ELECTION LAW CASE COMPENDIUM

San Beda School of Law

A.Y. 2020 – 20201

OUTLINE #2
NICOLAS-LEWIS, ET. AL. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 162759 (August 4, 2006) EN BANC
There is no provision in the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003/dual citizenship law requiring "duals" or dual citizens to
actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote. On the contrary, said Act, in
implicit acknowledgment that “duals” are most likely non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1) the same right of suffrage as that granted an
absentee voter under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003. It cannot be overemphasized that R.A. 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise
as much as possible all overseas Filipinos who, save for the residency requirements exacted of an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are
qualified to vote.

MACALINTAL v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013 (July 10, 2003) EN BANC

Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 specifically disqualifies an immigrant or permanent resident who is "recognized as such in the host country"
because immigration or permanent residence in another country implies renunciation of one’s residence in his/her country of origin. However,
same Section allows an immigrant and permanent resident abroad to register as voter for as long as s/he executes an affidavit to show that
s/he has not abandoned his/her domicile in pursuance of the constitutional intent expressed in Sections 1 and 2 of Article V that "all citizens of
the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law" must be entitled to exercise the right of suffrage and, that Congress must establish a system
for absentee voting; for otherwise, if actual, physical residence in the Philippines is required, there is no sense for the framers of the
Constitution to mandate Congress to establish a system for absentee voting. The affidavit required in Section 5(d) 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/her domicile of origin.

Clearly therefrom, the intent of the Constitutional Commission is to entrust to Congress the responsibility of devising a system of absentee
voting. The qualifications of voters as stated in Section 1 shall remain except for the residency requirement. This is in fact the reason why the
Constitutional Commission opted for the term qualified Filipinos abroad with respect to the system of absentee voting that Congress should
draw up. As stressed by Commissioner Monsod, by the use of the adjective qualified with respect to Filipinos abroad, the assumption is that
they have the "qualifications and none of the disqualifications to vote." It is therefore clear that the Constitutional Commission intended to
enfranchise as much as possible all Filipino citizens abroad who have not abandoned their domicile of origin. The Constitutional Commission
even intended to extend to young Filipinos who reach voting age abroad whose parents’ domicile of origin is in the Philippines, and consider
them qualified as voters for the first time.

The COMELEC cannot, even if authorized by law, proclaim winning candidates for President and Vice-President since under the Constitution,
such power lies with Congress. Further, a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee, being a purely legislative body has no authority to review,
revise and approve rules issued by the COMELEC and the choice where voting by mail will be allowed as determined by the COMELEC since
these will intrude into the constitutional independence of the latter.

VELASCO v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180051 (December 24, 2008) EN BANC

A certificate of candidacy cancellation proceeding essentially partakes of the nature of a disqualification case. If the disqualification or
certificate of candidacy cancellation/denial case is not resolved before election day, the proceeding shall continue even after the election and
the proclamation of the winner. Certificate of candidacy defects beyond matters of form and that involve material misrepresentations cannot
avail of the benefit of our ruling that the certificate of candidacy mandatory requirements before elections are considered merely directory
after the people shall have spoken.

ABC (ALLIANCE FOR BARANGAY CONCERNS) PARTY LIST v. COMELEC G.R. No. 193256 (March 22, 2011) EN BANC
COMELEC has the authority to register political parties, organizations or coalitions, and the authority to cancel the registration of the same on
legal grounds. The COMELEC En Banc, has the prerogative to direct that a hearing be conducted on the petition for cancellation of registration
of the party list. The COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions for cancellation of registration of any national, regional or sectoral party,
organization or coalition while it is the HRET that has jurisdiction over contests relating to the qualifications of a party-list nominee or
representative.

ATIENZA v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188920 (February 16, 2010) EN BANC

The validity or invalidity of the expulsion of a political party’s officers is purely a membership issue that has to be settled within the party. It is
an internal party matter over which the COMELEC has no jurisdiction. It may intervene in disputes internal to a party only when necessary to
the discharge of its constitutional functions, such as resolving an intra party leadership dispute as an incident of its power to register political
parties.

ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582 (April 8, 2010) EN BANC
The party-list system is reserved only for those sectors marginalized and underrepresented in the past. The concept of the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors under the party-list scheme has been carefully refined by concrete examples involving sectors deemed to be
significant in our legal tradition. Marginalized sectors should be given a say in governance through the party-list system, not simply because
they desire to say something constructive but because they deserve to be heard on account of their traditionally and historically decisive role in
Philippine society. The only sectors expressly or closely related to those sectors mentioned in Section 5 of R.A. (RA) No. 7941 are qualified to
participate in the party-list system. Until and unless Congress amends the law to include the LGBT and other sectors in the party-list system,
ELECTION LAW CASE COMPENDIUM
San Beda School of Law
A.Y. 2020 – 20201

deference to Congress’ determination on the matter is proper. The party-list system was not designed as a tool to advocate tolerance and
acceptance of any and all socially misunderstood sectors.
ELECTION LAW CASE COMPENDIUM
San Beda School of Law
A.Y. 2020 – 20201

OUTLINE #3
IV. Candidacy
a. Qualifications of candidates
ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v. COMELEC and MONTEJO, G.R. No. 119976 (September 18, 1995) EN BANC
A candidate for the position of Representative for the First District of Leyte is deemed to have complied with the residency requirement even
though s/he has held various residences other than the district in which s/he is running. For the purposes of election law residence is
synonymous with domicile. Domicile includes the twin elements of “the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place” and animus
manendi, or the intention of returning there permanently. An individual does not lose his/her domicile even if s/he has lived and maintained
residences in different places. To successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate: (1) An actual removal or an actual change of
domicile; (2) A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one; and (3) Acts which correspond with
the purpose. There is no showing that s/he has abandoned his/her domicile.

COMELEC does not lose its jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy of a candidate for
Representative of the First District of Leyte even after the elections. By virtue of Section 78 of the OEC in relation to Section 6 and 7 of the
Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, a disqualification case against a candidate is to be decided by the COMELEC. It is only after his/her proclamation
or when the candidate has been proclaimed that jurisdiction over such case will be vested within the HRET.

PAPANDAYAN, JR. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147909 (April 16, 2002) EN BANC
A person who worked in a different town but resides in another and is a registered voter and owns property in the latter meets the residency
requirement.

VILLAFUERTE v. COMELEC, GR No. 206698 (February 25, 2014) EN BANC

A claim that a candidate’s use of a particular name in order to appear first in an alphabetical list of candidates would lead to confusion as to put
him to undue disadvantage, is merely speculative and without basis as the voters can identify the candidate they want to vote for. By using
other nicknames to differentiate one candidate from another person, there is sufficient differentiation which negates any intention to mislead
or misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise render him ineligible.
A petition to deny due course and to cancel COC on the ground of a statement of a material representation that is false; to be material, such
must refer to an eligibility or qualification for the elective office the candidate seeks to hold. The use of a nickname is not a qualification for a
public office which affects his eligibility; the proper recourse is to file an election protest and pray that the votes be declared as stray votes.

TECSON v. COMELEC G.R. No. 161434 (March 3, 2004) EN BANC

An election protest can only contemplate a post-election scenario. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over cases brought directly before it
questioning the qualifications of a candidate for the presidency before the elections are held. Ordinary usage would characterize a “contest” in
reference to a post-election scenario. Election contests consist of either an election protest or a quo warranto which, although two distinct
remedies, would have one objective in view, i.e., to dislodge the winning candidate from office.

Even if the totality of evidence fails to prove natural born Filipino citizenship, there is still evidence as not to hold the candidate guilty for having
made a material misrepresentation in his/her certificate of candidacy in violation of Section 78, in relation to Section 74, of the OEC. The
misrepresentation must not only be material but also willful and deliberate.

