ELECTION

 LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      

KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   1  
 
By   Constitutional   fiat,   the   Commission   on   Election   (Comelec)   has  
ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS   appellate  jurisdiction  over  election  protest  cases  involving  elective  
Based  on  the  outline  of  Atty.  Jocelyn  Valencia   municipal   officials   decided   by   courts   of   general   jurisdiction,   as  
  provided  for  in  Article  IX  (C),  Section  2  of  the  1987  Constitution:  
   
"Sec.   2.   The   Commission   on   Elections   shall   exercise   the  
following  powers  and  functions:  
 
(2)   Exercise   exclusive   original   jurisdiction   over   all  
contests   relating   to   the   elections,   returns   and  
 
qualifications   of   all   elective   regional,   provincial,   and   city  
SET  1  –  ELECTION  LAW,  GENERAL   officials,   and   appellate   jurisdiction   over   all   contests  
  involving   elective   municipal   officials   decided   by   trial  
CASE:  CARLOS  v  ANGELES     courts   of   general   jurisdiction,   or   involving   elective  
G.R.  No.  142907                          November  29,  2000   barangay   officials   decided   by   trial   courts   of   limited  
JOSE  EMMANUEL  L.  CARLOS,  petitioner,    vs.  HON.  ADORACION  G.  ANGELES,  IN  HER  
CAPACITY   AS   THE   ACTING   PRESIDING   JUDGE   OF   THE   REGIONAL   TRIAL   COURT   IN   jurisdiction."  
CALOOCAN  CITY  (BRANCH  125)  and  ANTONIO  M.  SERAPIO,  respondents.    
    In   like   manner,   the   Comelec   has   original   jurisdiction   to  
FACTS:   issue   writs   of   certiorari,   prohibition   and   mandamus   involving  
• Carlos   and   Serapio   were   rivals   in   the   ayoralty   race   in   election  cases  in  aid  of  its  appellate  jurisdiction.  
Valenzuela,  MNL  during  the  1998  elections.     Consequently,  both  the  Supreme  Court  and  Comelec  have  
• On   May   21   1998,   the   Municipal   BOC   proclaimed   Carlos   the   concurrent  jurisdiction  to  issue  writs  of  certiorari,  prohibition,  and  
duly   elected   mayor,   having   obtained   102k   votes.   Seapio   filed   mandamus   over   decisions   of   trial   courts   of   general   jurisdiction  
an  election  protest  contesting  the  results.   (regional  trial  courts)  in  election  cases  involving  elective  municipal  
• A   revision   of   the   ballots   was   conducted,   but   in   the   final   tally   officials.   The   Court   that   takes   jurisdiction   first   shall   exercise  
Carlos  still  had  the  plurality  of  valid  votes.   exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the  case.  
• Nevertheless,  the  trial  court  set  aside  the  final  tally  of  the  votes    
because  of  its  finding  of  significant  badges  of  fraud.  The  court   Trial   court   committed   GAOD;   tantamount   to   declaring   failure  
held   that   the   fraud   was   attributable   to   the   protestee   who   had   of  election  
control   over   the   election   paraphernalia   and   the   basic   services     In   declaring   that   the   final   tally   of   valid   votes   as   per  
in  the  community  such  as  the  supply  of  electricity.   revision  report  may  be  set  aside  because  of  the  "significant  badges  
• Notwithstanding  the  plurality  of  valid  votes,  the  trial  court  set   of  fraud",  the  same  would  be  tantamount  to  a  ruling  that  there  were  
aside  the  procalamation  of  Carlos  and  declared  Serapio  as  the   no   valid   votes   cast   at   all   for   the   candidates,   and,   thus,   no   winner  
elected  mayor  of  Valenzuela.     could   be   declared   in   the   election   protest   case.   In   short,   there   was  
• Carlos  appealed  to  the  COMELEC  on  May  4,  2000,  and  on  May  8   failure  of  election.    
filed   a   special   civil   action   of   certiorari,   this   time   with   the     Nonetheless,   the   annulment   of   an   election   on   the   ground  
Supreme  Court.   of   fraud,   irregularities   and   violations   of   election   laws   may   be   raised  
  as  an   incident   to   an   election   contest.  Such  grounds  for  annulment  of  
ISSUE:   WON   the   SC   has   jurisdiction   to   review   by   petition   for   an  election  may  be  invoked  in  an  election  protest  case.  However,  an  
certiorari   as   a   special   civil   action,   the   decision   of   the   regional   trial   election   must   not   be   nullified   and   the   voters   disenfranchised  
court   in   an   election   protest   case   involving   an   elective   municipal   whenever  it  is  possible  to  determine  a  winner  on  the  basis  of  valid  
official   considering   that   it   has   no   appellate   jurisdiction   over   such   votes   cast,   and   discard   the   illegally   cast   ballots.   In   this   case,   the  
decision.  YES   petitioner   admittedly   received   17,007   valid   votes   more   than   the  
  WON   the   trial   court   committed   GAOD   setting   aside   Carlos’   protestee,   and   therefore   the   nullification   of   the   election   would   not  
proclamation  and  declared  Serapio  mayor?  YES   lie.  The  power  to  nullify  an  election  must  be  exercised  with  the  
  greatest  care  with  a  view  not  to  disenfranchise  the  voters,  and  
HELD:   only   under   circumstances   that   clearly   call   for   such   drastic  
SC  has  concurrent  jurisdiction  with  COMELEC   remedial  measure.  
Article  VIII,  Section  5  (1)  of  the  1987  Constitution  provides  that:     More   importantly,   the   trial   court   has   no   jurisdiction   to  
"Sec.   5.   The   Supreme   Court   shall   have   the   following   declare  a  failure  of  election.  It  is  the  Commission  (Comelec)  sitting  
powers:   en  banc  that   is   vested   with   exclusive   jurisdiction   to   declare   a   failure  
"(1)   Exercise   original   jurisdiction   over   cases   affecting   of  election.  
ambassadors,  other  public  ministers  and  consuls,  and  over     Thus,  the  trial  court  in  its  decision  actually  pronounced  a  
petitions   for   certiorari,   prohibition,   mandamus,   quo   failure   of   election   by   disregarding   and   setting   aside   the   results   of  
warranto,  and  habeas  corpus."   the   election.   Nonetheless,   as   herein-­‐above   stated,   the   trial   court  
  erred   to   the   extent   of   ousting   itself   of   jurisdiction   because   the  
grounds   for   failure   of   election   were   not   significant   and   even   non-­‐

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   2  
 
existent.   More   importantly,   the   commission   of   fraud   can   not   be   substantial   evidence   to   disqualify   Trinidad,   and   he  
attributed   to   the   protestee.   There   was   no   evidence   on   record   that   should  have  been  so  disqualified;  
protestee   had   a   hand   in   any   of   the   irregularities   that   protestant   4. since  Trinidad  was  a  disqualified  candidate,  it  is  as  if  
averred.   petitioner   was   the   only   candidate   entitled   to   be  
  proclaimed  as  the  duly  elected  mayor.  
   
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   was   correct   in   dismissing   Sunga’s  
CASE:  Sunga  v  Trinidad  
G.R.  No.  125629  March  25,  1998   petition  for  disqualification?  NO  
MANUEL   C.   SUNGA,   petitioner,    vs.  COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   FERDINAND   B.     WON  Sunga  should  be  proclaimed  Mayor?  NO  
TRINIDAD,  respondents.    
  HELD:  
FACTS:   COMELEC’S   interpretation   of   Sec.   6   (RA   6466)   in   Res.   2050  
• Sunga   was   a   mayoralty   candidate   running   against   re-­‐ tantamount  to  quasi-­‐judicial  legislation.  
electionist  Trinidad  in  the  1995  elections  in  Cagayan.     COMELEC   Resolution   states     a   disqualification   case   filed   after   the  
• On   22   Apr   1995,   Sunga   filed   a   letter-­‐complaint   with   the   election   but   before   the   proclamation   of   winners   and   that   which   is  
COMELEC  for  disqualification  against  Trinidad,  accusing  him  of   filed   after   the   election   and   the   proclamation   of   winners,   is   to   be  
using   three   (3)   local   government   vehicles   in   his   campaign;   as   dismissed  as  a  disqualification  case.  
well   as   employing   threats,   violence,   intimidation   etc   both   in    
violation  of  the  OEC.     Sec.   6.   Effects   of   Disqualification   Case.   —   Any   candidate  
• The   COMELEC’s   law   department   held   hearings   were   Sunga   who   has   been   declared   by   final   judgment   to   be  
presented  evidence,  while  Trinidad  showed  none.   disqualified   shall   not   be   voted   for,   and   the   votes   cast   for  
• Meanwhile,   election   results   showed   that   Trinidad   garnered   the   him   shall   not   be   counted.   If   for   any   reason   a   candidate   is  
highest  number  of  votes,  while  Sunga  trailed  second.   not   declared   by   final   judgment   before   an   election   to   be  
• On   10   May   1995   Sunga   moved   for   the   suspension   of   the   disqualified   and   he   is   voted   for   and   receives   the   winning  
proclamation   of   Trinidad.   However,   notwithstanding   the   number  of  votes  in  such  election,  the  Court  or  Commission  
motion,   Trinidad   was   proclaimed   the   elected   mayor,   shall   continue   with   the   trial   and   hearing   of   the   action,  
prompting  Sunga  to  file  another  motion  to  suspend  the  effects   inquiry   or   protest  and,  upon  motion  of  the  complainant  or  
of  the  proclamation.  Both  motions  were  not  acted  upon  by  the   any   intervenor,   may   during   the   pendency   thereof   order  
COMELEC  2nd  Division.   the   suspension   of   the   proclamation   of   such   candidate  
• On   28   June,   the   law   department   submitted   a   report   to   the   whenever  the  evidence  of  his  guilt  is  strong.  
COMELEC   en   banc   recommending   charging   Trinidad.   The   en    
banc   eventually   directed   the   filing   of   4   informations   against     Clearly,   the   legislative   intent   is   that   the   COMELEC   should  
Trinidad  for  various  election  offenses.     continue   the   trial   and   hearing   of   the   disqualification   case   to   its  
• Sunga   filed   an   Urgent   Motion   to  Suspend  the  Effects  and  Annul   conclusion,   i.e.,   until   judgment   is   rendered   thereon.   The   word  
the   Proclamation   with   Urgent   Motion   for   Early   Resolution   of   the   "shall"   signifies   that   this   requirement   of   the   law   is   mandatory,  
Petition.   However,   the   COMELEC   2nd   division   through   operating   to   impose   a   positive   duty   which   must   be   enforced.   The  
Resolution   2050,   dismissed   the   petition   for   disqualification   implication  is  that  the  COMELEC  is  left  with  no  discretion  but  to  
because  it  was  filed  after  the  elections.  Sunga  filed  a  MFR,  but   proceed   with   the   disqualification   case   even   after   the   election.  
was  denied  by  the  En  Banc.     Thus,  in  providing  for  the  outright  dismissal  of  the  disqualification  
• Meanwhile,   it   seems   that   Trinidad   was   sonnafter   proclaimed   case  which  remains  unresolved  after  the  election,   Silvestre  v.  Duavit  
mayor  and  assumed  the  position  of  Mayor.   in  effect  disallows  what  RA  No.  6646  imperatively  requires.  
• Sunga   filed   the   instant   case,   with   a   petition   for   certiorari     A   candidate   guilty   of   election   offenses   would   be  
contending   that   the   COMELEC   committed   grave   abuse   of   undeservedly  rewarded,  instead  of  punished,  by  the  dismissal  of  the  
discretion   in   dismissing   the   petition   for   disqualification,   on   the   disqualification   case   against   him   simply   because   the   investigating  
grounds  that:   body   was   unable,   for   any   reason   caused   upon   it,   to   determine  
1. Sec.   6   of   RA   No.   6646   requires   the   COMELEC   to   before   the   election   if   the   offenses   were   indeed   committed   by   the  
resolve   the   disqualification   case   even   after   the   candidate   sought   to   be   disqualified.   All   that   the   erring   aspirant  
election  and  proclamation,  and  the  proclamation  and   would   need   to   do   is   to   employ   delaying   tactics   so   that   the  
assumption   of   office   by   Trinidad   did   not   deprive   the   disqualification   case   based   on   the   commission   of   election   offenses  
COMELEC  of  its  jurisdiction;   would   not   be   decided   before   the   election.   This   scenario   is  
2. COMELEC   Resolution   No.   2050   is   null   and   void   as   it   productive   of   more   fraud   which   certainly   is   not   the   main   intent   and  
contravenes  Sec.  6  of  R.A.  No.  6646;   purpose  of  the  law.  
3. the   fact   that   COMELEC   authorized   the   filing   of   four    
(4)   informations   against   private   respondent   for    
violation   of   the   penal   provisions   of   the   Omnibus    
Election   Code   shows   more   than   sufficient   and    
 

