year and in the place wherein they
propose to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the election.
No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on
the exercise of suffrage
PRESUMPTION OF RESIDENCE RETENTION FOR VOTERS
Sec. 117(2), B.P. 881
Any person who transfers residence to another city, municipality, or country
solely by reason of his occupation, profession, employment in private or
public service, educational activities, work in military or naval reservations,
service in the army, navy or air force, the constabulary or national police
force, or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance
with law, shall be deemed not to have lost his original residence
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS
Sec. 118, B.P. 881
The following shall be disqualified from voting:
(A) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer
imprisonment for not less than 1 year, such disability not having been
removed by plenary pardon or granted amnesty: Provided, however, That
any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall automatically
reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of 5 years after service of
sentence
(B) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by competent
court or tribunal of having committed any crime involving disloyalty to the
duly constituted government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-
subversion and firearm laws, or any crime against national security, unless
23
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance with law: Provided,
That he shall regain his right to vote automatically upon expiration of 5
years after service of sentence
(C) Insane or incompetent persons as declared by competent authority
QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES
Qualifications prescribed by law are continuing requirements and must be
possessed for the duration of the officer’s active tenure. Once any of the
required qualification is lost, his title to the office may be seasonably
challenged
QUALIFICATIONS OF NATIONAL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS
A. PRESIDENT & VICE-PRESIDENT
Sec. 2, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution
1. Natural-born citizen
2. Registered voter
3. Able to read & write
4. At least 40 years old on the day of election
5. Resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding the
day of the election
B. SENATOR
Sec. 2, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution
1. Natural-born citizen
2. Registered voter
3. Able to read & write
4. At least 35 years old on the day of election
5. Resident of the Philippines for not less 2 years immediately preceding the
day of the election
QUALIFICATIONS OF LOCAL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS
A. DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES
Sec. 6, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution
1. Natural-born citizen
2. Registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected
3. Able to read & write
4. At least 25 years old on the day of election
5. Resident of the same district not less than 1 year immediately preceding
the day of the election
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
B. PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE
Sec. 9, R.A. 7941
1. Natural-born citizen
2. Registered voter
3. Able to read & write
4. At least 25 years old on the day of election
* In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be 25
but not more than 30 years of age on the day of the election. Any
youth sectoral representative who attains the age of 30 during his
term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his
term
5. Resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than 1 year
immediately preceding the day of the election
6. Bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to
represent for at least 90 days preceding the day of the election
C. GOVERNOR & VICE-GOVERNOR
Sec. 39, R.A. 7160 (Local Government Code)
1. Citizen of the Philippines
2. Registered voter in the province where he intends to be elected
3. Able to read & write Filipino or any other local language or dialect
4. At least 23 years old on the day of election
5. Resident therein for at least 1 year immediately preceding the day of the
election (2 yrs in the Philippines)
D. MAYOR & VICE-MAYOR
Sec. 39, R.A. 7160 (Local Government Code)
1. Citizen of the Philippines
2. Registered voter in the city/municipality where he intends to be elected
3. Able to read & write Filipino or any other local language or dialect
4. At least 21 years old on the day of election
5. Resident therein for at least 1 year immediately preceding the day of the
election (2 yrs in the Philippines)
E. SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN, PANLUNGSOD/BAYAN
Sec. 39, R.A. 7160 (Local Government Code)
1. Citizen of the Philippines
2. Registered voter in the district where he intends to be elected
3. Able to read & write Filipino or any other local language or dialect
4. At least 18 years old on the day of election
5. Resident therein for at least 1 year immediately preceding the day of the
election (2 yrs in the Philippines)
24
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
F. PUNONG BARANGAY
Sec. 39, R.A. 7160 (Local Government Code)
1. Citizen of the Philippines
2. Registered voter in the barangay where he intends to be elected
3. Able to read & write Filipino or any other local language or dialect
4. At least 18 years old on the day of election
5. Resident therein for at least 1 year immediately preceding the day of the
election (2 yrs in the Philippines)
G. SANGGUNIANG KABATAAN (SK)
Sec. 39, R.A. 7160 (Local Government Code)
1. Citizen of the Philippines
2. Registered voter in the district where he intends to be elected
3. Able to read & write Filipino or any other local language or dialect
4. At least 15 but not more than 21 years old on the day of election
5. Resident therein for at least 1 year immediately preceding the day of the
election (2 yrs in the Philippines)
Frivaldo vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 87193; June 23, 1989
1. Petitioner’s loss of his naturalized American citizenship did not and could
not have the effect of automatic restoration of his Philippine citizenship
2. Mere filing of CoC wherein petitioner claimed that he is a natural-born
Filipino citizen is not a sufficient act of repatriation. Repatriation requires an
express and unequivocal act
3. Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements which must be
possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or assumption of
office, but also during the entire tenure
4. Vice of ineligibility cannot be cured by the will of the people as expressed
through ballot
5. Under CA No. 63, as amended by CA No. 473 and PD No. 725, Philippine
citizenship may be reacquired by (1) direct act of Congress, (2)
naturalization, or (3) repatriation. It does not appear that Frivaldo
(petitioner) has taken these categorical acts
Labo vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 86564; August 1, 1989
1. The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to questions of citizenship
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
2. The annulment of petitioner’s Australian citizenship as a result of the
finding that his marriage to an Australian national was bigamous, did not
automatically restore his Philippine citizenship
3. The candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes cannot
occupy the office that was vacated as a result of the disqualification of the
candidate who obtained the highest number of votes
Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 119976; September 18, 1995
1. Residence, in its ordinary conception, implies the factual relationship of an
individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a
given area, community or country. The essential distinction between
residence and domicile in law is that residence involves the intent to leave
when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. One
may seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health. If a
person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent is to leave
as soon as his purpose is established it is residence. It is this, quite perfectly
normal for an individual to have different residences in various places.
However, a person can only have a single domicile, unless, for various
reasons, he successfully abandons his domicile in favour of another domicile
of choice.