POE-LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 221697, MARCH 8, 2016

It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an individual
has satisfied the constitutions residency qualification requirement." The COMELEC ought to have looked at the evidence presented and see if
petitioner was telling the truth that she was in the Philippines during the period claimed.

As a matter of law, foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens

Natural-born citizenship can be reacquired even if it had been once lost. COMELEC's position that natural-born status must be continuous was
already rejected in Bengson Ill v. HRET where the phrase "from birth" was clarified to mean at the time of birth: "A person who at the time of
his birth, is a citizen of a particular country, is a natural-born citizen thereof." Neither is "repatriation" an act to "acquire or perfect" one's
citizenship. There are only two types of citizens under the 1987 Constitution: natural-born citizen and naturalized, and that there is no third
category for repatriated citizens.

b. Filing of certificates
1. Effect of filing
2. Substitution of candidates
3. Ministerial duty of COMELEC to receive certificate
4. Nuisance candidates
5. Petition to deny or cancel certificates of candidacy
6. Effect of disqualification
7. Withdrawal of candidates

FARINAS V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

ELECTION LAW CASE COMPENDIUM
San Beda School of Law
A.Y. 2020 – 20201

FERMIN v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179695 and G.R. No. 182369 (December 18, 2008) EN BANC
The denial of due course to or the cancellation of a Certificate of candidacy is not based on the lack of qualifications but on a finding that the
candidate made a material representation that is false. Such misrepresentation may refer to the qualifications required of the public office s/he
is running for. If there is a subsequent material representation made by a candidate, the COMELEC may deny due course of cancel the
certificate.

Failure to meet the one-year residency requirement for the public office is not a ground for the “disqualification” of a candidate under Section
68. The said section pertains to the commission of prohibited acts and the possession of a permanent resident status in a foreign country as
grounds for disqualification. The candidate being mere resident of the another municipality instead of the newly created municipality where he
is running for office cannot be disqualified using the said provision.

LANOT v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 164858 (November 16, 2006) EN BANC

There are two aspects of disqualification cases. The electoral aspect of a disqualification case determines whether the offender should be
disqualified from being a candidate or from holding office. Proceedings are summary in character and require only clear preponderance of
evidence. An erring candidate may be disqualified even without prior determination of probable cause in a preliminary investigation. The
electoral aspect may proceed independently of the criminal aspect, and vice-versa. The criminal aspect of a disqualification case determines
whether there is probable cause to charge a candidate for an election offense. The prosecutor is the COMELEC, through its Law Department,
which determines whether probable cause exists. If there is probable cause, the COMELEC, through its Law Department, files the criminal
information before the proper court. Proceedings before the proper court demand a full-blown hearing and require proof beyond reasonable
doubt to convict. A criminal conviction shall result in the disqualification of the offender, which may even include disqualification from holding a
future public office. The two aspects account for the variance of the rules on disposition and resolution of disqualification cases filed before or
after an election. When the disqualification case is filed before the elections, the question of disqualification is raised before the voting public. If
the candidate is disqualified after the election, those who voted for him/her assume the risk that their votes may be declared stray or invalid.
These two aspects can proceed simultaneously. The COMELEC commits grave abuse of discretion if it orders the dismissal of the disqualification
case pending preliminary investigation of the election offense by the COMELEC Law Department. COMELEC has the discretion to suspend the
proclamation of the winning candidate during the pendency of a disqualification case when evidence of his/her guilt is strong. However, an
order suspending the proclamation of a winning candidate against whom a disqualification case is filed is merely provisional in nature and can
be lifted when warranted by the evidence.

If the candidate is disqualified after the election, those who voted for him/her assume the risk that their votes may be declared stray or invalid.

The essential elements for violating Section 80 of the OEC are: first, a person engages in an election campaign or partisan political activity;
second, the act is designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates; and third, the act is done outside the
campaign period. However, a certificate of candidacy must first be filed. Otherwise, one is not considered a candidate. Acts committed by a
person prior to his/her being a “candidate” even if constituting election campaigning or partisan political activities are not punishable under
Section 80 and are considered to be protected as part of freedom of expression of a citizen before s/he becomes a candidate for elective public
office.