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   3  
 
Sunga  may  not  be  proclaimed  mayor  even  if  Trinidad  is  DQed   precincts   have   taken   place,   the   results   thereof   cannot   be  
  Sunga's  contention  that  he  is  entitled  to  be  proclaimed  as   disregarded  and  excluded.   COMELEC  therefore  did  not  commit  any  
the   duly   elected   Mayor   of   the   Municipality   of   Iguig,   Province   of   abuse   of   discretion,   much   less   grave,   in   denying   the   petitions  
Cagayan,  in  the  event  that  Trinidad  is  disqualified  finds  no  support   outright.   There   was   no   basis   for   the   petitions   since   the   facts   alleged  
in   law   and   jurisprudence.   The   fact   that   the   candidate   who   therein   did   not   constitute   sufficient   grounds   to   warrant   the   relief  
obtained   the   highest   number   of   votes   is   later   disqualified   for   sought.   For,   the   language   of   the   law   expressly   requires   the  
the   office   to   which   he   was   elected   does   not   entitle   the   concurrence   of   these   conditions   to   justify   the   calling   of   a   special  
candidate   who   obtained   the   second   highest   number   of   votes   to   election.  
be  declared  the  winner  of  the  elective  office.      
  COMELEC  not  required  to  receive  evidence    
    Under   the   COMELEC   Rules   of   Procedure,   within   twenty-­‐
CASE:  Mitmug  v  COMELEC   four   (24)   hours   from   the   filing   of   a   verified   petition   to   declare   a  
G.R.  No.  106270-­‐73  February  10,  1994   failure   to   elect,   notices   to   all   interested   parties   indicating   therein  
SULTAN   MOHAMAD   L.   MITMUG,   petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   the   date   of   hearing   should   be   served   through   the   fastest   means  
MUNICIPAL  BOARD  OF  CANVASSERS  OF  LUMBA-­‐BAYABAO,  LANAO  DEL  SUR,  and   available.    
DATU  GAMBAI  DAGALANGIT,  respondents.  
  Indeed,   the   fact   that   a   verified   petition   is   filed   does   not  
 
automatically   mean   that   a   hearing   on   the   case   will   be   held   before  
FACTS:  
COMELEC  will  act  on  it.  The  verified  petition  must  still  show  on  its  
• Mitmug   and   Dagalangit   were   mayoralty   candidates   for   the   face  that  the  conditions  to  declare  a  failure  to  elect  are  present.  In  
town  of  Lumba-­‐Bayabao  during  the  1992  elections.     the  absence  thereof,  the  petition  must  be  denied  outright.  
• There   were   67   precints   in   the   municipality,   but   only   2,   330   out     Considering   that   there   is   no   concurrence   of   the   two   (2)  
of   9,830   registered   voters   cast   their   vote.   Some   precincts   did   conditions   in   the   petitions   seeking   to   declare   failure   of   election   in  
not  conduct  actual  voting  at  all,  leading  the  COMELEC  to  call  for   forty-­‐three   (43)   more,   precincts,   there   is   no   more   need   to   receive  
special  elections  for  these  precincts.     evidence  on  alleged  election  irregularities.  
• After   the   special   elections,   many   other   mayoralty   candidates    
filed  for  petitions  seeking  the  declaration  of  failure  of  election   What  should  have  been  Mitmug’s  action?  Election  protest  
in   some   or   all   precincts   of   Lumba-­‐Bayabao,   leading   to   Instead,   the   question   of   whether   there   have   been   terrorism   and  
additional   special   elections.   Some   of   these   petitions   were   other   irregularities   is   better   ventilated   in   an   election   contest.   These  
dismissed.     irregularities   may   not   as   a   rule   be   invoked   to   declare   a   failure   of  
• A  new  Board  of  Election  Inspectors  was  formed  to  conduct  the   election  and  to  disenfranchise  the  electorate  through  the  misdeeds  
special  elections  on  July  25  1992.  Mitmug  unsuccessfully  tried   of  a  relative  few.  Otherwise,  elections  will  never  be  carried  out  with  
to   contest   the   formation   of   the   new   Board.   Meanwhile,   the   resultant   disenfranchisement   of   innocent   voters   as   losers   will  
Dagalangit  was  eventually  proclaimed  mayor.     always  cry  fraud  and  terrorism.  
• On  3  August  1992,  petitioner  instituted  the  instant  proceedings    
seeking  the  declaration  of  failure  of  election  in  forty-­‐nine  (49)   Basis  is  plurality,  not  majority  
precincts   where   less   than   a   quarter   of   the   electorate   were   able   There  can  be  failure  of  election  in  a  political  unit  only  if  the  will  of  
to   cast   their   votes.   He   also   prayed   for   the   issuance   of   a   the   majority   has   been   defiled   and   cannot   be   ascertained.   But,   if   it  
temporary  restraining  order  to  enjoin  private  respondent  from   can  be  determined,  it  must  be  accorded  respect.  After  all,  there  is  no  
assuming  office.   provision   in   our   election   laws   which   requires   that   a   majority   of  
  registered  voters  must  cast  their  votes.  All  the  law  requires  is  that  a  
ISSUE:  WON  there  was  a  failure  of  elections.  NO,  thus  COMELEC  did   winning   candidate   must   be   elected   by   a   plurality   of   valid   votes,  
not  commit  GAOD  in  dismissing  Mitmug’s  petition   regardless  of  the  actual  number  of  ballots  cast.   25   Thus,  even  if  less  
  than   25%   of   the   electorate   in   the   questioned   precincts   cast   their  
HELD:   votes,   the   same   must   still   be   respected.   There   is   prima   facie  
There  was  no  failure  of  elections,  first  requisite  absent   showing  that  private  respondent  was  elected  through  a  plurality  of  
Before  COMELEC  can  act  on  a  verified  petition  seeking  to  declare  a   valid  votes  of  a  valid  constituency.  
failure  of  election,  two  (2)  conditions  must  concur:      
1. no   voting   has   taken   place   in   the   precinct   or   precincts   on   Misc  
the   date   fixed   by   law   or,   even   if   there   was   voting,   the   Incidentally,   a   petition   to   annul   an   election   is   not   a   pre-­‐
election  nevertheless  results  in  failure  to  elect;  and,     proclamation   controversy.   Consequently,   the   proclamation   of   a  
2. the  votes  not  cast  would  affect  the  result  of  the  election.   winning   candidate   together   with   his   subsequent   assumption   of  
  office   is   not   an   impediment   to   the   prosecution   of   the   case   to   its  
In   the   case   before   us,   it   is   indubitable   that   the   votes   not   cast   will   logical  conclusion.  
definitely  affect  the  outcome  of  the  election.  But,  the  first  requisite    
is   missing,   i.e.,   that   no   actual   voting   took   place,   or   even   if   there   is,  
 
the   results   thereon   will   be   tantamount   to   a   failure   to   elect.   Since  
 
actual  voting  and  election  by  the  registered  voters  in  the  questioned  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   4  
 
CASE:  Maruhom  v  COMELEC   COMELEC’s   power   is   broad   enough   to   help   it   achieve  
G.R.  No.  139357  May  5,  2000   HOPEFRECRE  
ABDULMADID   P.B.   MARUHOM,   petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   Sec.   2   (1)   of   Article   IX   of   the   Constitution   gives   the   COMELEC   the  
HADJI  JAMIL  DIMAPORO,  respondents.  
broad   power   to   "enforce   and   administer   all   laws   and   regulations  
 
relative   to   the   conduct   of   an   election,   plebiscite,   initiative,  
FACTS:  
referendum  and  recall."  There  can  hardly  be  any  doubt  that  the  text  
• Maruhom   and   Dimaporo   were   mayoralty   candidates   in   Lanao   and   intent   of   this   constitutional   provision   is   to   give   COMELEC   all  
during  the  1998  elections.     the  necessary  and  incidental  powers  for  it  to  achieve  the  holding  of  
• During   the   counting   of   votes   it   was   alleged   that   serious   free,  orderly,  honest,  peaceful  and  credible  elections.  
irregularities,  anomalies  and  electoral  frauds  were  committed  at    
Maruhom’s   instance,   so   that   votes   for   Dimaporo   were   not   Liberal   construction   in   defining   the   parameters   of   COMELEC’s  
counted  and  credited  in  his  favor.   power  
• As   a   result   of   the   irregularities,   anomalies   and   electoral   frauds,   Succinctly   stated,   laws   and   statutes   governing   election   contests  
the   petitioner   was   illegally   proclaimed   as   winner   because   he   especially  the  appreciation  of  ballots  must  be  liberally  construed  to  
appeared   to   have   obtained   2,020   votes   while   the   private   the  end  that  the  will  of  the  electorate  in  the  choice  of  public  officials  
respondent  garnered  2,000  votes  with  a  slight  margin  of  only  20   may  not  be  defeated  by  technical  infirmities.  An  election  protest  is  
votes;   imbued   with   public   interest   so   much   so   that   the   need   to   dispel  
• On   May   22,   Dimaporo   filed   a   petition   to   annul   the   proclamation   uncertainties   which   becloud   the   real   choice   of   the   people   is  
of   Maruhom   as   duly   elected   mayor,   SPC98-­‐228.   This   petition   was   imperative,   much   more   so   in   this   case   considering   that   a   mere  
later  withdrawn  by  Dimaporo.   twenty   (20)   votes   separates   the   winner   from   the   loser   of   the  
• As   precautionary   measure   to   avoid   any   technicality,   Dimaporo   contested  election  results.  
also   filed   an   ordinary   "Protest   ad   Cautelam"   against   Maruhom    
before   the   Regional   Trial   Court.   Maruhom   submitted   an   answer   Effect   of   filing   a   motion   to   dismiss   after   filing   an   answer:  
to  this  complaint.     attempt  to  subverting  will  of  electorate  
• Subsequently,   the   COMELEC   issued   an   order   to   conduct   a     It   is   clear,   given   the   foregoing   facts   of   this   case,   that   the  
revision  of  the  votes.  Maruhom  orally  moved  for  the  dismissal  of   roundabout   manner   within   which   petitioner   virtually   substituted  
Dimaporo’s   protest.   Maruhom   later   followed   up   with   a   written   his  answer  by  belatedly  filing  a  motion  to  dismiss  three  (3)  months  
motion  to  dismiss.     later   is   a   frivolous   resort   to   procedure   calculated   to   frustrate   the  
• The  COMELEC  denied  Maruhom’s  motion  to  dismiss  and  ordered   will  of  the  electorate.  Further,  Maruhom  only  filed  the  motion  to  
to   proceed   with   the   revision   of   the   votes.   Maruhom   filed   a   MFR   dismiss  "when  the  results  of  the  trial  appear[ed]  to  be  adverse  
but  this  was  also  denied.     to   him"     or   right   after   the   creation   of   the   Revision   Committee  
• Maruhom   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   assailing   the   COMELEC’s   had   been   ordered   by   the   trial   court.   Otherwise,  he  should  have  
denial  of  his  motions  to  dismiss  as  well  as  his  MFR.  The  COMELEC   filed  his  motion  to  dismiss  "within  the  time  for  but  before  filing  the  
also  ruled  that  fiiling  a  motion  to  dismiss  after  fiing  an  answer  is   answer.   .   ."   pursuant   to   Section   1,   Rule   16   of   the   1997   Rules   of   Civil  
a  prohibited  pleading.   Procedure.  
   
ISSUE:  WON  the  COMELEC  committed  GAOD  in  denying  Maruhom’s    
actions.  NO  
CASE:  Bince  Jr  v  COMELEC  
  G.R.  Nos.  111624-­‐25  March  9,  1995  
HELD:   ALFONSO   C.   BINCE,   JR.,   petitioner,     vs.COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   PROVINCIAL  
The  purpose  of  election  laws   BOARD   OF   CANVASSERS   OF   PANGASINAN,   MUNICIPAL   BOARDS   OF   CANVASSERS  
…   is   to   protect   the   integrity   of   elections   to   suppress   all   evils   that   OF  TAYUG  AND  SAN  MANUEL,  PANGASINAN  AND  EMILIANO  MICU,  respondents.  
may  violate  its  purity  and  defeat  the  will  of  the  voters.  The  purity  of    
the   elections   is   one   of   the   most   fundamental   requisites   of   popular   FACTS:  
government.   The   Commission   on   Elections,   by   constitutional   • Bince   and   Micu   were   Sangguniang   Panlalawigan   candidates   in  
mandate   must   do   everything   in   its   power   to   secure   a   fair   and   Pangasinan  during  the  1992  elections.    
honest  canvass  of  the  votes  cast  in  the  elections.  In  the  performance   • During  the  canvassing  of  the  COCs  for  the  10  municipalities  of  the  
of  its  duties,  the  Commission  must  be  given  a  considerable  latitude   6th   district,     Micu   objected   to   the   inclusion   of   the   COC   of   San  
in   adopting   means   and   methods   that   will   insure   the   Quintin,  claiming  that  it  contained  false  statements.    
accomplishment   of   the   great   objective   for   which   it   was   created   —   • Micu  later  secured  an  resolution  from  the  COMELEC  directing  the  
to  promote  free,  orderly  and  honest  elections.  The  choice  of  means   Provincial  Board  of  Canvassers  the  correct  number  of  votes  from  
taken  by  the  Commission  on  Elections,  unless  they  are  clearly  illegal   the  municipality  of  San  Quintin.    
or   constitute   grave   abuse   of   discretion,   should   not   be   interfered   • Meanwhile,   Micu   filed   several   petitions   for   correction   of   the  
with.   Statements   of   Votes   (SOVs)   for   alleged   errors   in   other  
  muncipalites  of  the  6th  district  (Tayug  and  San  Miguel)  Note  that  
  the   errors   were   committed   by   the   Municipal   Board   of   Canvassers  
(MBCs).  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   5  
 