2. The deliberations of the 1987 Constitution on the residence qualification
for certain elective positions have placed beyond doubt the principle that
when the Constitution speaks of “residence” in election law, it actually
means only “domicile”
3. It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a CoC which ought to be
decisive in determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the
constitution’s residency qualification requirement
4. To effect an abandonment requires the voluntary act of relinquishing
former domicile with an intent to supplant the former domicile with one of
her own choosing
5. The presumption that the wife automatically gains the husband’s domicile
by operation of law upon marriage cannot be inferred from the use of the
term “residence” in Art. 110 of the Civil Code because the Civil Code is one
area where the two concepts are well-delineated
6. What petitioner gained upon marriage was actual residence – she did not
lose here domicile of origin
25
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
Aquino vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 120265; September 18, 1995
1. Under Sec. 17 of Art. 6 of the 1987 Constitution, the electoral tribunal
clearly assumes jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns,
and qualifications of candidates for either the Senate or the House only
when the latter becomes MEMBERS of either the Senate or the House of
Representatives. A candidate who has not been proclaimed and who has not
taken his oath of office cannot be said to be a member of the House of
Representatives subject to Sec. 17 of Art. 6 of the 1987 Constitution
2. While the proclamation of a winning candidate is ministerial, B.P. 881 in
conjunction with Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6646 allows suspension of proclamation
under circumstances mentioned therein – even after the elections the
COMELEC is empowered to continue to hear and decide questions relating to
qualifications of candidates
3. In order for a person to qualify as a candidate for a district, he must
prove that he has established not just residence but domicile of choice
4. While there is nothing wrong with the practice of establishing residence in
a given area for meeting election law requirements, this nonetheless defeats
the essence of representation, which is to place through the assent of voters
those most cognizant and sensitive to the needs of a particular district, if a
candidate falls short of the period of residency mandated by law for him to
qualify
5. Modern-day carpetbaggers cannot be allowed to take advantage of the
creation of new political districts by suddenly transplanting themselves in
such new districts, prejudicing their genuine residents in the process of
taking advantage of existing conditions in these areas
6. The 2nd placer is just that, a second placer – he lost the elections, he was
repudiated by either a majority or plurality of voters – he could not be
proclaimed winner as he could not be considered the first among qualified
candidates
NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN
Sec. 2, Art. 4 of the 1987 Constitution
Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with
paragraph (3), Sec. 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sec. 1, Art. 4 of the 1987 Constitution
The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of
this Constitution
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law
RESIDENCE vis-a-vis DOMICILE (ORDINARY SENSE)
Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC; G.R. No. 119976 (Sept. 18, 1995)
Residence, in its ordinary conception, implies the factual relationship of an
individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a
given area, community or country. The essential distinction between
residence and domicile in law is that residence involves the intent to leave
when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. One
may seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business or health. If a
person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent is to leave
as soon as his purpose is established it is residence. It is thus, quite
perfectly normal for an individual to have different residences in various
place. However, a person can only have a single domicile, unless, for various
reasons, he successfully abandons his domicile in favour of another domicile
of choice
RESIDENCE vis-a-vis DOMICILE (ELECTION LAW)
Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC; G.R. No. 119976 (Sept. 18, 1995)
The deliberations of the 1987 Constitution on the residence qualification for
certain elective positions have placed beyond doubt the principle that when
the Constitution speaks of “residence” in election law, it actually means only
“domicile”.
DISQUALIFICATIONS
To be divested or deprived of qualifications
DISQUALIFICATIONS UNDER OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE
Application: Candidates of local elective office & district representatives
A. Sec. 12, B.P. 881 (ISS)
1. Those declared as incompetent or insane by competent authority
26
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
2. Those sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection,
rebellion, or any offense for which he has been sentenced to a
penalty of more than 18 months imprisonment, before the
expiration of a period of 5 years from his service of sentence
3. Those sentenced by final judgment for a crime involving moral
turpitude, before the expiration of a period of 5 years from his
service of sentence
B. Sec. 68, B.P. 881
Any candidate shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he
has been elected, from holding the office, who, in an action or protest in
which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty
of, or found by the Commission of having:
(A) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or
corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions
(B) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy
(C) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by
this Code
(D) solicited, received, or made any contribution prohibited under Secs. 89,
95, 96, 97 and 104; or
(E) violated any of Secs. 80, 83, 85, 86, and 261(d, e, k, v, and cc[6])
Any person who is a permanent resident of or immigrant to a
foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office
under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as
permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in
accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the
election laws
DISQUALIFICATIONS UNDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
Application: Candidates for local elective office only
Sec. 40, R.A. 7160
The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local
position:
A. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving
moral turpitude; or
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
B. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense punishable by
1 year or more of imprisonment, within 2 years after serving
sentence
C. Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case
D. Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
E. Fugitives from justice in criminal and non-political case here and
abroad
F. Permanent residents in foreign country or those who have
acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the
same right after the effectivity of the LGC
G. Those who are insane or feeble-minded
(A) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving
moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by 1 year or more of
imprisonment, within 2 years after serving sentence
Dela Torre vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 121592; July 5, 1996
1. Whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately a question
of fact and frequently depends on all the circumstances surrounding the
violation of the statute
2. Actual knowledge by the “fence” of the fact that property received is
stolen displays the same degree of malicious deprivation of one’s rightful
property as that which animated the robbery or theft which, by their very
nature, are crimes of moral turpitude. And although the participation of each
felon in the unlawful taking differs in point in time and in degree, both the
“fence” and the actual perpetrator/s of the robbery or theft invaded one’s
peaceful dominion for gain – thus deliberately reneging in the process
“private duties” they owe their “fellowmen” or “society” in a manner
“contrary to x x x accepted and customary rule of right and duty x x x,
justice, honesty, x x x or good morals”
3. The legal effect of probation is only to suspend the execution of sentence
27
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
Moreno vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 168550; August 10, 2006
1. The phrase “within 2 years after serving sentence” (Sec. 40[a] of the
LGC) should be interpreted and understood to apply both to those who have
been sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude
and to those who have been sentenced by final judgment for an offense
punishable by 1 year or more of imprisonment. The placing of the comma (,)
in the provision means that the phrase modifies both parts of Sec. 40(a) of
the LGC
2. The probationer, during the period of probation, is not disqualified from
running for a public office because the accessory penalty of suspension from
public office is put on hold for the duration of the probation
3. Those who have not served their sentence by reason of the grant of
probation which should not be equated with service of sentence, should not
be disqualified from running for a local elective office because the 2 year
period of ineligibility under Sec. 40(a) of the LGC does not even begin to run
4. The present LGC was enacted in 1991, some 7 years after “Baclayon vs
Mutia”, was decided. When the legislature approved the enumerated
disqualifications under the LGC, it is presumed to have knowledge of the
ruling in “Baclayon”, on the effect of probation on the disqualification from
holding public office, and the fact that it chose not to include probationers
within the purview of the provision is a clear expression of the legislature
will not to disqualify probationers
5. The Probation Law should be construed as an exception to the LGC. It is
a canon of statutory construction that a later statute, general in terms and
not expressly repealing a prior special statute, will ordinarily not affect the
special provisions of such earlier statute
Villaber vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 148326; November 15, 2001
1. Moral Turpitude is “an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private
duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary
to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and
woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.”
2. Conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 “imports deceit” and “certainly
relates to and affects the good moral character of a person”. A drawer who
issues an unfunded check deliberately reneges on his private duties he owes
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
his fellow men or society in a manner contrary to accepted and customary
rule of right and duty, justice, honesty or good morals
(B) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case
Grego vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 125955; June 19, 1997
1. A statute, despite the generality in its language, must not be so construed
as to overreach acts, events, or matters which transpired before its passage
– the law looks forward, not backwards.