PLANAS v. COMELEC, G.R. 167594 (March 10, 2006) EN BANC

When the decision of the COMELEC Division disqualifying a candidate who obtained the plurality of votes has not become final, the
proclamation of said candidate was valid and thus COMELEC was divested of its jurisdiction. The rule is based on the assumption that there has
been a valid proclamation. However, Where the proclamation of a candidate is illegal, the assumption of office cannot in any way affect the
basic issues. Thus, it is considered as an exception to the rule.
ELECTION LAW CASE COMPENDIUM
San Beda School of Law
A.Y. 2020 – 20201

OUTLINE #4
V. Campaign
1. Premature campaigning
2. Prohibited contributions
3. Lawful and prohibited election propaganda
4. Limitations on expenses
5. Statement of contributions and expenses

Cases:
PENERA V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 181613. SEPTEMBER 11, 2009
Motorcades conducted after filing of the certificate of candidacy prior to the campaign period constitute premature campaigning. When the
campaign period starts and a person proceeds with his/her candidacy, his/her acts, after the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy and prior
to the campaign period, as the promotion of his/her election as a candidate, constitute premature campaigning, for which s/he may be
disqualified.

PENERA V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 181613 (RESOLUTION), NOVEMBER 25, 2009

A person, after filing his/her COC but prior to his/her becoming a candidate (thus, prior to the start of the campaign period), can already
commit the acts described under Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code as election campaign or partisan political activity, However, only
after said person officially becomes a candidate, at the beginning of the campaign period, can said acts be given effect as premature
campaigning under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. Only after said person officially becomes a candidate, at the start of the campaign
period, can his/her disqualification be sought for acts constituting premature campaigning. Obviously, it is only at the start of the campaign
period, when the person officially becomes a candidate, that the undue and iniquitous advantages of his/her prior acts, constituting premature
campaigning, shall accrue to his/her benefit. This means that a candidate is liable for an election offense only for acts done during the campaign
period, not before. The law is clear as daylight — any election offense that may be committed by a candidate under any election law cannot be
committed before the start of the campaign period.

PANGKAT LAGUNA V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 148075, FEBRUARY 4, 2002

Not every act of beneficence from a candidate may be considered “campaigning.” The term “campaigning” should not be made to apply to any
and every act which may influence a person to vote for a candidate, for that would stretching too far the meaning of the term. Only those acts
which are primarily designed to solicit votes will be covered by the definition and enumeration of election campaign and partisan political
activity found in COMELEC Resolution No. 3636. The distribution of sports items in line with the sports and education program of the province
does not constitute election campaigning since what is prohibited is the release of public funds within the 45-day period before election.

Factual findings of the COMELEC based on its own assessments and duly supported by evidence, are conclusive upon the Court, more so, in the
absence of a substantiated attack on the validity of the same. The COMELEC, as the government agency tasked with the enforcement and
administration of election laws, is entitled to the presumption of regularity of official acts with respect to the elections..

EJERCITO V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 212398, NOVEMBER 25, 2014

Limitation on expenses: The phrase “those incurred or caused to be incurred by the candidate” is sufficiently adequate to cover those
expenses which are contributed or donated in the candidate’s behalf. By virtue of the legal requirement that a contribution or donation
should bear the written conformity of the candidate, a contributor/supporter/donor certainly qualifies as “any person authorized by such
candidate or treasurer.”

COMELEC may properly take and act on the advertising contracts without further proof since the contracts are ought to be known by COMELEC
because of its statutory function as the legal custodian of all advertising contracts promoting or opposing any candidate during the campaign
period.

The purpose of a disqualification proceeding is to prevent the candidate from running or, if elected, from serving, or to prosecute him for
violation of the election laws. A petition to disqualify a candidate may be filed pursuant to Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. Offenses
that are punished in laws other than in the Omnibus Election Code cannot be a ground for a Section 68 petition. The electoral aspect of a
disqualification case is done through an administrative proceeding which is summary in character.