• However,   after   canvassing   the   COCs   for   the   10   municipalities,   it   while  that  of  still,  the  MBC  of  Tayug  was  filed  on  June  5,  1992.  Still,  
turns  out  Bince  garnered  27,370  votes  against  Micu’s  27,  639,  or   private   respondent's   petition   was   filed   with   the   MBCs   of   Tayug   and  
a   margin   of   1   vote.   Bince   was   not   yet   proclaimed   at   this   time   San   Manuel   on   June   10,   1992   and   June   11,   1992,   respectively,  
because  of  the  absence  of  authority  from  the  COMELEC.   definitely  well  within  the  period  required  by  Section  6  (now  Section  
• On   June   29,   the   COMELEC   en   banc   promulgated   a   resolution   7),  Rule  27  of  the  COMELEC  Rules  of  Procedure.  Section   6   clearly  
directing   the   PBC   to   continue   with   the   provincial   canvas   and   provides   that   the   petition   for   correction   may   be   filed   at   any  
proclaim  the  winning  candidates.     time  before  proclamation  of  a  winner.    
• On   June   24,   the   PBC   acted   on   Micu’s   petitions   for   correction   of    
the   SOVs   for   Tayug   and   San   Miguel.   Bince   appealed,   claiming   that   What  if  the  petitions  for  correction  were  filed  out  of  time?  No  effect  
the  PBC  had  no  jursidiction.       Assuming   for   the   sake   of   argument   that   the   petition   was  
• Subsequently  the  PBC  filed  a  petition  with  the  COMELEC  seeking   filed   out   of   time,   this   incident   alone   will   not   thwart   the   proper  
a  definitive  ruling  as  to  who  should  be  proclaimed.  Apparently,  if   determination   and   resolution   of   the   instant   case   on   substantial  
the   corrections   for   the   SOVs   of   Tayug   and   SM   were   to   be   grounds.   Adherence  to  a  technicality  that  would  put  a  stamp  of  
included,  Emiliano  Micu  would  gain  plurality  by  72  votes.   validity   on   a   palpably   void   proclamation,   with   the   inevitable  
• The   COMELEC   resolved   the   PBC   to   proclaim   the   winning   result  of  frustrating  the  people's  will  cannot  be  countenanced.  
candidate   on   the   basis   of   the   completed   and   corrected   Adjudication   of   cases   on   substantive   merits   and   not   on  
Certificates  of  Canvass.     technicalities  has  been  consistently  observed  by  this  Court.  
• However  on  July  21,  Bince  was  proclaimed  winner.     Well-­‐settled   is   the   doctrine   that   election   contests   involve  
• Micu   filed   an   Urgent   Motion   for   Contempt   and   to   Annul   public   interest,   and   technicalities   and   procedural   barriers   should  
Proclamation   and   Amended   Urgent   Petition   for   Contempt   and   not   be   allowed   to   stand   if   they   constitute   an   obstacle   to   the  
Annul   Proclamation   alleging   that   the   PBC   defied   the   directive   of   determination  of  the  true  will  of  the  electorate  in  the  choice  of  their  
the   COMELEC.   The   COMELEC   held   the   officers   who   proclaimed   elective   officials.   And   also   settled   is   the   rule   that   laws   governing  
Bince   in   contempt,   and   directed   the   PBC   to   proclaim   the   true   election  contests  must  be  liberally  construed  to  the  end  that  the  will  
winner.   of  the  people  in  the  choice  of  public  officials  may  not  be  defeated  by  
• The   case   later   turned   to   the   legality   of   the   PBC’s   granting   of   the   mere  technical  objections.  
petitions   for   the   correction   of   the   Tayug   and   SM   SOVs.   Micu    
claims   that   his   petitions   for   correction   was   valid   under   under   Was   allowing   the   correction   of   mathematical   errors   proper?  
Section  6  of  Rule  27  of  the  Comelec  Rules  of  Procedure.     YES  
  It   does   not   involve   the   opening   of   ballot   boxes;   neither  
• Eventually,   Bince’s   proclamation   was   affirmed,   but   on   Micu’s  
does  it  involve  the  examination  and/or  appreciation  of  ballots.  The  
MFR  to  the  en  banc,  was  set  aside  and  declared  null  and  void.    
correction   sought   by   private   respondent   and   respondent   MBCs   of  
• Bince  appealed  to  the  SC  in  a  special  civil  action  for  certiorari.  
Tayug   and   San   Manuel   is   correction   of   manifest   mistakes   in  
 
mathematical  addition.   Certainly,   this   only   calls   for   a   mere   clerical  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   in   nullifying   Bince’s  
act   of   reflecting   the   true   and   correct   votes   received   by   the  
proclamation.  NO  
candidates   by   the   MBCs   involved.   In   this   case,   the   manifest   errors  
 
sought   to   be   corrected   involve   the   proper   and   diligent   addition   of  
HELD:  
the   votes   in   the   municipalities   of   Tayug   and   San   Manuel,  
COMELEC  acted  within  its  jurisdiction  
Pangasinan.  
  Respondent   COMELEC   did   not   act   without   jurisdiction   or  
  Consequently,   by   margin   of   72   votes,   private   respondent  
with   grave   abuse   of   discretion   in   annulling   the   proclamation   of  
indisputably   won   the   challenged   seat   in   the   Sangguniang  
petitioner   Alfonso   Bince,   Jr.   and   in   directing   the   Provincial   Board   of  
Panlalawigan   of   the   sixth   district   of   Pangasinan.   Bince's  
Canvassers   of   Pangasinan   to   order   the   Municipal   Boards   of  
proclamation   and   assumption   into   public   office   was   therefore  
Canvassers   of   Tayug   and   San   Manuel   to   make   the   necessary  
flawed   from   the   beginning,   the   same   having   been   based   on   a  
corrections   in   the   SOVs   and   COCs   in   said   municipalities   and   to  
faulty  tabulation.  
proclaim  the  winner  in  the  sixth  legislative  district  of  Pangasinan.  
 
 
Nullification   was   justified   as   the   basis   was   a   mathematical    
error  committed  by  the  MBCs  in  the  computation  of  votes   CASE:  Penera  v  COMELEC  
  The     COMELEC   cannot   be   faulted   for   subsequently   G.R.  No.  181613                              September  11,  2009  
ROSALINDA  A.  PENERA,  Petitioner,    vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS  and  EDGAR  T.  
annulling   the   proclamation   of   petitioner   Bince   on   account   of   a   ANDANAR,  Respondents.  
mathematical   error   in   addition   committed   by   respondent   MBCs   in    
the   computation   of   the   votes   received   by   both   petitioner   and   FACTS:  
private  respondent.   • Penera  and  Andanar  were  mayoralty  rivals  in  Sta.  Monica  during  
  the  2007  elections.    
As  to  timeliness  of  Micu’s  petitions  for  correction:    
• In   April,   Andanar   filed   a   petition   of   DQ   against   Penera   for  
  The   petitions   to   correct   manifest   errors   were   filed   on   unlawfully   engaging   in   election   campaigning   and   partisan  
time,  that  is,  before  the  petitioner's  proclamation  on  July  21,  1992.  
The   petition   of   the   MBC   of   San   Manuel   was   filed   on   June   4,   1992  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   6  
 
political   activity   prior   to   the   commencement   of   the   campaign   permanently   incapacitated   to   discharge   the   functions   of  
period.  Note:  nagmotorcade  daw  kasi  si  Penera.     his  office.  (Emphases  ours.)  
• During   the   pendency   of   the   petition,   the   elections   were   held;    
Penera  was  proclaimed  mayor  and  had  assumed  office.   Considering   Penera’s   disqualification   from   holding   office   as   Mayor  
• In   July,   the   COMELEC   2nd   Div.   issued   a   Resolution   disqualifying   of   Sta.   Monica,   the   proclaimed   Vice-­‐Mayor   shall   then   succeed   as  
Penera  for  engaging  in  premature  campaigning.       Mayor.  
• Penera   filed   a   MFR   before   the   COMELEC   en   banc,   stating   that   she    
was   not   able   to   produce   evidence   in   her   defense,   and   that   the    
evidence     against   her   was   disproportionately   given   weight.   The   CASE:  Rulloda  v  COMELEC  
EnBanc  denied  her  MFR.     G.R.  No.  154198                        January  20,  2003  
• Penera  filed  a  petition  for  Certiorari  before  the  SC.   PETRONILA   S.   RULLODA,  petitioner,    vs.  COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   (COMELEC),  
ELECTION   OFFICER   LUDIVICO   L.   ASUNCION   OF   SAN   JACINTO,   PANGASINAN;  
• Meanwhile,   as   Penera   was   DQed,   Andanar   prayed   that   she   be   BARANGAY   BOARD   OF   CANVASSERS   OF   BRGY.   STO.   TOMAS,   SAN   JACINTO,  
allowed  to  assume  the  position  of  mayor  in  Sta.  Monica.   PANGASINAN,   Board   of   Election   Tellers   of   Prec.   Nos.   30A/30A1,   31A,   31A1,   and  
  32A1,  and  REMEGIO  PLACIDO,  respondents.  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   in   disqualifying    
Penera.  NO   FACTS:  
  WON   rival   Andanar   can   succeed   the   disqualified   mayor-­‐ • Rulloda   and   Placido   were   Brgy   Chairman   candidates   in   Sto  
elect.  NO   Tomas,   Pangasinan   during   the   July   15   2002   barangay   elections.  
  Before  the  elections,  Rulloda  died  of  a  heart  attack.  
HELD:   • His  widow,  petitioner  Petronila  "Betty"  Rulloda,  wrote  a  letter  to  
Penera  only  raising  questions  of  fact  +  function  of  certiorari   the   Commission   on   Elections   on   June   25,   2002   seeking  
  It  is  not  the  function  of  the  Court  to  review,  examine  and   permission   to   run   as   candidate   for   Barangay   Chairman   of   Sto.  
evaluate  or  weigh  the  probative  value  of  the  evidence  presented.  It   Tomas   in   lieu   of   her   late   husband.   Note,   at   this   point   Betty   has  
is  not  the  function  of  the  Court  to  review,  examine  and  evaluate  or   not  filed  a  COC.  
weigh  the  probative  value  of  the  evidence  presented.   • One   day   before   the   elections,   election   officer   directed   the  
  The  sole  function  of  a  writ  of  certiorari  is  to  address  issues   Chairman  and  Brgy  BOC  to  append  ‘NOT  COUNTED’  to  any  voted  
of  want  of  jurisdiction  or  grave  abuse  of  discretion,  and  it  does  not   cast  for  ‘BETTY’  ‘PETRONILA’  or  ‘RULLODA.’  
include  a  review  of  the  tribunal’s  evaluation  of  the  evidence.     • Despite   votes   for   her   ‘not   counted’   ,   Betty   gained   516   votes  
  Because   of   its   fact-­‐finding   facilities   and   its   knowledge   versus   Placido’s   290   votes.     Placido   was   proclaimed   winner  
derived   from   actual   experience,   the   COMELEC   is   in   a   peculiarly   anyway.  
advantageous   position   to   evaluate,   appreciate   and   decide   on   factual   • Betty   learned   that   the   COMELEC   later   resolved   to   deny   her  
questions   before   it.   Factual   findings   of   the   COMELEC,   based   on   its   petition  for  substitution.  The  basis  for  COMELEC’s  resolution  was  
own   assessments   and   duly   supported   by   evidence,   are   conclusive   Section   9   of   the   guidelines   for   the   synchronized   Brgy   and   SK  
on   this   Court,   more   so   in   the   absence   of   a   grave   abuse   of   discretion,   elections:  
arbitrariness,   fraud,   or   error   of   law   in   the   questioned   resolutions.   Sec.  9.  Substitution  of  candidates.  –  There  shall  be  no  substitution  of  
Unless  any  of  these  causes  are  clearly  substantiated,  the  Court  will   candidates  for  barangay  and  sangguniang  kabataan  officials.  
not  interfere  with  the  findings  of  fact  of  the  COMELEC.   • Rulloda   filed   the   instant   petition   for   certiorari,   seeking   to   annul  
  the   COMELEC’s   resolutions   insofar   as   they   prohibited   petitioner  
Andanar   cannot   succeed   Penera;   LGC   rules   on   succession   to   from   running   as   substitute   candidate   in   lieu   of   her   deceased  
apply   husband;   to   nullify   the   proclamation   of   respondent;   and   to  
  Despite   the   disqualification   of   Penera,   we   cannot   grant   proclaim   her   as   the   duly   elected   Barangay   Chairman   of   Sto.  
Andanar’s  prayer  to  be  allowed  to  assume  the  position  of  Mayor  of   Tomas,  San  Jacinto,  Pangasinan.  
Sta.  Monica.  The  well-­‐established  principle  is  that  the  ineligibility  of    
a  candidate  receiving  majority  votes  does  not  entitle  the  candidate   ISSUE:   WON   Rulloda   should   be   allowed   to   run   in   leiu   of   her   dead  
receiving  the  next  highest  number  of  votes  to  be  declared  elected.   husband.  YES  
  In   this   case,   the   rules   on   succession   under   the   Local    
Government  Code  shall  apply,  to  wit:   HELD:  
SECTION   44.   Permanent   Vacancies   in   the   Offices   of   the   Essence  of  elections  is  for  the  people  to  choose  
Governor,   Vice-­‐Governor,   Mayor,   and   Vice-­‐Mayor.   –   If   a     In   our   jurisdiction,   an   election   means   the   choice   or  
permanent   vacancy   occurs   in   the   office   of   the   xxx   mayor,   selection  of  candidates  to  public  office  by  popular  vote  through  the  
the   x   x   x   vice-­‐mayor   concerned   shall   become   the   x   x   x   use   of   the   ballot,   and   the   elected   officials   which   are   determined  
mayor.   through  the  will  of  the  electorate.  An  election  is  the  embodiment  of  
    x  x  x  x   the   popular   will,   the   expression   of   the   sovereign   power   of   the  
For  purposes  of  this  Chapter,  a  permanent  vacancy  arises   people.   The   winner   is   the   candidate   who   has   obtained   a   majority   or  
when   an   elective   local   official   fills   a   higher   vacant   office,   plurality   of   valid   votes   cast   in   the   election.   Sound   policy   dictates  
refuses   to   assume   office,   fails   to   qualify   or   is   removed   that   public   elective   offices   are   filled   by   those   who   receive   the  
from   office,   voluntarily   resigns,   or   is   otherwise   highest  number  of  votes  cast  in  the  election  for  that  office.  For,  in  all  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   7  
 