2. Under P.D. No. 807, the former Civil Service Decree, the term
“reinstatement” had a technical meaning, referring only to an appointive
position – a public officer administratively dismissed then was not therefore
barred from running for an elective position
3. Sec. 20(i) of R.A. No. 7166 refers only to a void proclamation in relation
to contested qualification of a candidate
4. The use of the word “may” in Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6646 indicates that the
suspension of a proclamation is merely directory and permissive in nature
and operates to confer discretion
5. Where the law employs the word “may”, it becomes improper and highly
irregular for an administrative agency to use the word “shall” in its
implementing rules
6. Absent any determination of irregularity in the election returns, as well as
an order enjoining the canvassing and proclamation of the winner, it is a
mandatory and ministerial duty of the Board of Canvassers concerned to
count the votes based on such returns and declare the result
7. A possible exception to the rule that a second placer may not be
declared the winning candidate is predicated on the concurrence of two
assumptions, namely:
(1) The one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified, and
(2) the electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidates
disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety
but would nonetheless cast their votes in favour of the ineligible candidate
28
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
Reyes vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 120905; March 7, 1996
1. If a judgment or decision is not delivered to a party for reasons
attributable to him, service is deemed completed and the judgment of
decision will be considered validly served as long as it can be shown that the
attempt to deliver it to him would be valid were it not for his or her counsel’s
refusal to receive it
2. The refusal by a party’s counsel to receive a decision may be construed
as a waiver on his part to have a copy of the decision
3. Any agreement to delay service of a decision of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan in administrative cases is illegal – Section 66(a) of R.A. No.
7160 makes it mandatory that “copies of the decision [of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan] shall immediately be furnished to respondent and/or
interested parties”
4. Removal cannot extend beyond the term during which the alleged
misconduct was committed – if a public official is not removed before his
term of office expires, he can no longer be removed if he is thereafter re-
elected for another term
5. The subsequent finding that a candidate is disqualified cannot retroact to
the date of the elections so as to invalidate the votes cast for him
(C) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of
allegiance to the Republic
(D) Those with dual citizenship
Note: Dual citizenship as a disqualification must refer to citizens with dual
allegiance, which refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously
owes, by some positive act, loyalty to 2 or more states.
Mercado vs Manzano
G.R. No. 135083; May 26, 1999
1. Intervention may be allowed in proceedings for disqualification even after
election if there has yet been no final judgment rendered
2. Failure of the COMELEC en banc to resolve petitioner’s motion for
intervention was tantamount to a denial of the motion, justifying petitioner
in filing the instant petition for certiorari
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
3. Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises
when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two
or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said
states. Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part,
is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. Dual allegiance, on the
other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes,
by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is
involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition
4. Instances where it is possible for certain classes of citizens of the
Philippines to possess dual citizenship:
(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which
follow the principle of jus soli
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by
the laws of their fathers’ country such children are citizens of that country
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former
are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to
have renounced Philippine citizenship
5. The phrase “dual citizenship” in Sec. 40(d), R.A. No. 7160 and Sec. 20,
R.A. No. 7854 must be understood as referring to “dual allegiance”
Lopez vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 182701; July 23, 2008
R.A. No. 9225 expressly provides for the conditions before those who re-
acquired Filipino citizenship may run for a public office in the Philippines,
i.e., that they make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship
(E) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or
abroad
Note: A fugitive from justice includes not only those who flee after
conviction to avoid punishment, but likewise those who after being charged,
flee to avoid prosecution
Rodriguez vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 120099; July 24, 1996
1. Definition of “fugitive from justice” indicates that the intent to evade is
the compelling factor that animates one’s flight from a particular jurisdiction
29
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
2. The very essence of being a “fugitive from justice” under the Marquez
Decision definition, is just nowhere to be found in the circumstances of
Rodriguez because it was clearly impossible for him to have known about
such felony complaint and arrest warrant at the time he left the US, as there
was in fact no complaint and arrest warrant – much less conviction – to
speak of yet at such time.
(F) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have
acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the
same right after the effectivity of this Code
Caasi vs CA
G.R. No. 88831; November 8, 1990
The act of filing a CoC for elective office in the Philippines does not of itself
constitute a waiver of status as permanent resident or immigrant of the
United States. Waiver should be manifested by some act or acts
independent of and done prior to the filing of CoC for elective office in this
country.
(G) The insane or feeble-minded
E. CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
CANDIDATE
Sec. 79(a), B.P. 881
Any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a
Certificate of Candidacy, by himself or through an accredited political party
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
Statement of a person seeking to run for a public office certifying that he
announces his candidacy for the office mentioned and that he is eligible for
the office, the name of the political party to which he belongs if he belongs
to any, and his post-office address for all election purposes being as well-
stated
No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a
sworn certificate of candidacy within the period fixed by law
(Sec. 68, B.P. 881)
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
RULES IN FILING CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
Sec. 73, B.P. 881
No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a
sworn CoC within the period fixed herein. A person who has filed a CoC
may, prior to the election, withdraw the same by submitting to the office
concerned a written declaration under oath. No person shall be eligible for
more than one office to be filled in the same election, and if he files his CoC
for more than 1 office, he shall not be eligible for any of them. However,
before the expiration of the period for the filing of CoC, the person who has
filed more than 1 CoC may declare under oath the office for which he
desires to be eligible and cancel the CoC for the other office or offices. The
filing or withdrawal of a CoC shall not affect whatever civil, criminal, or
administrative liabilities which a candidate may have incurred
Note: Failure to SWEAR on the CoC is NOT a ground to invalidate the
Election
CONTENTS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
Sec. 74, B.P. 881
The CoC shall state that (1) the person filing it is announcing his
candidacy for the office stated therein and that he is eligible for
said office; if for Member of the Batasang Pambansa, the province,
including its component cities, highly urbanized city or district or sector
which he seeks to represent; (2) the political party to which he
belongs; (3) civil status; his date of birth; residence; his post office
address for all election purposes; his profession or occupation; that
(4) he will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines
and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he will
obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly
constituted authorities; (5) that he is not a permanent resident or
immigrant to a foreign country; (6) that the obligation imposed by
his oath is assumed voluntary, without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated in the CoC are true to
the best of his knowledge
Unless a candidate has officially changed his name through a court approved
proceeding, a candidate shall use in a CoC the name by which he has been
baptized, or if has not been baptized in any church or religion, the name
registered in the office of the local civil registrar or any other name allowed
under the provisions of existing law or, in the case of a Muslim, his Hadji
name after performing the prescribed religious pilgrimage: Provided, That
when there are two or more candidates for an office with the same name
and surname, each candidate, upon being made aware of such fact, shall
30
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
state his paternal and maternal surname, except the incumbent who may
continue to use the name and surname stated in his CoC when he was
elected. He may also include one nickname or stage name by which he is
generally or popularly known in the locality
The person filing a CoC shall also affix his latest photograph, passport size;
a statement in duplicate containing his bio-data and program of government
not exceeding 100 words, if he so desires
De Guzman vs Board of Canvassers
G.R. No. L-24721; November 3, 1925
The irregularity does not invalidate the election for the fundamental reason
that after it was proven by the count of the votes that Juan Lucero had
obtained the majority of the legal votes
The will of the people cannot be frustrated by a technicality that his CoC had
not been properly sworn to
Jurilla vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 105435; June 2, 1994
Sec. 39(a) of the LGC does not specifically require that the candidate must
state in his CoC his Precint Number and the Barangay where he is registered
It is enough that he is actually registered as a voter in the precint where he
intends to vote, which should be within the district where he is running for
office
WITHDRAWAL OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
Any person who has filed a CoC may, at any time, before election day and
subject to Sec. 15 hereof, file personally a Statement of Withdrawal under
oath, in 5 legible copies, with the office where the Certificate of Candidacy
was filed. No Statement of Withdrawal shall be accepted if filed by a person
other than the candidate himself or if filed by mail, electronic mail, telegram
or facsimile
The filing of a withdrawal of a CoC shall not affect whatever civil, criminal or
administrative liabilities a candidate may have incurred
The withdrawal of the CoC shall effect the disqualification of the candidate
to be elected for the position
COMELEC Resolution No. 9518, Sec. 14; September 11, 2012
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
A person who has withdrawn his CoC for a position shall not be eligible,
whether as a substitute candidate or not, for any other position
FILING OF TWO (2) CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY
Sec. 73, B.P. 881
GENERAL RULE: No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be
filled in the same election, and if he files his CoC for more than one office,
he shall not be eligible for any of them
EXCEPTION: Before the expiration of the period for the filing of CoC, the
person who has filed more than one CoC may declare under oath the office
for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the CoC for the other office or
offices
Loreto-Go vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 147741; May 10, 2001
The filing of the affidavit of withdrawal with the election officer of Baybay,
Leyte, at 12:28 a.m., March 1 2001 was a substantial compliance with the
requirement of the law
Loreto-Go’s withdrawal of her CoC for mayor of Baybay, Leyte was effective
for all legal purposes, and left in full force her CoC for governor
SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATES
Sec. 77, B.P. 881
If after the last day for the filing of CoC, an official candidate of a registered
or accredited political party dies, withdraws, or is disqualified for any cause,
only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party may file
a CoC to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified not
later than mid-day of the day of the election
Note:
1. When the candidate who dies is an independent candidate, he cannot be
substituted.
2. The existence of a valid CoC is therefore a condition sine qua non for a
disqualified candidate to be validly substituted
Luna vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 165983; April 24, 2007
COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring that Hans Roger,
being under age, could not be considered to have filed a valid CoC and,
thus, could not be validly substituted by Luna
31
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
COMELEC may not, by itself, without proper proceedings, deny due course
to or cancel a CoC filed in due form
WITHDRAWAL OF WITHDRAWAL
The withdrawal of the withdrawal, for the purpose of reviving the CoC, must
be made within the period provided by law for the filing of CoC
Monsale vs Nico
G.R. No. L-2539; May 28, 1949
The withdrawal of a withdrawal of CoC can only be considered as a new CoC
which, having been filed only 4 days before the election, could not legally be
accepted under the law
Sec. 36 of the Revised Election Code (R.A. No. 180) provides that “at least
60 days before a regular election and 30 days at least before a special
election, the ... CoC for municipal offices shall be filed with the municipal
secretary...”
COMELEC’S MINISTERIAL DUTY
The COMELEC , provincial election supervisor, election registrar, or officer
designated by the Commission, or Board of Election Inspectors shall only
have the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of the CoCs.
Accordingly, he may not, by itself, without proper proceedings, deny due
course to or cancel a CoC filed in due form.
Cipriano vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 158830; August 10, 2004
COMELEC may not, by itself, without proper proceedings, deny due course
to or cancel a CoC filed in due form
When a candidate files his CoC, COMELEC has ministerial duty to receive
and acknowledge its receipt. This is provided in Sec. 76 of B.P. 881
Abcede vs Imperial
G.R. No. L-13001; March 18, 1958
Sec. 37 of the Revised Election Code provides: COMELEC... shall have the
ministerial duty to receive the CoC... and to immediately acknowledge
receipt thereof
The foregoing provisions give the Commission no discretion to give or not to
give due course to Abcede’s CoC
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
DENIAL OR CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
Sec. 78, B.P. 881
A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a CoC may be
filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material
representation contained therein as required under Sec. 74 hereof is false.
The petition may be filed at any time not later than 25 days from the time of
the filing of the CoC and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not
later than 15 days before the election
JURISDICTION OVER DENIAL OR CANCELLATION OF COC
COMELEC Rules of Procedure
Jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a CoC lies with the COMELEC sitting in
Division
Garvida vs Sales Jr.
G.R. No. 124893; April 18, 1997
Under COMELEC Rules of Procedure, jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a
CoC lies with the COMELEC sitting in Division, not en banc
Cases before a Divison may only be entertained by COMELEC en banc when
the required number of votes to reach a decision, resolution, order or ruling
is not obtained in the Division
Loong vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 93986; December 22, 1992
Sec. 78, B.P. 881 states that in case a person filing a CoC has committed
false representation, a petition to cancel the CoC of the aforesaid person
may be filed within 25 days from the time the certificate was filed
Petition was filed by Ututalum beyond the 25-day period (from the filing by
Loong of the questioned CoC) prescribed by Sec. 78 of the Code. It follows
that the dismissal of said petition for disqualification is warranted
F. ELECTION CAMPAIGN
ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Sec. 79(b), B.P. 881
This refers to an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a
particular candidate or candidates to a public office.
It includes the following: (SHOPS)
32
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
1. SOLICITING, directly or indirectly, votes, pledges, or support for or
against any candidate
2. HOLDING political caucuses, meetings, rallies or other similar assemblies
3. Forming ORGANIZATONS or groups of persons
4. PUBLISHING or distributing campaign literature or materials for the
purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda
to support or oppose the election of any candidate, and
5. Making SPEECHES or commentaries
PROHIBITED ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACTS
1. Sec. 80, B.P. 881
It shall be unlawful for ANY PERSON, whether or not a voter or candidate,
or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an election
campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period:
PROVIDED, That political parties may hold political conventions or
meetings to nominate their official candidates within 30 days before the
commencement of the campaign period and 45 days for Presidential and
Vice-Presidential election
Lanot vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 164858; November 16, 2006
Under Sec. 11 of R.A. No. 8436, Eusebio became a “candidate”, for purposes
of Sec. 80, B.P. 881, only on March 23, 2004, the last day for filing of CoC
Eusebio clearly did not violate Sec. 80 of the Omnibus Election Code which
requires the existence of a “candidate”, one who has filed his CoC, during
the commission of the questioned acts. Thus, his acts prior to March 23,
2004, even if constituting election campaign are not punishable under Sec.