republican  forms  of  government  the  basic  idea  is  that  no  one  can  be   and  terrorism  and  other  serious  irregularities  committed  before,  
declared  elected  and  no  measure  can  be  declared  carried  unless  he   during  and  after  the  voting,  and  during  the  counting  of  votes  and  
or   it   receives   a   majority   or   plurality   of   the   legal   votes   cast   in   the   the   preparation   of   election   returns   and   certificates   of   canvass  
election.   which  affected  the  results  of  the  election.  
  • Because   of   these   irregularities,   Pena   stated   that   he   lost   the  
Interpretation   disallowing   substitution   would   frustrate   the   election   by   almost   7k   votes.   He   then   assailed   Abueg’s  
will  of  electorate;  liberal  construction   proclamation.  
  Private  respondent  argues  that  inasmuch  as  the  barangay   • Abueg   filed   an   answer   and   a   motion   to   dismiss   on   June   23,  
election  is  non-­‐partisan,  there  can  be  no  substitution  because  there   averring   that   the   HRET   has   not   acquired   jurisdiction   over   the  
is   no   political   party   from   which   to   designate   the   substitute.   Such   an   petition,   the   same   being   insufficient   in   form   and   substance.   In  
interpretation,   aside   from   being   non  sequitur,   ignores   the   purpose   essence,   the   motion   to   dismiss   anchors   its   challenge   on   the   fact  
of  election  laws  which  is  to  give  effect  to,  rather  than  frustrate,  the   that  the  petition  failed  to  allege  the  precincts  where  the  massive  
will   of   the   voters.It   is   a   solemn   duty   to   uphold   the   clear   and   fraud   and   disenfranchisement   of   voters   occurred,   nor   did   it   point  
unmistakable  mandate  of  the  people.  It  is  well-­‐settled  that  in  case  of   out  how  many  votes  would  be  gained  by  the  protestant  as  a  result  
doubt,  political  laws  must  be  so  construed  as  to  give  life  and  spirit   of  the  same.    
to  the  popular  mandate  freely  expressed  through  the  ballot.   • Pena  later  submitted  a  list  of  specific  contested  precincts  on  July  
  Contrary   to   respondent’s   claim,   the   absence   of   a   specific   10,  or  17  days  after  Abueg’s  answer.  
provision   governing   substitution   of   candidates   in   barangay   • In   October,   the   HRET   ruled   that   while   it   had   jurisdiction   over   the  
elections   can   not   be   inferred   as   a   prohibition   against   said   petition,  as  the  sole  judge  of  all  contests  relating  to  the  election,  
substitution.   Such   a   restrictive   construction   cannot   be   read   into   the   returns   and   qualifications   of   the   members   of   the   House   of  
law  where  the  same  is  not  written.  Indeed,  there  is  more  reason  to   Representatives,  the  said  petition,  however,  fails  to  state  a  cause  
allow   the   substitution   of   candidates   where   no   political   parties   are   of   action,   and   is   therefore,   insufficient   in   form   and   substance,  
involved   than   when   political   considerations   or   party   affiliations   meriting  its  dismissal.  
reign,  a  fact  that  must  have  been  subsumed  by  law.   • Pena  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  with  the  SC.  
  To   reiterate,   it   was   petitioner   who   obtained   the   plurality    
of  votes  in  the  contested  election.   Technicalities   and   procedural   ISSUE:   WON   the   HRET   committed   GAOD   in   dismissing   Pena’s  
niceties   in   election   cases   should   not   be   made   to   stand   in   the   petition  ad  cuatelam  for  lack  of  substance  (which  Pena  later  cured)?    
way  of  the  true  will  of  the  electorate.  Laws  governing  election   NO  
contests  must  be  liberally  construed  to  the  end  that  the  will  of    
the  people  in  the  choice  of  public  officials  may  not  be  defeated   HELD:  
by  mere  technical  objections.   Pena’s  petition  lacking  substance,  dismissal  proper  
    A   perusal   of   the   Petition   Ad   Cautelam,   reveals   that  
Rulloda’s   letter   to   COMELEC   asking   permission   to   run   to   be   Petitioner   makes   no   specific   mention   of   the   precincts   where  
treated  as  COC   widespread   election,   fraud   and   irregularities   occured.   This   is   a   fatal  
Private  respondent  likewise  contends  that  the  votes  in  petitioner’s   omission,   as   it   goes   into   the   very   substance   of   the   protest.   Under  
favor  can  not  be  counted  because  she  did  not  file  any  certificate  of   Section  21  of  the  Revised  Rules  of  Procedure  of  HRET,  insufficiency  
candidacy.  In  other  words,  he  was  the  only  candidate  for  Barangay   in   form   and   substance   of   the   petition   constitutes   a   ground   for   the  
Chairman.   His   claim   is   refuted   by   the   Memorandum   of   the   immediate  dismissal  of  the  Petition.  
COMELEC   Law   Department   as   well   as   the   assailed   Resolution   No.     The   prescription   that   the   petition   must   be   sufficient   in  
5217,   wherein   it   indubitably   appears   that   petitioner’s   letter-­‐ form   and   substance   means   that   the   petition   must   be   more   than  
request  to  be  allowed  to  run  as  Barangay  Chairman  of  Sto.  Tomas  in   merely   rhetorical.   If   the   allegations   contained   therein   are  
lieu  of  her  late  husband  was  treated  as  a  certificate  of  candidacy.   unsupported   by   even   the   faintest   whisper   of   authority   in   fact   and  
  law,   then   there   is   no   other   course   than   to   dismiss   the   petition,  
  otherwise,  the  assumption  of  an  elected  public  official  may,  and  will  
  always  be  held  up  by  petitions  of  this  sort  by  the  losing  candidate.  
CASE:  Pena  v  HRET     The   defect   in   the   instant   case   arises   from   the   failure   to  
G.R.  No.  123037  March  21,  1997   allege   the   contested   precincts.   Only   a   bare   allegation   of   "massive  
TEODORO   Q.   PEÑA,   petitioner,     vs.   HOUSE   OF   REPRESENTATIVES   ELECTORAL   fraud,   widespread   intimidation   and   terrorism   and   other   serious  
TRIBUNAL  and  ALFREDO  E.  ABUEG  JR.,  respondents.  
irregularities",   without   specification,   and   substantiation,   of   where  
 
and  how  these  occurrences  took  place,  appears  in  the  petition.  We  
FACTS:  
cannot   allow   an   election   protest   based   on   such   flimsy  
• Pena   and   Abueg   were   rivals   for   the   Congressional   seat   in   averments   to   prosper,  otherwise,  the  whole  election  process  will  
Palawan  during  the  May  8  1995  elections.  Apparently,  Abueg  was   deteriorate   into   an   endless   stream   of   crabs   pulling   at   each   other,  
proclaimed  winner.   racing  to  disembank  from  the  water.  
• On   May   22,   Pena   filed   a   petition   AD  CAUTELAM   with   the   HRET,    
claiming   that   the   elections   in   the   2nd   district   of   Palawan   were  
tainted  with  massive  fraud,  widespread  vote-­‐buying,  intimidation  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   8  
 
Substantial   amendments   may   be   allowed   but   must   be   within   SET  2  –  CONSTRUCTION  OF  ELECTION  LAWS  
time  period  (10  days  after  winner’s  proclamation)    
The   Court   has   already   ruled   in   Joker   P.   Arroyo   vs.   HRET,     that   CASE:  Suliguin  v  COMELEC  
substantial  amendments  to  the  protest  may  be  allowed  only  within   G.R.  No.  166046                          March  23,  2006  
the   same   period   for   filing   the   election   protest,   which,   under   Rule   MARGARITO   C.   SULIGUIN,   Petitioner,     vs.   THE   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   THE  
16   of   the   HRET   Rules   of   Procedure   is   ten   (10)   days   after   the   MUNICIPAL   BOARD   OF   CANVASSERS   OF   NAGCARLAN,   LAGUNA,   and   ECELSON   C.  
SUMAGUE,  Respondents.  
proclamation  of  the  winner.  
 
 
FACTS:  
Exception  to  liberal  construction  
• Suliguin   and   Sumague   were   candidates   for   the   SBayan   in  
  While   it   is   conceded   that   statutes   providing   for   election  
Nagcarlan,  Laguna  during  the  2004  elections.    
contests  are  to  be  liberally  construed  to  the  end  that  the  will  of  the  
• Because   of   a   mathematical   discrepancy   in   the   SOVs   for   19  
people  in  the  choice  of  public  officers  may  not  be  defeated  by  mere  
precincts   which   credited   Sumague   with   only   644   votes   instead   of  
technical   questions,   the   rule   likewise   stands,   that   in   an   election  
844,   Suliguin   was   proclaimed   the   winner   of   the   8th   SB   seat.  
protest,   the   protestant   must   stand   or   fall   upon   the   issues   he  
(Suliguin’s  6605  v  Sumague’s  6647)  
had   raised   in   his   original   or   amended   pleading   filed   prior   to  
the  lapse  of  the  statutory  period  for  filing  of  the  protest.   • 4   days   after   the   canvassing,   Sumague   requested   for   a  
  Admittedly,  the  rule  is  well-­‐established  that  the  power  to   recomputation   of   the   votes   in   a   letter   on   15   May.   11   days   later,  
annul   an   election   should   be   exercised   with   the   greatest   care   as   it   the   MBOC   filed   a   "Petition   to   Correct   Entries   Made   in   the  
involves  the  free  and  fair  expression  of  the  popular  will.  It  is  only  in   Statement   of   Votes"   attributing   the   error   to   canvassers’   extreme  
mental  and  physical  fatigue.    
extreme   cases   of   fraud   and   under   circumstances   which  
demonstrate   to   the   fullest   degree   a   fundamental   and   wanton   • The   COMELEC   granted   the   MBOC’s   petition   21   July,   nullified  
disregard  of  the  law  that  elections  are  annulled,  and  then  only  when   Suliguin’s   proclamation   as   it   was   ‘based   on   an   erroneous  
it  becomes  impossible  to  take  any  other  step.   computation   of   votes,’   and   ordered   the   MBOC   to   reconvene   and  
  effect  the  necessary  corrections.  
• Suliguin  filed  an  MFR  which  the  En  Banc  denied.  Suliguin  filed  a  
 
petition   for   certiorari   with   the   SC,   alleging   that   the   COMELEC  
committed   GAOD   when   it   acted   on   the   MBOC’s   petition   as   the  
petition  was  filed  out  of  time.  
 
ISSUE:   WON   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   granting   the   petition   of  
the  MBOC  to  nullify  petitioner’s  proclamation.  NO  
 
HELD:  
Petition  being  filed  on  time,  a  mere  technicality  which  may  be  
set  aside  in  the  interest  of  determining  electorate  will  
  In  an  election  case,  the  Comelec  is  mandated  to  ascertain  
by   all   means   within   its   command   who   the   real   candidate   elected   by  
the   electorate   is.   The   Court   frowns   upon   any   interpretation   of   the  
law   or   the   rules   that   would   hinder   in   any   way   not   only   the   free   and  
intelligent   casting   of   the   votes   in   an   election   but   also   the   correct  
ascertainment  of  the  results.  
  Technicalities  of  the  legal  rules  enunciated  in  the  election  
laws   should   not   frustrate   the   determination   of   the   popular   will.   A  
proclamation   based   on   faulty   tabulation   of   votes   is   flawed,   and   a  
petition   to   correct   errors   in   tabulation   under   Section   7,   Rule  
27  of  the  COMELEC  Rules  of  Procedure,  even  if  filed  out  of  time,  
may   be   considered,  so  as  not  to  thwart  the  proper  determination  
and  resolution  of  the  case  on  substantial  grounds  and  to  prevent  a  
stamp   of   validity   on   a   palpably   void   proclamation   based   on   an  
erroneous  tabulation  of  votes.  
 