80
2. Sec. 81, B.P. 881
It shall be unlawful for ANY FOREIGNER, whether juridical or natural
person, to aid any candidate or political party, directly or indirectly, or take
part in or influence in any manner any election, or to contribute or make any
expenditure in connection with any election campaign or partisan political
activity
3. Sec. 83, B.P. 881
It shall be unlawful for ANY PERSON during the campaign period to
remove, destroy, obliterate or in any manner deface or tamper with, or
prevent the distribution of lawful election propaganda
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
4. Sec. 84, B.P. 881
It shall be unlawful for any CANDIDATE, POLITICAL PARTY,
ORGANIZATION, or ANY PERSON to give or accept, free of charge,
directly or indirectly, transportation, food or drinks or things of value during
the 5 hours before and after a public meeting, on the day preceding the
election, and on the day of the election; or to give or contribute, directly or
indirectly, money or things of value for such purpose
LAWFUL ELECTION PROPAGANDA
A. Sec. 82, B.P. 881
Lawful election propaganda shall include:
(A) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers or other written or printed
materials of a size not more than 8 & ½ inches in width and 14 inches in
length
(B) Handwritten or printed letters urging voters to vote for or against any
particular candidate
(C) Cloth, paper or cardboard posters, whether framed or posted, with an
area exceeding 2 feet by 3 feet, except that, at the site and on the occasion
of a public meeting or rally, or in announcing the holding of said meeting or
rally, streamers not exceeding 3 feet by 8 feet in size, shall be allowed:
Provided, That said streamers may not be displayed except 1 WEEK before
the date of the meeting or rally and that it shall be removed WITHIN 72
HOURS after said meeting or rally; or
(D) All other forms of election propaganda not prohibited by this Code as
the Commission may authorize after notice to all interested parties and
hearing where all the interested parties were given an equal opportunity to
be heard: Provided, That the Commission’s authorization shall be published
in 2 newspapers of general circulation throughout the nation for at least
twice within 1 week after the authorization has been granted
B. Sec. 3, R.A. No. 9006
1. Written or printed materials do not exceed 8& ½ inches in width by 14
inches in length (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 9006)
2. Handwritten or printed letters (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 9006)
3. Posters not exceeding 2 feet by 3 feet, however, 3 feet by 8 feet
streamers are allowed in announcing a public meeting or rally, at the site
and on the occasion of a public meeting or rally, may be displayed 5 DAYS
33
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
before the date of rally but shall be removed WITHIN 24 HOURS after
said rally
(Sec. 3, R.A. No. 9006)
4. Paid print ads shall not exceed ¼ page in broadsheets and ½
page in tabloids thrice a week per newspaper, magazine or other
publication during the campaign period
(Sec. 6.1, R.A. No. 9006)
5. Paid advertisements in broadcast media
(Sec. 6.2, R.A. No. 9006)
Adiong vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 103956; March 31, 1992
The restriction was so broad as to include even citizen’s privately owned
cars, equivalent to deprivation of property without due process of law
The objective of giving rich and poor candidates’ equal opportunity to inform
the electorate is not violated by the posting of decals and stickers on cars
and other vehicles
ABS-CBN vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 133486; January 28, 2000
The holding of exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass
media constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the
press
COMELEC cannot ban them totally in the guise of promoting clean, honest,
orderly and credible elections. Quite the contrary, exit polls – properly
conducted and publicized – can be vital tools in eliminating the evils of
election-fixing and fraud
Social Weather Stations vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 147571; May 5, 2001
Sec. 5.4. of R.A. 9006 constitutes an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom
of speech, expression, and the press
It lays a prior restraint on freedom of speech, expression, and the press by
prohibiting the publication of election survey results affecting candidates
within the prescribed period before a local election
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
Chavez vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 162777; August 31, 2004
When Chavez entered into agreements to endorse certain products, he
acted as a private individual. However, when he filed his CoC for Senator,
the billboards featuring his name and image assumed partisan political
character because the same indirectly promoted his candidacy
Therefore, COMELEC was acting well within its scope of powers when it
required him to discontinue the display of the subject billboards
PROHIBITED ELECTION PROPAGANDA
COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, Sec. 7
1. To print, publish, post, or distribute any published or printed political
matter and to air or broadcast any election propaganda or political
advertisement by television or radio or on the internet for or against a
candidate or group of candidates to any public office, unless they bear the
words “political advertisement paid for,” followed by the true and correct
name and address of the candidate or party for whose benefit the election
propaganda was printed or aired, and the words “political advertisements
paid by,” followed by the true and correct name and address of the payor
2. To print, publish, broadcast or exhibit any such election propaganda
donated or given free of charge by any person or publishing firm or
broadcast entity to a candidate or party without the written acceptance by
the said candidate or party and unless they bear the words “printed free of
charge,” or “airtime for this broadcast was provided free of charge by,”
respectively followed by the true and correct name and address of the said
publishing firm or broadcast entity
3. To show, display or exhibit publicly in a theatre, television station, or any
public forum any movie, cinematography or documentary portraying the life
or biography of a candidate, or in which a character is portrayed by an actor
or media personality who is himself a candidate
4. For any newspaper or publication, radio, television or cable television
station, or other mass media, or any person making use of the mass media
to sell or to give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or
election propaganda purposes to any candidate or party in excess of the
size, duration or frequency authorized by law or these rules
5. For any radio, television, cable television station, announcer or
broadcaster to allow the scheduling of any program, or permit any sponsor
to manifestly favour or oppose any candidate or party by unduly or
34
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
repeatedly referring to, or unnecessarily mentioning his name or including
therein said candidate or party
6. To post, display or exhibit any election campaign or propaganda material
outside of authorized common poster areas, in public places, or in private
properties without the consent of the owner thereof
7. To erect, put up, make use of, attach, float or display any billboard,
tinplate poster, balloons and the like, of whatever size, shape, form or kind,
advertising for or against any candidate or political party; and
8. To purchase, manufacture, request, distribute, or accept electoral
propaganda gadgets, such as pens, lighters, fans of whatever nature,
flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets, shirts, hats, bandanas,
matches, cigarettes and the like, except that campaign supporters
accompanying a candidate shall be allowed to wear hats and/or shirts or T-
shirts advertising a candidate
(Sec. 85, B.P. 881)
PROHIBITED ELECTION PROPAGANDA (SUMMARY)
A. To print, publish, post or distribute any poster, pamphlet,
circular, handbill, or printed matter urging voters to vote for or
against any candidate unless they bear the names and addresses of
the printer and payor as required in Sec. 84 hereof
B. To erect, put up, make use of, attach, float or display any
billboard, tinplate-poster, balloons and the like, of whatever size,
shape, form or kind, advertising for or against any candidate or
political party
C. To purchase, manufacture, request, distribute or accept electoral
propaganda gadgets, such as pens, lighters, fans of whatever
nature, flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets, shirts, hats,
bandanas, matches, cigarettes and the like, except that campaign
supporters accompanying a candidate shall be allowed to wear
hats and/or shirts or T-shirts advertising a candidate
D. To show or display publicly any advertisement or propaganda for
or against any candidate by means of cinematography, audio-visial
units or other screen projections except telecasts which may be
allowed as hereinafter provided; and
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
E. For any radio broadcasting or television station to sell or give
free of charge air time for campaign and other political purposes
except as authorized in this Code under the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Commission pursuant thereto
AUTHORIZED EXPENSES OF CANDIDATES AND POLITICAL PARTIES
Sec. 13, R.A. No. 7166 (AN ACT PROVIDING FOR SYNCHRONIZED
NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS)
The aggregate amount that a candidate or registered political party may
spend for election campaign shall be as follows:
(a) For candidates - TEN PESOS (P10.00) for President and Vice-
President; and for other candidates, THREE PESOS (P3.00) for every
voter currently registered in the constituency where he filed his certificate of
candidacy: PROVIDED, That, a candidate without any political party and
without support from any political party may be allowed to spend FIVE
PESOS (P5.00) for every such voter; and
(b) For political parties - FIVE PESOS (P5.00) for every voter currently
registered in the constituency or constituencies where it has official
candidates. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, any
contribution in cash or in kind to any candidate or political party or coalition
of parties for campaign purposes, duly reported to the Commission, shall not
be subject to the payment of any gift tax.
STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION & EXPENSES
Sec. 14, R.A. No. 7166
Effect of Failure to File Statement. - EVERY CANDIDATE AND
TREASURER OF THE POLITICAL PARTY shall, WITHIN THIRTY (30)
DAYS AFTER THE DAY OF THE ELECTION, file in duplicate with the
offices of the Commission the FULL, TRUE AND ITEMIZED STATEMENT
OF ALL CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES (SOCE) in connection
with the election.
NO PERSON TO ANY PUBLIC OFFICE SHALL ENTER UPON THE
DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE until he has filed the statement of contributions
and expenditures herein required.
The same prohibition shall apply if the political party which nominated the
winning candidate fails to file the statement required herein within the
period prescribed by this Act.
35
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
Except candidates for elective barangay office, failure to file the statements
or reports in connection with electoral contributions and expenditures as
required herein shall constitute an administrative offense for which the
offenders shall be liable to pay an administrative fine ranging from One
thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to Thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000.00), in the discretion of the Commission.
The fine shall be paid within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice of such
failure; otherwise, it shall be enforceable by a writ of execution issued by
the Commission against the properties of the offender.
It shall be the duty of every city, or municipal election registrar to advise in
writing, by personal delivery or registered mail, within five (5) days from the
date of election all candidates residing in his jurisdiction to comply with their
obligation to file their statements of contributions and expenditures.
For the commission of a second or subsequent offense under this section,
the administrative fine shall be from Two thousand pesos
(P2,000.00) to Sixty thousand pesos (P60,000.00), in the discretion
of the Commission. In addition, the offender shall be subject to perpetual
disqualification to hold public office
Pilar vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 115245; July 11, 1995
The law makes no distinction or qualification as to whether the candidate
pursued his candidacy or withdrew the same
The term “every candidate” must be deemed to refer not only to a candidate
who pursued his campaign, but also to one who withdrew his candidacy
G. WATCHERS
OFFICIAL WATCHERS, POLITICAL PARTIES, & OTHER GROUPS
Each candidate and registered political party or coalition of political
parties duly registered with the COMELEC and yielding candidates
in the election, as well as duly accredited citizens’ arms may appoint
2 WATCHERS, to serve alternately, in every polling place. However,
candidates for Senator, Member of Sangguniang Panlalawigan or
Sangguniang Panlungsod, or Sangguniang Bayan, or ARMM
Regional Legislative Assembly belonging to the same party or
coalition, shall collectively be entitled to 1 WATCHER
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
Duly accredited citizens’ arms of the COMELEC shall be entitled to appoint a
watcher in every polling place. Other civil, professional, business,
service, youth, and any other similar organizations shall, with prior
authority of the COMELEC, be entitled collectively to appoint 1 WATCHER
in every polling place
QUALIFICATIONS OF WATCHERS
Art. 2, Sec. 18, COMELEC Resolution No. 9640; February 15, 2013
1. Registered (Qualified) voter of the city or municipality where he is
assigned
2. Of good reputation
3. Never been convicted of any election offense or any crime
4. Knows how to read and write English, Filipino, or any of the prevailing
local dialect
5. Not related within the 4th civil degree by consanguinity or affinity to the
chairman or any member of the BEI in the polling place where he seeks
appointment as watcher
RIGHTS & DUTIES OF WATCHER
Art. 2, Sec. 19, COMELEC Resolution No. 9640; February 15, 2013
1. Stay in the space reserved for them inside the polling place
2. Witness and inform themselves of the proceedings of the BEI
3. Take note of what they may see or hear
4. Take notes, photographs of proceedings
5. File protest against any irregularity or violation of law
6. Obtain from the BEI a certificate as to the filing of such protest and/or the
resolution thereof; and
7. Position themselves behind the chairman of the BEI in such a way that
they can read the election returns
8. Furnished with certificates of votes cast for each candidate duly
signed and thumb marked by BEI
36
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
ELECTION
CHAPTER 3
A. CASTING OF VOTES
PREPARATION OF BALLOTS FOR ILLITERATE & DISABLED
PERSONS
Sec. 196, B.P. 881
A voter who is illiterate or physically unable to prepare the ballot by himself
may be assisted in the preparation of his ballot by a relative, by affinity
or consanguinity within the fourth civil degree or if he has none, by
any person of his confidence who belong to the same household or
any member of the board of election inspectors, except the two
party members: PROVIDED, That no voter shall be allowed to vote
as illiterate or physically disabled unless it is so indicated in his
registration record: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That in no case shall an
assistor assist more than three times except the non-party
members of the board of election inspectors. The person thus chosen
shall prepare the ballot for the illiterate or disabled voter inside the voting
booth. The person assisting shall bind himself in a formal document
under oath to fill out the ballot strictly in accordance with the
instructions of the voter and not to reveal the contents of the ballot
prepared by him. Violation of this provision shall constitute an election
offense
AUTHENTICATION OF BALLOT
Sec. 24, R.A. No. 7166
In every case before delivering an official ballot to the voter, the
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS SHALL, IN
THE PRESENCE OF THE VOTER, AFFIX HIS SIGNATURE AT THE
BACK THEREOF. Failure to so authenticate shall be noted in the minutes of
the board of election inspectors and shall constitute an election offense
punishable under Sections 263 and 264 of the Omnibus Election Code
FAILURE TO AUTHENTICATE
Ballot is not deemed spurious. Ballot is valid
Libanan vs HRET
G.R. No. 129783; December 22, 1997
While Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 7166 provides that failure to authenticate the
ballot shall constitute an election offense, there is nothing in the said law
which provides that ballots not so authenticated shall be considered invalid
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
Punzalan vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 126669; April 27, 1998
Failure of the BEI chairman or any of the members of the board to comply
with their mandated administrative responsibility, i.e. signing, authenticating
and thumbmarking of ballots, should not penalize the voter with
disenfranchisement, thereby frustrating the will of the people
B. ILLEGAL VOTER
CHALLENGE OF ILLEGAL VOTER
Sec. 199, B.P. 881
Any voter, or watcher may challenge any person offering to vote
GROUNDS TO CHALLENGE AN ILLEGAL VOTER
1. For not being registered (Sec. 199, B.P. 881)
2. For using the name of another (Sec. 199, B.P. 881)
3. For suffering from existing disqualification (Sec. 199, B.P. 881)
4. Challenged person has received or expects to receive, has paid,
offered or promised to pay, has contributed, offered or promised to
contribute money or anything of value as consideration for his vote
or for the vote of another (Sec. 200, B.P. 881)
5. That he has made or received a promise to influence the giving
or withholding of any such vote or that he has made a bet or is
interested directly or indirectly in a bet which depends upon the
result of the election (Sec. 200, B.P. 881)
PROCEDURE TO CHALLENGE ILLEGAL VOTER
Sec. 200, B.P. 881
Challenged person shall take prescribed oath before BEI that he has not
committed any of the acts alleged in the challenge. Upon the taking of such
oath, the challenge shall be dismissed and the challenged voter shall be
allowed to vote, but in case of his refusal to take such oath, the challenge
shall be sustained and he shall not be allowed to vote
RECORD OF CHALLENGES & OATHS
Sec. 202, B.P. 881
Poll clerk shall keep a prescribed record of challenges and oaths taken in
connection therewith and the resolution of the BEI in each case; and, upon
the termination of the voting, shall certify that it contains all the challenges
made. The original of this record shall be attached to the original copy of the
minutes of the voting
37
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER) Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano

C. BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS

COMPOSITION OF BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS

A. A chairman
B. A member
C. A poll clerk

QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTION INSPECTORS

A. Good moral character and irreproachable reputation
B. Registered voter of the city or municipality
C. Never been convicted of any election offense or of any other crime
punishable by more than 6 months imprisonment
D. Able to speak and write English or the local dialect

DISQUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTION INSPECTORS

A. Must not be related within the 4th civil degree by consanguinity or affinity
to any member of the BEI or to any candidate to be voted for in the polling
place
B. Must not engage in any partisan political activity

POWERS OF THE BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS

A. Conduct the voting and counting of votes in the polling place
B. Act as deputies of COMELEC in supervision and control of polling place
C. Maintain order within the polling place
D. Perform such other functions as prescribed by the Code or by the rules of
the COMELEC

Habana Notes 2014-2015 38

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
POST-ELECTION
CHAPTER 4
A. COUNTING OF VOTES
COUNTING TO BE PUBLIC AND WITHOUT INTERRUPTION
Sec. 206, B.P. 881
As soon as the voting is finished, the board of election inspectors
shall publicly count in the polling place the votes cast and ascertain
the results. The board of election inspectors shall not adjourn or
postpone or delay the count until it has been fully completed,
unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
The Commission, in the interest of free, orderly, and honest elections, may
order the board of election inspectors to count the votes and to accomplish
the election returns and other forms prescribed under this Code in any other
place within a public building in the same municipality or city: Provided, That
the said public building shall not be located within the perimeter of or inside
a military or police camp or reservation nor inside a prison compound
MANNER OF COUNTING VOTES
Sec. 25, B.P. 881
In addition to the requirement in the fourth paragraph of Section 12 of
Republic Act No. 6646 and Section 210 of the Omnibus Election Code, in
reading the individual official ballots during the counting, the chairman,
the poll clerk and the third member shall assume such positions as
to provided the watchers and the members of the public as may be
conveniently accommodated in the polling place, an unimpeded
view of the ballot being read by the chairman, of the election
returns and the tally board being simultaneously accomplished by
the poll clerk and the third member respectively, without touching
any of these election documents. The table shall be cleared of all
unnecessary writing paraphernalia. Any violation of this requirement
shall constitute an election offense punishable under Sections 263 and 264
of the Omnibus Election Code
B. APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS
PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY OF BALLOT
Sec. 211, B.P. 881
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
Every ballot shall be presumed to be valid, unless there is clear and good
reasons to justify its rejection
OTHER BASIC RULES
A. Ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the voter, if it
could be determined with reasonable certainty
B. Utmost liberality must be observed in reading the ballot in order
not to defeat the intention of the voters
C. Technical rule should not be permitted to defeat the intention of
the voter, if that intention is discernable from the ballot itself and
not from evidence aliunde
D. Extreme caution should be observed before a ballot is
invalidated and doubts are to be resolved in favour of their validity
RULES FOR THE APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS
Sec. 211, B.P. 881
In the reading and appreciation of ballots, every ballot shall be presumed to
be valid unless there is clear and good reason to justify its rejection. The
board of election inspectors shall observe the following rules, bearing in
mind that the object of the election is to obtain the expression of the voter's
will:
1. Where only the firs name of a candidate or only his surname is written,
the vote for such candidate is valid, if there is no other candidate with the
same first name or surname for the same office.
2. Where only the first name of a candidate is written on the ballot, which
when read, has a sound similar to the surname of another candidate, the
vote shall be counted in favor of the candidate with such surname. If there
are two or more candidates with the same full name, first name or surname
and one of them is the incumbent, and on the ballot is written only such full
name, first name or surname, the vote shall be counted in favor of the
incumbent.
3. In case the candidate is a woman who uses her maiden or married
surname or both and there is another candidate with the same surname, a
ballot bearing only such surname shall be counted in favor of the candidate
who is an incumbent.
39
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
4. When two or more words are written on the same line on the ballot, all of
which are the surnames of two or more candidates, the same shall not be
counted for any of them, unless one is a surname of an incumbent who has
served for at least one year in which case it shall be counted in favor of the
latter.
When two or more words are written on different lines on the ballot all of
which are the surnames of two or more candidates bearing the same
surname for an office for which the law authorizes the election of more than
one and there are the same number of such surnames written as there are
candidates with that surname, the vote shall be counted in favor of all the
candidates bearing the surname.
5. When on the ballot is written a single word which is the first name of a
candidate and which is at the same time the surname of his opponent, the
vote shall be counted in favor of the latter.
6. When two words are written on the ballot, one of which is the first name
of the candidate and the other is the surname of his opponent, the vote
shall not be counted for either.
7. A name or surname incorrectly written which, when read, has a sound
similar to the name or surname of a candidate when correctly written shall
be counted in his favor;
8. When a name of a candidate appears in a space of the ballot for an office
for which he is a candidate and in another space for which he is not a
candidate, it shall be counted in his favor for the office for which he is a
candidate and the vote for the office for which he is not a candidate shall be
considered as stray, except when it is used as a means to identify the voter,
in which case, the whole ballot shall be void.
If the word or words written on the appropriate blank on the ballot is the
identical name or surname or full name, as the case may be, of two or more
candidates for the same office none of whom is an incumbent, the vote shall
be counted in favor of that candidate to whose ticket belong all the other
candidates voted for in the same ballot for the same constituency.
9. When in a space in the ballot there appears a name of a candidate that is
erased and another clearly written, the vote is valid for the latter.
10. The erroneous initial of the first name which accompanies the correct
surname of a candidate, the erroneous initial of the surname accompanying
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
the correct first name of a candidate, or the erroneous middle initial of the
candidate shall not annul the vote in favor of the latter.
11. The fact that there exists another person who is not a candidate with
the first name or surname of a candidate shall not prevent the adjudication
of the vote of the latter.
12. Ballots which contain prefixes such as "Sr.", "Mr.", "Datu", "Don",
"Ginoo", "Hon.", "Gob." or suffixes like "Hijo", "Jr.", "Segundo", are valid.