Reason  for  liberal  construction  
Sections   3   and   4   of   Rule   1   of   the   Comelec   Rules   of   Procedure  
explicitly  provide  that  such  rules  may  be  "liberally  construed"  in  the  
interest   of   justice.   Indeed,   the   Comelec   has   the   discretion   to  
liberally  construe  its  rules  and,  at  the  same  time,  suspend  the  rules  
or   any   portion   thereof   in   the   interest   of   justice.   Disputes   in   the  
outcome   of   elections   involve   public   interest;   as   such,  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   9  
 
technicalities  and  procedural  barriers  should  not  be  allowed  to   Section  9A,  Rule  22  of   the   COMELEC   Rules   was   a   ground   for   the  
stand  if  they  constitute  an  obstacle  to  the  determination  of  the   appeal’s  dismissal.    
true   will   of   the   electorate   in   the   choice   of   their   elective   • Pacanan   filed   a   MFR   which   was   denied   by   the   En   Banc.   The  
officials.   Laws   governing   such   disputes   must   be   liberally   construed   Comelec   En   Banc   held   that   the   Comelec   did   not   acquire  
to   the   end   that   the   will   of   the   people   in   the   choice   of   public   officials   jurisdiction   over   the   appeal   because   of   the   non-­‐payment   of   the  
may  not  be  defeated  by  mere  technical  objections.   appeal  fee  on  time.  Pacanan  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  with  the  
  SC.    
If   based   on   error:   no   valid   proclamation,   may   be   challenged    
even  after  assumption  of  office;  manifest  error   ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   correctly   dismissed   Pacanan’s   appeal.  
  Where  the  proclamation  is  flawed  because  it  was  based  on   YES  
a  clerical  error  or  mathematical  mistake  in  the  addition  of  votes  and    
not   through   the   legitimate   will   of   the   electorate,   there   can   be   no   HELD:  
valid  proclamation  to  speak  of  and  the  same  can  be  challenged  even   Consolidated   Rules     (Resolution   No.   8486)   show   that   Pacanan  
after  the  candidate  has  assumed  office.   followed  the  correct  procedure  to  perfect  his  appeal  
  Where   the   proclamation   is   null   and   void,   the   proclaimed     The   Court   found   that   under   the   rules,   the   two   tribunals  
candidate’s  assumption  of  office  cannot  deprive  the  Commission  the   (the  court  and  the  COMELEC)  require  the  payment  of  two  different  
power  to  declare  such  proclamation  a  nullity.  We  emphasized  that  a   appeal   fees   for   the   perfection   of   appeals   of   election   cases.   To  
defeated  candidate  cannot  be  deemed  elected  to  the  office.   address   this   confusion,   the   COMELEC   promulgated   Resolution   No.  
    8486.   This  Resolution  stated  that  appeals   to   the   COMELEC   of   the  
 Correction   of   mathematical/mechanical   errors   proper;   trial   court’s   decision   in   election   contests   involving   municipal  
manifest  error  defined   and  barangay  officials  is  perfected  upon  the  filing  of  the  notice  
  Section   32,   subparagraph   5   of   Comelec   Resolution   No.   of   appeal   and   the   payment   of   the   P1,000.00   appeal   fee   to   the  
6669  includes  mistake  in  the  addition  of  the  votes  of  any  candidate   court   that   rendered   the   decision   within   the   five-­‐day   reglementary  
as  a  manifest  error.  A  manifest   clerical   error  is  one  that  is  visible   period.    
to  the  eye  or  obvious  to  the  understanding  and  is  apparent  from  the     The   Court   notes   that   the   notice   of   appeal   and   the  
papers   to   the   eye   of   the   appraiser   and   collector,   and   does   not   P1,000.00   appeal   fee   were,   respectively,   filed   and   paid   with   the  
include   an   error   which   may,   by   evidence   dehors   the   record   be   MTC   of   Kapatagan,   Lanao   del   Norte   on   April   21,   2008.   On   that   date,  
shown  to  have  been  committed.   the  petitioner’s  appeal  was  deemed  perfected.    
  The   corection   of   mathematical/mechanical   errors   does    
not  involve  the  opening  of  ballot  boxes;  neither  does  it  involve  the   8486   promulgated   after   Pacanan’s   appeal   (July   15,   2008);  
examination  and/or  appreciation  of  ballots.  It  only  calls  for  a  mere   should  not  prejudice  him  
clerical   act   of   reflecting   the   true   and   correct   votes   received   by   the   COMELEC   issued   Resolution   No.   8486   clarifying   the   rule   on   the  
candidates  by  the  MBCs  involved.   payment   of   appeal   fees   only   on   July   15,   2008,   or   almost   three  
  months   after   the   appeal   was   perfected.   Considering   that   Pacanan  
  filed  his  appeal  months  before  the  clarificatory  resolution  on  appeal  
CASE:  Pacanan  v  COMELEC   fees,   petitioner’s   appeal   should   not   be   unjustly   prejudiced   by  
G.R.  No.  186224                              August  25,  2009   COMELEC  Resolution  No.  8486.  Fairness  and  prudence  dictate  that  
CONSTANCIO   D.   PACANAN,   JR.,   Petitioner,   vs.COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   the   COMELEC   First   Division   should   have   first   directed  
FRANCISCO  M.  LANGI,  SR.,  Respondents.  
petitioner   to   pay   the   additional   appeal   fee   in   accordance   with  
 
FACTS:   the   clarificatory   resolution,   and   if   the   latter   should   refuse   to  
comply,   then,   and   only   then,   dismiss   the   appeal.   Instead,   the  
• Pacanan   &   Langi   were   mayoralty   rivals   in   Samar   during   the   14  
COMELEC   First   Division   hastily   dismissed   the   appeal   on   the  
May   2007   elections.   Pacanan   was   proclaimed   by   a   margin   of   3  
strength   of   the   recently   promulgated   clarificatory   resolution   –  
votes.  
which  had  taken  effect  only  a  few  days  earlier.  
• 11   days   later,   Langi   filed   a   Protest   with   the   RTC,   disputing  
 
election   results   in   several   precincts   and   claiming   that   Pacanan  
Payment  of  appeal  fee  a  technicality  
had   employed   acts   of   violence   and   intimidation   and   other  
The   COMELEC   First   Division   should   have   been   more   cautious   in  
election  irregularities  in  the  appreciation  of  the  votes  by  the  MBC.  
dismissing   petitioner’s   appeal   on   the   mere   technicality   of   non-­‐
• On  7  Jan  08,  the  RTC  declared  Langi  the  mayor  by  a  pluraility  of  6  
payment   of   the   additional   P3,200.00   appeal   fee   given   the   public  
votes.  
interest  involved  in  election  cases.  This  is  especially  true  in  this  case  
• Pacanan  filed  an  notice  of  appeal  and  paid  the  3k  fee  to  the  RTC.   where   only   one   vote   separates   the   contending   parties.   The   Court  
For  the  appeal  proper,  Pacanan  only  paid  around  1.2k  appeal  fee   stresses  once  more  that  election  law  and  rules  are  to  be  interpreted  
total  to  the  COMELEC.  Section  3,  Rule  40  of  the  Comelec  Rules  of   and  applied  in  a  liberal  manner  so  as  to  give  effect,  not  to  frustrate,  
Procedure  requires  a  3k  appeal  fee.   the  will  of  the  electorate.  
• The  COMELEC  1st  Div  dismissed  the  appeal  for  failure  to  pay  the    
correct   appeal   fee   in   the   5   day   reglemenatry   period,   which   under    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   10  
 
Reason   for   liberal   construction:   promoting   the   objectives   of   COMELEC   arrogates   unto   itself,   and   deprives   the   en   banc   of   the  
HOPEFRECRE   authority   to   rule   on   a   motion   for   reconsideration,   as   in   this   case.  
  The   Comelec   Rules   of   Procedure   are   subject   to   a   liberal   Further,  the  rule  is  not  ironclad;  it  admits  of  exceptions  as  when  the  
construction.   This   liberality   is   for   the   purpose   of   promoting   the   decision  or  resolution  sought  to  be  set  aside,  even  if  it  were  merely  
effective  and  efficient  implementation  of  the  objectives  of  ensuring   a  Division  action,  is  an  absolute  nullity.  
the  holding  of  free,  orderly,  honest,  peaceful  and  credible  elections     The   invalidity   of   the   September   4   and   October   6,   2008  
and   for   achieving   just,   expeditious   and   inexpensive   determination   Orders  arises  from  the  very  fact  that  they  were  issued  by  a  division  
and  disposition  of  every  action  and  proceeding  brought  before  the   of   the   COMELEC.   The   Constitution   explicitly   establishes,   in   Article  
Comelec.   IX-­‐C,   Section   3,   the   procedure   for   the   resolution   of   election   cases   by  
  Statutes  providing  for  election  contests  are  to  be  liberally   the  COMELEC:  
construed   to   the   end   that   the   will   of   the   people   in   the   choice   of     Sec.   3.   The   Commission   on   Elections   may   sit   en  
public  officers  may  not  be  defeated  by  mere  technical  objections.  .  It   banc  or  in  two  divisions,  and  shall  promulgate  its  rules  of  
is   imperative   that   candidates’   claims   be   immediately   cleared   not   procedure   in   order   to   expedite   disposition   of   election  
only   for   the   benefit   of   the   winner   but   for   the   sake   of   public   cases,   including   pre-­‐proclamation   controversies.   All   such  
interest,   which   can   only   be   achieved   by   brushing   aside   election   cases   shall   be   heard   and   decided   in   division,  
technicalities   of   procedure   which   protract   and   delay   the   trial   of   provided   that   motions   for   reconsideration   of   decisions  
an  ordinary  action.   shall  be  decided  by  the  Commission  en  banc.  
   
  Procedure:   MFRs   of   Division   decisions,   resolutions,   orders  
CASE:  Aguilar  v  COMELEC   (except  interlocutory)  be  elevated  to  En  Banc  
G.R.  No.  185140                              June  30,  2009   In   Soriano,   Jr.   v.   Commission   on   Elections,  we   emphasized   the   rule  
JERRY   B.   AGUILAR,  Petitioner,  vs.  THE   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   ROMULO   that  a  motion  to  reconsider  a  decision,  resolution,  order  or  ruling  of  
R.  INSOY,  Respondents.  
a   COMELEC   division,   except   with   regard   to   interlocutory   orders,  
 
shall  be  elevated  to  the  COMELEC  en  banc.  Here,  there  is  no  doubt  
FACTS:  
that  the  order  dismissing  the  appeal  is  not  merely  an  interlocutory,  
• In   the   Oct   2007   Brgy   elections,   Aguilar   won   over   rival   Insoy   by  
but   a   final   order.   It   was,   therefore,   incumbent   upon   the   Presiding  
only  1  vote.    
Commissioner  of  the  COMELEC  First  Division  to  certify  the  case  to  
• Insoy  timely  filed  a  protest  with  the  MTC,  who  ordered  a  revision   the  COMELEC  en  banc  within  two  days  from  notification  of  the  filing  
of   the   votes.   After   the   revision,   the   1   vote   advantage   shifted   in  
of  the  motion.  
Insoy’s   favor.   The   trial   court   nullified   Aguilar’s   prior  
 
proclamation  on  April  17,  2008.  
COMELEC  has  discretion  as  to  issues  re:  “motion  fee”  
• Four   days   after   the   nullification,   Aguilar   filed   a   notice   of   appeal   This  rule  should  apply  whether  the  motion  fee  has  been  paid  or  not,  
and   paid   the   trial   court   1k   in   accordance   with   AM   07-­‐4-­‐15-­‐SC   as  what  happened  in  Olanolan  v.  Commission  on  Elections.  Indeed,  
(Rules   of   Procedure   in   Election   Contests   Before   the   Courts   Rule   40,   Section   18   of   the   COMELEC   Rules   of   Procedure   gives  
Involving  Elective  Municipal  and  Barangay  Officials).       discretion   to   the   COMELEC,   in   this   case,   to   the   en   banc   and   not   to  
• On   31   July,   the   COMELEC   1st   Div   dismissed   Aguilar’s   appeal   for   the   division,   either   to   refuse   to   take   action   until   the   motion   fee   is  
failing   to   pay   the   3.2k   required   appeal   fee   under   Secs.   3   and   4,   paid,  or  to  dismiss  the  action  or  proceeding.  
Rules  40  of  the  Rules.      
• Aguilar  filed  an  MFR,  as  under  AM  07-­‐4-­‐15-­‐SC,  the  appeal  fee  was   POLICY:    
only  1k.  The  1st  Division  denied  him.  Another  of  Aguilar’s  motions    
with   the   COMELEC   was   similarly   denied   by   the   1st   Division   for    
not  having  paid  the  P700  motion  fee.    
CASE:  Taguiam  v  COMELEC  
• Aguilar  eventually  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  with  the  SC.   G.R.  No.  184801                              July  30,  2009  
  JONAS   TAGUIAM,   Petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   ANTHONY   C.  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   1st   Div   committed   GAOD   is   TUDDAO,  Respondents.  
dismissing/denying  Aguilar’s  motions.  YES    
  FACTS:  
HELD:   • Tagiuam  and  Tuddao  were  Sangguniang  Panglungsod  candidates  
Note:  Same  ruling  as  to  applicability  of  8486  in  Pacanan  made   in   Tuguegarao   during   the   2007   electinos.   On   19   May,   Tagiuam  
applicable  in  this  case   was  proclaimed  the  12th  member  over  Tuddao  by  a  margin  of  10  
  votes.    
The  Resolutions  issued  by  the  1st  Div.  null  and  void  as  MFRs  are   • 25  May:  Tuddao  filed  a  Petition  for  Correction  of  Manifest  Errors.,  
to  be  decided  by  the  En  Banc   claiming   discrepancies   between   the   Statements   of   Votes   by  
  Settled  is  the  rule  that  it  is  the  decision,  order  or  ruling  of   Precincts  and  the  election  returns.  
the   COMELEC   en   banc   which,   in   accordance   with   Article   IX-­‐A,   • Tagiuam   argued   that   Tuddao’s   petition   should   be   dismissed   as  
Section   7   of   the   Constitution,   may   be   brought   to   this   Court   on   having  been  filed  late/6  days  after  the  proclamation.    Meanwhile  
certiorari.   But   this   rule   should   not   apply   when   a   division   of   the   the   CBOC   of   Tuguegarao   denied   Tuddaos’   petition,   maintaining  
that  no  errors  were  committed.  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   11  
 
• However,  on  20  Dec  the  COMELEC  2nd  Division  granted  Tuddao’s    
petition  and  directed  the  CBOC  to  reconvene.      
• The   COMELEC   held   that   the   belated   filing   of   private   respondent’s   CASE:  Libanan  v  HRET  
petition  cannot  deter  its  authority  to  ascertain  the  true  will  of  the   G.R.  No.  129783     December  22,  1997  
electorate   and   thereafter   affirm   such   will.   Thus,   after   due   MARCELINO  C.  LIBANAN,  petitioner,   vs.HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  ELECTORAL  
TRIBUNAL  and  JOSE  T.  RAMIREZ,  respondents.  
proceedings,   the   COMELEC   found   private   respondent’s    
allegations   duly   substantiated   with   material   evidence.   Further,   FACTS:  
the   COMELEC   found   that   Tuddao   prevailed   over   Tagiuam   by   23  
• In   the   May   1995   elections,   PR   Ramirez   was   proclaimed   the  
votes.   winner   for   the   congressional   seat   of   Eastern   Samar   over  
• Tagiuam  filed  a  MFR  but  was  denied  by  the  En  Banc,  prompting   petitioner  Libanan  by  a  margin  of  654  votes.  
him   to   petition   the   SC   for   certiorari.   Tagiuam   claimed   that  
• Libanan   timely   filed   an   election   protest   at   the   HRET   claiming  
Tuddao’s   petition   for   correction   of   manifest   errors   should   have   election   irregularities   in   multiple   districts,   and   praying   that  
been   dismissed   outright   for   failure   to   show   any   justification   for   Ramirez’  proclamation  be  annulled  and  that  he  be  proclaimed  in  
its   late   filing;   that,   if   the   petition   had   been   properly   dismissed,   his  place.The  HRET  then  started  the  revision  of  ballots.  
private   respondent   had   other   remedies   available,   such   as   an  
• The  HRET  reviewed  and  passed  upon  the  validity  of  all  the  ballots  
election  protest.  
in   the   protested   and   counter-­‐protested   precincts,   including   those  
 
not   contested   and   claimed   by   the   parties.   The   issue   of   spurious  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   commited   GAOD   in   not   having  
ballots   arose.   Libanan   claimed   that   the   absence   of   the  
dismissed  Tuddao’s  petition  for  having  been  filed  out  of  time.  NO  
thumbmark   or   the   BEI   Chairman’s   signature   at   the   back   of   the  
 
ballot  rendered  it  spurious.    
 
• The   HRET   ruled   in   favor   of   Ramirez,   stating   that   while   Section  
HELD:  
210  of  the  OEC  requires  the  BEI  Chair  to  affix  his  thumbmark  on  
COMELEC  may  suspend  its  Rules  in  the  interest  of  justice  
the   ballot,   the   present   law   (Sec   24,   RA   7166)   did   not   have   the  
While  the  petition  was  indeed  filed  beyond  the  5-­‐day  reglementary  
same  requirement.    
period,   the   COMELEC   however   has   the   discretion   to   suspend   its  
• Libanan  moved  for  reconsideration,  claiming  that  the  absence  of  
rules  of  procedure  or  any  portion  thereof.  Sections  3  and  4  of  Rule  1  
the  BEI  Chairman's  signature  at  the  back  of  the  ballots  could  not  
of  the  COMELEC  Rules  of  Procedure  state,  to  wit:  
but   indicate   that   the   ballots   were   not   those   issued   to   the   voters  
Sec.   3.   Construction.   –   These   rules   shall   be   liberally  
during   the   elections.   He   averred   that   the   law   would   require   the  
construed   in   order   to   promote   the   effective   and   efficient  
Chairman   of   the   BEI   to   authenticate   or   sign   the   ballot   before  
implementation   of   the   objectives   of   ensuring   the   holding  
issuing  it  to  the  voter.  
of   free,   orderly,   honest,   peaceful   and   credible   elections  
and   to   achieve   just,   expeditious   and   inexpensive   • The   HRET   acted   upon   this   MFR,   but   Ramirez   still   obtained   the  
determination   and   disposition   of   every   action   and   plurality  of  votes.    
proceeding  brought  before  the  Commission.     • Libanan  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari.  
   
Sec.  4.  Suspension  of  the  Rules.  –  In  the  interest  of  justice   ISSUE:  WON  the  HRET  committed  GAOD  in  upholding  the  ballots  
and   in   order   to   obtain   speedy   disposition   of   all   matters   without  BEI  Chair  signatures  valid.  NO    
pending   before   the   Commission,   these   rules   or   any    
portion  thereof  may  be  suspended  by  the  Commission.     HELD:  
  Strict   interpretation   proposed   by   Libanan   would   invalidate  
Certainly,   such   rule   of   suspension   is   in   accordance   with   the   spirit   of   ballot  even  if  duly  accomplished  by  voter  
Section   6,   Article   IX-­‐A   of   the   Constitution   which   bestows   upon   the   The   cardinal   objective   in   the   appreciation   of   the   ballots   is   to  
COMELEC   the   power   to   "promulgate   its   own   rules   concerning   discover  and  give  effect  to  the  intention  of  the  voter.  That  intention  
pleadings  and  practice  before  it  or  before  any  of  its  offices"  to  attain   would  be  nullified  by  the  strict  interpretation  of  the  said  section  as  
justice   and   the   noble   purpose   of   determining   the   true   will   of   the   suggested   by   Libanan   for   it   would   result   in   the   invalidation   of   the  
electorate.   ballot  even  if  duly  accomplished  by  the  voter,  and  simply  because  of  
  an  omission  not  imputable  to  him  but  to  the  election  officials.   The  
Liberal  construction  again  emphasized   citizen   cannot   be   deprived   of   his   constitutional   right   of  
In  other  cases,  the  Court  affirmed  the  COMELEC’s  suspension  of  its   suffrage   on   the   specious   ground   that   other   persons   were  
rules   of   procedure   regarding   the   late   filing   of   a   petition   for   negligent  in  performing  their  own  duty,   which   in   the   case   at   bar  
correction  of  manifest  error  and  annulment  of  proclamation  in  view   was  purely  ministerial  and  technical,  by  no  means  mandatory  but  a  
of   its   paramount   duty   to   determine   the   real   will   of   the   electorate.   mere  antecedent  measure  intended  to  authenticate  the  ballot.    
We   have   consistently   employed   liberal   construction   of   procedural    
rules   in   election   cases   to   the   end   that   the   will   of   the   people   in   the   Nothing  in  the  law  stated  that  ballots  not  authenticated  by  the  
choice   of   public   officers   may   not   be   defeated   by   mere   technical   BEI  Chair  is  spurious  
objections.   The   pertinent   provision   of   the   law,   Section   24   of   R.A.   No.   7166,  
  provides:  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   12  
 
  • In   his   petition,   Punzalan   claimed   that   the   COMELEC   committed  
Sec.  24.  Signature  of  Chairman  at  the  back  of  Every  Ballot.   GAOD:  
—  In  every  case  before  delivering  an  official  ballot  to  the   1) when  it  credited  votes  to  Meneses  from  ballots  that  did  
voter,   the   Chairman   of   the   Board   of   Election   Inspector   not  contain  the  BEI  chairman’s  signature;  
shall,  in  the  presence  of  the  voter,  affix  his  signature  at  the   2) when  it  declared  valid  ballots  where  the  signature  of  the  
back  thereof.  Failure  to  authenticate  shall  be  noted  in  the   BEI   chairman   appeared   different   compared   to   other  
minutes   of   the   Board   of   Election   Inspectors   and   shall   documents  bearing  the  same  signatures.  
constitute   an   election   offense   punishable   under   Section      
263  and  264  of  the  Omnibus  Election  Code.   ISSUE:   WON  ballots  without  the  signature  of  the  BEI  Chairman  can  
  be  considered  valid.  YES  
There   is   really   nothing   in   the   above   law   to   the   effect   that   a   ballot    
which   is   not   so   authenticated   shall   thereby   be   deemed   spurious.   HELD:  
The  law  merely  renders  the  BEI  Chairman  accountable  for  such   Ruling  in  Libanan  reiterated  
failure.   The   courts   may   not,   in   the   guise   of   interpretation,   enlarge   While  Section  24  of  Republic  Act  No.  7166,  otherwise  known  as  "An  
the  scope  of  a  statute  and  embrace  situations  neither  provided  nor   Act   Providing   For   Synchronized   National   and   Local   Elections   and  
intended   by   the   lawmakers.   Where   the   words   and   phrases   of   a   For   Electoral   Reforms,"   requires   the   BEI   chairman   to   affix   his  
statute  are  not  obscure  and  ambiguous,  the  meaning  and  intention   signature  at  the  back  of  the  ballot,  the  mere  failure  to  do  so  does  not  
of   the   legislature   should   be   determined   from   the   language   invalidate   the   same   although   it   may   constitute   an   election   offense  
employed,   and   where   there   is   no   ambiguity   in   the   words,   there   imputable  to  said  BEI  chairman.  Nowhere  in  said  provision  does  it  
should  be  no  room  for  construction.   state  that  the  votes  contained  therein  shall  be  nullified.  It  is  a  well-­‐
  settled   rule   that   the   failure   of   the   BEI   chairman   or   any   of   the  
Libanan   can’t   rely   on   BP222   as   the   same   only   applies   to   members   of   the   board   to   comply   with   their   mandated  
barangay  officials   administrative   responsibility,   i.e.,   signing,   authenticating   and  
The   stringent   requirements   in   B.P.   Blg.   222   should   be   justifiable   thumbmarking   of   ballots,   should   not   penalize   the   voter   with  
considering  that  the  official  barangay  ballots  would  be  provided  by   disenfranchisement,  thereby  frustrating  the  will  of  the  people.  
the   city   or   municipality   concerned   with   the   COMELEC   merely    
prescribing  their  size  and  color.  Thus,  the  official  ballots  in  B.P.  Blg.   Ballots  presumed  valid  under  law  
222,   being   supplied   and   furnished   by   the   local   government   Section   211   of   Batas   Pambansa   Blg.   881,   otherwise   known   as   the  
themselves,  the  possibility  of  the  ballots  being  easily  counterfeited   "Omnibus   Election   Code   of   the   Philippines"   provides   that   in   the  
might   not   have   been   discounted.   The   absence   of   authenticating   reading  and  appreciation  of  ballots,  every  ballot  shall  be  presumed  
marks   prescribed   by   law,   i.e.,   the   signature   of   the   chairman   of   the   to   be   valid   unless   there   is   a   clear   and   good   reason   to   justify   its  
Board   of   Election   Tellers   at   the   back   of   the   ballot,   could   have   well   rejection.   Certainly,   the   inefficiency   of   an   election   officer   in   failing  
been  really  thought  of  to  be  fatal  to  the  validity  of  the  ballot.   to  affix  his  signature  at  the  back  of  the  ballot  does  not  constitute  as  
  a  good  and  clear  reason  to  justify  the  rejection  of  a  ballot.  
   
CASE:  Punzalan  v  COMELEC   On   the   varying   signatures   of   the   BEI   Chairman;   COMELEC  
G.R.  No.  126669  April  27,  1998   competent  enough  to  not  employ  experts  
ERNESTO   M.   PUNZALAN,   petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   The   appreciation   of   the   contested   ballots   and   election   documents  
FERDINAND  D.  MENESES,  respondents.  
involves   a   question   of   fact   best   left   to   the   determination   of   the  
 
FACTS:   COMELEC,   a   specialized   agency   tasked   with   the   supervision   of  
elections   all   over   the   country.   It   is   the   constitutional   commission  
• This   decision   is   a   consolidation   of   multiple   cases   arising   from   the    
vested  with  the  exclusive  original  jurisdiction  over  election  contests  
1995   mayoralty   race   in   Pampanga,   wherein   Punzalan   and  
involving  regional,  provincial  and  city  officials,  as  well  as  appellate  
Meneses  were  candidates.  
jurisdiction  over  election  protests  involving  elective  municipal  and  
• 24   May:   Meneses   is   proclaimed   mayor.   Punzalan   placed   third.   On  
barangay  officials.  
2  June,  Punzalan  filed  an  election  protest  questioning  the  results  
  With   respect   to   the   contention   that   a   technical  
in  157  precincts.    
examination  of  the  ballots  should  have  been  ordered  to  determine  
• Because   of   the   many   many   irregularities   attending   the   election,  
whether   they   had   been   written   by   two   or   more   persons,   or   in  
the   trial   court   examined   the   contested   ballots   and   the  
groups  written  by  only  one  hand,  we  hold  that  the  Commission  en  
handwriting,   etc.   and   declared   that   Punzalan   was   the   true  
banc   did   not   commit   an   abuse   of   its   discretion   in   denying  
winner.  
petitioner-­‐protestee's   request.   The   rule   is   settled   that   the  
• Over   the   next   few   months,   Meneses   and   Punzalan   made   many   Commission  itself  can  make  the  determination  without  the  need  of  
legal   manuevers,   leading   up   to   December   of   1997   when   the   calling  handwriting  experts.  
COMELEC  affirmed  Meneses’  earlier  proclamation.     Handwriting   experts,   while   probably   useful,   are   not  
• Punzalan  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  after  his  MFR  was  denied   indispensable   in   examining   or   comparing   handwriting;   this   can   be  
by  the  En  Banc.   done   by   the   COMELEC   itself.   We   have   ruled   that   evidence   aliunde   is  
not   allowed   to   prove   that   a   ballot   is   marked,   an   inspection   of   the  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   13  
 
ballot   itself   being   sufficient. Expert   opinions   are   not   ordinarily   It  is  undisputed  that  that  the  failure  of  the  election  in  Precinct  No.  
conclusive  in  the  sense  that  they  must  be  accepted  as  true  on  the   13  was  due  to  ballot-­‐box  snatching.  According  to  Comelec  records,  
subject   of   their   testimony,   but   are   generally   regarded   as   purely   the   number   of   registered   voters   in   Precinct   No.   13   is   two  hundred  
advisory   in   character;   the   courts   may   place   whatever   weight   they   thirteen   (213).   Since   the   lead   of   respondent   Ong   is   less   than   the  
choose  upon  such  testimony  and  may  reject  it,  if  they  find  that  it  is   number  of  registered  voters,  the  votes  in  that  precinct  could  affect  
consistent  with  the  facts  in  the  case  or  otherwise  unreasonable.   the  existing  result  because  of  the  possibility  that  petitioner  Lucero  
  might   get   a   majority   over   Ong   in   that   precinct   and   that   majority  
  might  be  more  than  the  present  lead  of  Ong.  
CASE:  Lucero  v  COMELEC    
G.R.  No.  113107  July  20,  1994   Guidelines  for  setting  the  date  for  special  elections  
WILMAR  P.  LUCERO,  petitioner,    vs.   COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS  and  JOSE  L.  ONG,   In  fixing  the  date  of  the  special  election,  the  COMELEC  should  see  to  
JR.,  respondents.  
it  that:  
 