13. The use of the nicknames and appellations of affection and friendship, if
accompanied by the first name or surname of the candidate, does not annul
such vote, except when they were used as a means to identify the voter, in
which case the whole ballot is invalid: Provided, That if the nickname used is
unaccompanied by the name or surname of a candidate and it is the one by
which he is generally or popularly known in the locality, the name shall be
counted in favor of said candidate, if there is no other candidate for the
same office with the same nickname.
14. Any vote containing initials only or which is illegible or which does not
sufficiently identify the candidate for whom it is intended shall be considered
as a stray vote but shall not invalidate the whole ballot.
15. If on the ballot is correctly written the first name of a candidate but with
a different surname, or the surname of the candidate is correctly written but
with different first name, the vote shall not be counted in favor of any
candidate having such first name and/or surname but the ballot shall be
considered valid for other candidates.
16. Any ballot written with crayon, lead pencil, or in ink, wholly or in part,
shall be valid.
17. Where there are two or more candidates voted for in an office for which
the law authorizes the election of only one, the vote shall not be counted in
favor of any of them, but this shall not affect the validity of the other votes
therein.
18. If the candidates voted for exceed the number of those to be elected,
the ballot is valid, but the votes shall be counted only in favor of the
candidates whose names were firstly written by the voter within the spaces
provided for said office in the ballot until the authorized number is covered.
40
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
19. Any vote in favor of a person who has not filed a certificate of candidacy
or in favor of a candidate for an office for which he did not present himself
shall be considered as a stray vote but it shall not invalidate the whole
ballot.
20. Ballots containing the name of a candidate printed and pasted on a
blank space of the ballot or affixed thereto through any mechanical process
are totally null and void.
21. Circles, crosses or lines put on the spaces on which the voter has not
voted shall be considered as signs to indicate his desistance from voting and
shall not invalidate the ballot.
22. Unless it should clearly appear that they have been deliberately put by
the voter to serve as identification marks, commas, dots, lines, or hyphens
between the first name and surname of a candidate, or in other parts of the
ballot, traces of the letter "T", "J", and other similar ones, the first letters or
syllables of names which the voter does not continue, the use of two or
more kinds of writing and unintentional or accidental flourishes, strokes, or
strains, shall not invalidate the ballot.
23. Any ballot which clearly appears to have been filled by two distinct
persons before it was deposited in the ballot box during the voting is totally
null and void.
24. Any vote cast in favor of a candidate who has been disqualified by final
judgment shall be considered as stray and shall not be counted but it shall
not invalidate the ballot.
25. Ballots wholly written in Arabic in localities where it is of general use are
valid. To read them, the board of election inspectors may employ an
interpreter who shall take an oath that he shall read the votes correctly.
26. The accidental tearing or perforation of a ballot does not annul it.
27. Failure to remove the detachable coupon from a ballot does not annul
such ballot.
28. A vote for the President shall also be a vote for the Vice-President
running under the same ticket of a political party, unless the voter votes for
a Vice-President who does not belong to such party
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
RULES FOR APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS (SUMMARY)
1. IDEN SONAM – a name or surname incorrectly written but when
it was read it has a sound similar to the name or surname of a
candidate when correctly written
Vote shall be counted in favour of such candidate
2. Only the first name or surname is written
Vote for such candidate is valid, if there is no other candidate with the same
first name or surname for the same office
If there are 2 or more candidates having the same first name or surname, it
is not a valid vote for any of the candidates
3. First name of a candidate is written on the ballot, which when
read, has a sound similar to the surname of another candidate
The vote shall be counted in favour of the candidate with such surname
4. Two words are written on the ballot, one of which is the first
name of the candidate and the other is the surname of his
opponent
Vote shall not be counted for either
5. Ballots contain prefixes like “Sr.” “Mr.” “Datu”, “Don”, etc.
They do not invalidate the ballot, except if they are used as an identifying
mark
6. Nicknames and appellation of affection and friendship, of
accompanied by the first name or the surname of the candidate
It does not annul such vote, except when they were used as an identifying
mark
7. Candidates voted for exceed the number of those to be elected
Ballot is valid, but votes shall be counted only in favour of candidates whose
name were firstly written by the voter within the space provided for said
office in the ballot until the authorized number is covered
8. Where 2 words are written on the ballot, one of which is the first
name and the other is the surname of his opponent
Ballot is counted in favour of the candidate whose surname is the first name
of his opponent
9. 2 or more words are surnames of 2 or more candidates
41
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & ELECTION LAW (FINALS REVIEWER)
Ballot cannot be counted for either, except when one of the candidates is an
incumbent, in which case it will be counted in his favour
10. Woman candidate using her maiden or married surname or
both which is the same surname of incumbent, and written in the
ballot is only such surname
Vote shall be counted in favour of the candidate who is the incumbent
C. ELECTION RETURNS
PREPARATION OF ELECTION RETURNS
BEI shall prepare the election returns, simultaneously with the counting of
the votes in the polling place
RESULT OF ELECTION
Upon completion of the election returns, chairman of BEI shall orally and
publicly announce the total number of votes received in the election in the
polling place by each and everyone of the candidates
CERTIFICATE OF VOTES
Upon request, BEI shall issue Certificate of Votes to Watchers, signed and
thumbmarked by each member of BEI which issues the same
D. PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
It refers to any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the
Board of Canvassers, which may be raised by any candidate or by any
registered political party or coalition of political parties, before the Board of
directly with COMELEC, or any matter raised under Secs. 233-236 in relation
to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the
election returns
PURPOSE OF PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
It is to prevent the nefarious practice known as “grab-the-proclamation,
prolong-the-protest”
JURISDICTION OVER PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction over pre-proclamation cases
Habana Notes 2014-2015
Professor: Atty. Gallant Soriano
ISSUES UNDER PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
1. Illegal composition or proceedings of the Board of Canvassers
It must be filed immediately when BoC begins to act as such, or at the time
of the appointment of the member whose capacity as such is objected to
2. Election Returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion,
and intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not
authentic
Lagumbay vs COMELEC
G.R. No. L-25444; January 31, 1966
Doctrine of Statistical Improbability
3. When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling
places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the
standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates
4. Canvassed Election Returns are incomplete, contain material
defects in the same returns, or in other authentic copies thereof as
mentioned in Secs. 233-236
A. When ERs are delayed, lost or destroyed, BoC may use any of the
authentic copies of said ER or a certified copy issued by COMELEC
B. If some requisites, in the form or data, has been omitted in the ER, BoC
shall call all members of BEI to complete or correct the ER
C. When ERs submitted to BoC appear tampered with, altered or falsified
after they have left the hands of the BEI, or otherwise not authentic, or
prepared under duress, force, intimidation, etc., BEI shall use the other
copies of said ERs
D. When there exists discrepancies in other authentic copies of the ERs or
discrepancies in the votes of any candidate in words and figures in the same
ER, and the difference affects the results of the election, COMELEC, upon
motion of BoC shall order the opening of ballot box to recount the votes
42