 (1)   it   should   be   not   later   than   thirty   days   after   the  
FACTS:  
cessation  of  the  cause  of  the  postponement  or  suspension  
• Lucero   and   Ong   were   candidates   in   the   congressional   race   in  
of  the  election  or  the  failure  to  elect,  and    
Northern  Samar  during  the  1992  elections.      
(2)   it   should   be   reasonably  close   to   the   date   of   the   election  
• During   the   canvassing,   Ong   had   a   204-­‐vote   lead   on   Lucero,  
not  held,  suspended,  or  which  resulted  in  failure  to  elect.  
prompting   Lucero   to   ask   the   COMELEC   to   suspend   Ong’s  
The   first   involves   questions   of   fact.   The   second   must   be  
proclamation,   claiming   that   3   precincts   were   still   unincluded   in  
determined   in   the   light   of   the   peculiar   circumstances   of   a   case.  
the  tally:  in  Precinct  7,  the  ERs  were  illegible;  in  precinct  16,  the  
In  the  instant  case,  the  delay  was  not  attributable  to  the  poor  voters  
ERs   were   missing;   and   precinct   13,   no   elections   were   held   due   to  
of   Precinct   No.   13   or   to   the   rest   of   the   electorate   of   the   Second  
robbed  ballot  boxes.  
Legislative  District  of  Northern  Samar.    
• The   case   went   on   for   almost   two   years.   Meanwhile   in   1993   the     The   delay   was   primarily   caused   by   the   legal   skirmishes   or  
court     ordered   the   correction   of   an   alleged   manifest   error   on   a   maneuvers   of   the   petitioners   which   muddled   simple   issues.  
COC   from   Las   Navas   and   subsequently   ordered   that   a   special   Considering   then   that   the   petitioners   themselves   must   share   the  
election   be   held   in   Precinct   13   after   a   year   and   10months   after   blame  for  the  delay,  and  taking  into  account  the  fact  that  since  the  
the  regular  elections.     term  of  the  office  of  the  contested  position  is  only  three  years,  the  
  holding  of  a  special  election  in  Precinct  No.  13  within  the  next  few  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   in   ordering   the   months  may  still  be  considered  "reasonably  close  to  the  date  of  the  
correction  of  the  alleged  manifest  error  in  the  Las  Navas  COC?  NO   election  not  held."  Ong's  postulation  should  then  be  rejected.  
WON   a   special   election   may   be   called   for   and   held   after   almost   2    
years?   Ong  cannot  be  proclaiimed  based  on  an  incomplete  canvass  of  
  votes  
HELD:   To   accept   the   proposition   is   to   allow   a   proclamation   based   on   an  
Order   to   correct   error   came   from   Court   in   an   earlier   decided   incomplete  canvass  where  the  final  result  would  have  been  affected  
case   by   the   uncanvassed   result   of   Precinct   No.   7   and   by   the   failure   of   the  
The  order  of  the  COMELEC  for  the  correction  of  the  manifest  error   election   in   Precinct   No.   13   and   to   impose   upon   the   people   of   the  
in   the   municipal   certificate   of   canvass   of   Las   Navas   was   made   Second   Legislative   District   of   Northern   Samar   a   Representative  
pursuant  to  the  declaration  made  by  this  Court  in  G.  R.  No.  105717   whose   mandate   is,   at   the   very   least,   uncertain,   and   at   the   most,  
(Ong  vs.  COMELEC)  18  that:   inexistent.  
 
The  correction  of  the  certificate  of  canvass  of  Las  Navas  is  
likewise   in   order.   Even   though   a   pre-­‐proclamation   issue   is  
involved,   the   correction   of   the   manifest   error   is   allowed  
under  Sec.  15  of  R.  A.  No.  7166.  
 
Since   no   motion   for   reconsideration   was   filed   in   that   case,   the  
decision  therein  became  final  and  entry  of  judgment  was  made  on  4  
August  1993.  Consequently,  Ong  cannot  now  re-­‐litigate  the  issue  of  
the  correction  of  the  certificate  of  canvass  of  Las  Navas.  
 
Holding  of  special  election  proper  as  requisites  are  satisfied  
There   are,   therefore,   two   requisites   for   the   holding   of   special  
elections  under  Section  6  of  the  Omnibus  Election  Code,  viz.,    
(1)  that  there  is  a  failure  of  election,  and  
(2)   that   such   failure   would   affect   the   results   of   the  
election.    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   14  
 
    The  Congress  shall  provide  for  the  implementation  
of  the  exercise  of  this  right.  
SET  3  –  INITIATIVE  and  REFERENDUM    
  This  provision  is  not  self-­‐executory.  The  Court  also  looked  at  the  records  to  
CASE:  Santiago  v  COMELEC   discern  the  intent  of  the  drafters.  
G.R.  No.  127325  March  19,  1997  
 
MIRIAM   DEFENSOR   SANTIAGO,   ALEXANDER   PADILLA,   and   MARIA   ISABEL   RA  6735  intended  to  cover  Consti  amendments  but  is  insufficient  
ONGPIN,   petitioners,  vs.  COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   JESUS   DELFIN,   ALBERTO   1. The   inclusion   of   the   word   "Constitution"   in   Section   2   of   RA   6735   was   a  
PEDROSA   &   CARMEN   PEDROSA,   in   their   capacities   as   founding   members   of   the   delayed   afterthought.   That   word   is   neither   germane   nor   relevant   to  
People's  Initiative  for  Reforms,  Modernization  and  Action  (PIRMA),  respondents.   said  section,  which  exclusively  relates  to  initiative  and  referendum  on  
  national  laws  and  local  laws,  ordinances,  and  resolutions.  That  section  
FACTS:   is  silent  as  to  amendments  on  the  Constitution.  As  pointed  out  earlier,  
• In   1996,   PR   Delfin   filed   a   Petition   to   Amend   the   Constitution,   to   Lift   initiative  on  the  Constitution  is  confined  only  to  proposals  to  AMEND.  
Term   Limits   of   Elective   Officials,   by   People's   Initiative   (Delfin   petition)   The  people  are  not  accorded  the  power  to  "directly  propose,  enact,  
wherein   Delfin   asked   the   COMELEC   to:   1)   fix   a   time   and   date   for   approve,  or  reject,   in   whole   or   in   part,   the   Constitution"   through  
signature  gathering  all  over  the  country  2)  the  necessary  publications   the   system   of   initiative.   They   can   only   do   so   with   respect   to   "laws,  
for  the  Initiative  in  newspapers  of  general  circulation  and  3)  to  instruct   ordinances,  or  resolutions."    
local  election  officers  to  assist  in  the  gathering  of  the  signatures.   2. Unlike   the   other   systems   of   initiative   mentioned   in   RA   6735,   the   Act  
• The   COMELEC   granted   the   petition   (and   what?).   Sen.   Roco   on   that   does   not   provide   for   the   contents   of   a   petition   for   initiative   on   the  
same  day  filed  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  the  petiton  on  the  ground  that  it  is   Constitution.  The  Act  also  repeatedly  mentions  references  that  the  Act  
not   the   initiatory   petition   properly   cognizable   by   the   COMELEC.   Roco   only  covers  laws.    
claimed   that   the   petition,   in   order   to   be   cognizable   by   the   COMELEC,   3. While  the  Act  provides  subtitles  for  National  Initiative  and  Referendum  
has   to   already   contain   the   signatures   needed.   Roco   also   stated   that   the   (Subtitle   II)   and   for   Local   Initiative   and   Referendum   (Subtitle   III),   no  
role   of   the   COMELEC   is   not   to   assist   them   in   gathering   votes,   but   is   subtitle  is  provided  for  initiative  on  the  Constitution.  This  conspicuous  
limited   to   determining   the   sufficiency   of   the   petition   and   to   call   and   silence  as  to  the  latter  simply  means  that  the  main  thrust  of  the  Act  is  
supervise  the  plebiscite  if  it  came  to  that.   initiative   and   referendum   on   national   and   local   laws.   If   Congress  
• Later,   Defensor-­‐Santiago   filed   a   special   civil   action   for   certiorari   intended   R.A.   No.   6735   to   fully   provide   for   the   implementation   of   the  
alleging  that:   initiative   on   amendments   to   the   Constitution,   it   could   have   provided  
1. That  the  Constitutional  provision  on  people’s  initiative  was  not   for   a   subtitle   therefor,   considering   that   in   the   order   of   things,   the  
self-­‐executing,   and   that   no   such   law   has   been   passed   by   primacy   of   interest,   or   hierarchy   of   values,   the   right   of   the   people   to  
Congress   directly   propose   amendments   to   the   Constitution   is   far   more  
2. That  while  RA  6735  provides  for  the  3  systems  of  initiative,  it   important  than  the  initiative  on  national  and  local  laws.  
did   not   have   a   subtitle   for   Constitutional   amendments,   which   4. RA  6735  also  outlines  the  specific  requirements  for  local  and  national  
according   to   Santiago   was   indicative   of   the   intent   that   it   be   initiatives,   while   curiously   only   paying   lip   service   to   Constitutional  
covered  by  some  future  legislation   amendments.  
3. That   RA   6735   applies   only   to   amendments   to   laws   as   it    
provided  for  the  effectivity  after  publication    
4. That   COMELEC   Res.   2300   (effective   1991,   which   governs   the   RA   6735   cannot   be   cured   by   COMELEC;   Resolution   2300   void   as   ultra  
conduct   on   initiative   on   the   Constitution)   was   ultra   vires   as   vires,  failing  completeness  and  sufficient  standards  test  
only  Congress  can  enact  the  enabling  law     That   R.A.   No.   6735   is   incomplete,   inadequate,   or   wanting   in  
5. That   the   Delfin   petition   is   actually   a   revision   and   not   an   essential   terms   and   conditions   insofar   as   initiative   on   amendments   to   the  
amendment,   which   puts   it   outside   the   power   of   the   people’s   Constitution   is   concerned.   Its   lacunae   on   this   substantive   matter   are   fatal  
initiative   and   cannot   be   cured   by   "empowering"   the   COMELEC   "to   promulgate   such  
• Delfin,   on   the   other   hand,   remained   adamant   that   what   he   filed   was   an   rules  and  regulations  as  may  be  necessary  to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  [the]  
‘initiatory   pleading’   or   ‘initiatory   petition’   necessary   to   jumpstart   the   Act.  
signature  gathering  under  the  COMELEC.     The  rule  is  that  what  has  been  delegated,  cannot  be  delegated  or  
  as  expressed  in  a  Latin  maxim:  potestas  delegata  non  delegari  potest.  
ISSUE:   WON   the   provision   on   Consti   amendments   is   self-­‐executing,   and   is     It   logically   follows   that   the   COMELEC   cannot   validly   promulgate  
RA  6735  or  COMRES  2300  sufficient  to  cover  it?  NO  and  NO   rules   and   regulations   to   implement   the   exercise   of   the   right   of   the   people   to  
WON   the   Delfin   petition   complied   with   the   requirements   to   be   validly   directly   propose   amendments   to   the   Constitution   through   the   system   of  
recognized  by  the  COMELEC.  NO   initiative.  It  does  not  have  that  power  under  R.A.  No.  6735.  Reliance  on  the  
  COMELEC's   power   under   Section   2(1)   of   Article   IX-­‐C   of   the   Constitution   is  
HELD:   misplaced,   for   the   laws   and   regulations   referred   to   therein   are   those  
Consti  provision  non-­‐self-­‐executing;     promulgated   by   the   COMELEC   under   (a)   Section   3   of   Article   IX-­‐C   of   the  
Section  2  of  Article  XVII  of  the  Constitution  provides:   Constitution,   or   (b)   a   law   where   subordinate   legislation   is   authorized   and  
  Sec.   2.   Amendments   to   this   Constitution   may   likewise   which  satisfies  the  "completeness"  and  the  "sufficient  standard"  tests.  
be   directly   proposed   by   the   people   through   initiative   upon   a    
petition   of   at   least   twelve   per   centum   of   the   total   number   of    
registered   voters,   of   which   every   legislative   district   must   be   Delfin   petition   should   not   have   been   entertained   as   it   is   not   the  
represented  by  at  least  three  per  centum  of  the  registered  voters   initatory  petition  contemplated  under  law  
therein.   No   amendment   under   this   section   shall   be   authorized     Under   Section   2   of   Article   XVII   of   the   Constitution   and   Section  
within  five  years  following  the  ratification  of  this  Constitution  nor   5(b)   of   R.A.   No.   6735,   a   petition   for   initiative   on   the   Constitution   must   be  
oftener  than  once  every  five  years  thereafter.   signed   by   at   least   12%   of   the   total   number   of   registered   voters   of   which  
every   legislative   district   is   represented   by   at   least   3%   of   the   registered  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   15  
 
voters   therein.   The   Delfin   Petition   does   not   contain   signatures   of   the   HELD:  
required   number   of   voters.   Delfin   himself   admits   that   he   has   not   yet   No   need   to   revisit   Santiago   as   the   petition   can   be   dismissed   on   other  
gathered   signatures   and   that   the   purpose   of   his   petition   is   primarily   to   grounds  
obtain   assistance   in   his   drive   to   gather   signatures.   Without   the   required   The   present   petition   warrants   dismissal   based   alone   on   the   Lambino  
signatures,  the  petition  cannot  be  deemed  validly  initiated.   Group's   glaring   failure   to   comply   with   the   basic   requirements   of   the  
  Since   the   Delfin   Petition   is   not   the   initiatory   petition   under   R.A.   Constitution.  For  following  the  Court's  ruling  in  Santiago,  no  grave  abuse  of  
No.   6735   and   COMELEC   Resolution   No.   2300,   it   cannot   be   entertained   or   discretion  is  attributable  to  the  Commision  on  Elections.  
given   cognizance   of   by   the   COMELEC.   Thus,   the   COMELEC   acted   without   The  Initiative  Petition  Does  Not  Comply  with  Section  2,  Article  XVII  of  
jurisdiction   or   with   grave   abuse   of   discretion   in   entertaining   the   Delfin   the  Constitution  on  Direct  Proposal  by  the  People  
Petition.     The   Lambino   Group's   signature   sheets   do   not   contain   the   full   text  
  of   the   proposed   changes,   either   on   the   face   of   the   signature   sheets,   or   as  
COMELEC  participation  limited  before  the  filing  of  the  petitions:   attachment   with   an   indication   in   the   signature   sheet   of   such   attachment.  
The   COMELEC   acquires   jurisdiction   over   a   petition   for   initiative   only   Petitioner  Atty.  Lambino  admitted  this  during  the  oral  arguments,  and  
after   its   filing.   The   petition   then   is   the   initiatory  pleading.   Nothing   before   this  admission  binds  the  Lambino  Group.  This  fact  is  also  obvious  from  
its   filing   is   cognizable   by   the   COMELEC,   sitting   en   banc.   The   only   a   mere   reading   of   the   signature   sheet.   This   omission   is   fatal.  The  failure  
participation   of   the   COMELEC   or   its   personnel   before   the   filing   of   such   to   so   include   the   text   of   the   proposed   changes   in   the   signature   sheets  
petition  are:   renders   the   initiative   void   for   non-­‐compliance   with   the   constitutional  
1. to  prescribe  the  form  of  the  petition;   requirement   that   the   amendment   must   be   "directly   proposed   by   the  
2. to  issue  through  its  Election  Records  and  Statistics  Office  a   people  through  initiative  upon  a  petition."   The   signature   sheet   is   not   the  
certificate  on  the  total  number  of  registered  voters  in  each   "petition"  envisioned  in  the  initiative  clause  of  the  Constitution.  
legislative  district    
3. to   assist,   through   its   election   registrars,   in   the   In  depth  discussions:  
establishment  of  signature  stations   1. No   presumption   that   petitioners   observed   proper   Constitutional  
4. to   verify,   through   its   election   registrars,   the   signatures   on   requirements  in  obtaining  signatures  
the  basis  of  the  registry  list  of  voters,  voters'  affidavits,  and   The   essence   of   amendments   "directly   proposed   by   the   people  
voters'   identification   cards   used   in   the   immediately   through   initiative   upon   a   petition"  is  that  the   entire   proposal  
preceding  election.   on  its  face  is  a  petition  by  the  people.  This  means  two  essential  
elements  must  be  present:  
   
First,  the  people  must  author  and  thus  sign  the  entire  proposal.  No  
 
agent   or   representative   can   sign   on   their   behalf.   Second,   as   an  
CASE:  Lambino  v  COMELEC   initiative   upon   a   petition,   the   proposal   must   be   embodied   in   a  
G.R.  No.  174153  October  25,  2006   petition.  
RAUL   L.   LAMBINO   and   ERICO   B.   AUMENTADO,   TOGETHER   WITH   6,327,952    
REGISTERED   VOTERS,   Petitioners,  vs.  THE   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,  
These   essential   elements   are   present   only   if   the   full   text   of   the  
Respondent.  
proposed   amendments   is   first   shown   to   the   people   who   express  
 
their  assent  by  signing  such  complete  proposal  in  a  petition.  Thus,  
FACTS:  
an   amendment   is   "directly   proposed   by   the   people   through  
• In   2006,   Lambino   together   with   many   others,   started   gathering  
initiative  upon  a  petition"  only  if  the  people  sign  on  a  petition  
signatures   for   an   initiative   petition   to   amend   the   Constitution.   Later,   they  
that  contains  the  full  text  of  the  proposed  amendments.  
filed  a  petition  with  the  COMELEC  to  hold  a  plebiscite  that  will  ratify  their  
 
initiative  petition  under  Section  5b  and  c  and  Section  7  of  RA  6735.  
The   phase   where   the   signatures   were   obtained   is   also   a   great  
•  The   Lambino   Group   alleged   that   their   petition   had   the   support   of  
opportunity   for   fraud.   A   person   permitted   to   describe   orally   the  
6,327,952   individuals   constituting   at   least   twelve   per  centum  (12%)   of   all  
contents  of  an  initiative  petition  to  a  potential  signer,  without  the  
registered   voters,   with   each   legislative   district   represented   by   at   least  
signer  having  actually  examined  the  petition,  could  easily  mislead  
three   per  centum  (3%)   of   its   registered   voters.   The   Lambino   Group   also  
the   signer   by,   for   example,   omitting,   downplaying,   or   even   flatly  
claimed   that   COMELEC   election   registrars   had   verified   the   signatures   of  
misrepresenting,   portions   of   the   petition   that   might   not   be   to   the  
the  6.3  million  individuals.  
signer's  liking.    
• The  Lambino  initiative  sought  to  amend  Constitutional  provisions  on  the  
   
Legislative   and   Execuive   Department   to   shift   the   system   to   a   Unicameral-­‐
Thus,   there   is   no   presumption   that   the   proponents   observed   the  
parliamentary   form   of   government.   The   initiative   also   attempted   to   add  
constitutional   requirements   in   gathering   the   signatures.   The  
Article  XVIII  entitled  ‘Transitory  provisions.’  
proponents  bear  the  burden  of  proving  that  they  complied  with  the  
• The   COMELEC   denied   their   petition,   citing   Santiago   v   COMELEC(RA   6735   constitutional  requirements  in  gathering  the  signatures  -­‐  that   the  
is   insufficient   to   cover   Constitutional   amendments).   The   Lambino   group   petition   contained,   or   incorporated   by   attachment,   the   full  
appealed,   claiming   that   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   when   it   relied   text  of  the  proposed  amendments.  
merely  on  Santiago.    
  There   is   not   a   single   word,   phrase,   or   sentence   of   text   of   the  
ISSUE:  WON  the  Lambino  initiative  petition  complied  with  Section  2,  Art.  17   Lambino   Group's   proposed   changes   in   the   signature   sheet.  
of   the   Constitution   on   amendments   to   the   Constitution   through   peoples’   Neither   does   the   signature   sheet   state   that   the   text   of   the  
initative.  NO   proposed  changes  is  attached  to  it.  
WON  the  Court  should  revisit  the  Santiago  ruling.  NO    
  2. ‘Transitory   provisions’   misleading   and   deceptive   and   voids  
  the  initiative  
  "An  initiative  signer  must  be  informed  at  the  time  of  signing  
 
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   16  
 
of  the  nature  and  effect  of  that  which  is  proposed"  and   Congress  or  a  constitutional  convention  can  propose  both  amendments  and  
failure  to  do  so  is  "deceptive  and  misleading"  which  renders   revisions  to  the  Constitution.    
the  initiative  void.     Revision   broadly   implies   a   change   that   alters   a   basic   principle  
  For   sure,   the   great   majority   of   the   6.3   million   people   in   the   constitution,   like   altering   the   principle   of   separation   of   powers   or  
who  signed  the  signature  sheets  did  not  see  the  full  text  of  the   the   system   of   checks-­‐and-­‐balances.   There   is   also   revision   if   the   change  
proposed  changes  before  signing.  They  could  not  have  known   alters  the  substantial  entirety  of  the  constitution,  as  when  the  change  
the  nature  and  effect  of  the  proposed  changes,  among  which   affects   substantial   provisions   of   the   constitution.   On   the   other   hand,  
are:   amendment   broadly   refers   to   a   change   that   adds,   reduces,   or   deletes  
  without   altering   the   basic   principle   involved.  Revision  generally  affects  
1.  The  term  limits  on  members  of  the  legislature  will  be   several   provisions   of   the   constitution,   while   amendment   generally   affects  
lifted   and   thus   members   of   Parliament   can   be   re-­‐ only  the  specific  provision  being  amended.  
elected  indefinitely;    
2.   The   interim   Parliament   can   continue   to   function   Quantitative   test   -­‐   asks   whether   the   proposed   change   is   "so  
indefinitely   until   its   members,   who   are   almost   all   the   extensive   in   its   provisions   as   to   change   directly   the   'substantial  
present   members   of   Congress,   decide   to   call   for   new   entirety'   of   the   constitution   by   the   deletion   or   alteration   of  
parliamentary   elections.   Thus,   the   members   of   the   numerous   existing   provisions.   The   court   examines   only   the  
interim   Parliament   will   determine   the   expiration   of   number   of   provisions   affected   and   does   not   consider   the   degree  
their  own  term  of  office;     of  the  change.  
3.  Within  45  days  from  the  ratification  of  the  proposed    
changes,  the  interim  Parliament  shall  convene  to   Qualitative   test     -­‐   inquires   into   the   qualitative   effects   of   the  
propose   further   amendments   or   revisions   to   the   proposed  change  in  the  constitution.  The  main  inquiry  is  whether  
Constitution.   the   change   will   "accomplish   such   far   reaching   changes   in   the  
    nature  of  our  basic  governmental  plan  as  to  
Thus,  the  present  initiative  appears  merely  a  preliminary  step   amount  to  a  revision.  
for  further  amendments  or  revisions  to  be  undertaken  by  the    
interim   Parliament   as   a   constituent   assembly.   The   people   Under   both   the   quantitative   and   qualitative   tests,   the   Lambino   Group's  
who   signed   the   signature   sheets   could   not   have   known   that   initiative  is  a  revision  and  not  merely  an  amendment.  
their   signatures   would   be   used   to   propose   an   amendment    
mandating   the   interim   Parliament   to   propose   further    
amendments  or  revisions  to  the  Constitution.  Certainly,  such  
CASE:  SBMA  v  COMELEC  
an  initiative  is  not  "directly  proposed  by  the  people"  because  
the   people   do   not   even   know   the   nature   and   effect   of   the   G.R.  No.  125416  September  26,  1996  
proposed  changes.   SUBIC   BAY   METROPOLITAN   AUTHORITY,   petitioner,  vs.  COMMISSION  
  ON   ELECTIONS,   ENRIQUE   T.   GARCIA   and   CATALINO   A.   CALIMBAS,  
This   lucidly   shows   the   absolute   need   for   the   people   to   sign   respondents.  
an   initiative   petition   that   contains   the   full   text   of   the    
proposed   amendments   to   avoid   fraud   or   misrepresentation.   FACTS:  
In  the  present  initiative,  the  6.3  million  signatories  had  to  rely   • In  1992,  Congress  enacted  RA  7227  (Bases  Conversion  and  Dev’t  Act)  
on   the   verbal   representations   of   Atty.   Lambino   and   his   which  provided  for  the  creation  of  the  Subic  Economic  Zone.  RA  7227  
group   because   the   signature   sheets   did   not   contain   the   full   in   Section   12   also   mandated   the   local   government   units   of   Subic,  
text  of  the  proposed  changes.  The  result  is  a  grand  deception   Morong   and   Hermosa   to   submit   to   the   Office   of   the   President,   a  
on  the  6.3  million  signatories  who  were  led  to  believe  that  the   resolution   of   concurrence   to   join   the   SEZ.   The   purpose   of   this  
proposed   changes   would   require   the   holding   in   2007   of   concurrence   was   so   that   the   LGU   can   be   included   in   the   metes   and  
elections   for   the   regular   Parliament   simultaneously   with   the   bounds  of  the  proposed  SEZ.  
local  elections.   • Thus   pursuant   to   Section   12,   the   Sangguniang   Bayan   of   Morong   in  
  1993   passed   Pambansang   Kapasyahan   Blg   10   (PB10)   wherein   it  
3. ‘Transitory   provisions’   and   logrolling;   logrolling   nullifies   expressed  its  absolute  concurrence.    
entire  proposition   • Soon  thereafter,  PRs  Garcia  et  al  filed  a  petition  to  annul  PB10,  and  that  
  Section   4(4)   is   a   subject   matter   totally   unrelated   to   it   be   replaced   by   another   resolution   wherein   they   listed   several  
the   shift   from   the   Bicameral-­‐Presidential   to   the   Unicameral-­‐   demands  for  the  welfare  and  interest  of  Morong  and  Bataan.  
Parliamentary   system.   American   jurisprudence   on   initiatives   • The   SB   of   Morong   granted   Garcia’s   petition,   and   promulgated   PB18  
outlaws   this   as   logrolling   -­‐   when   the   initiative   petition   wherein  they  asked  Congress  to  amend  certain  provisions  in  RA  7227  
incorporates   an   unrelated   subject   matter   in   the   same   petition.   to  fit  the  Garcia  group’s  demands.    
This   puts   the   people   in   a   dilemma   since   they   can   answer   only   • Unsatisfied,   the   Garcia   group   decided   to   exercise   their   power   of  
either  yes  or  no  to  the  entire  proposition,  forcing  them  to  sign  a   initiative.   Their   basis   was   Sec.   122   of   the   Local   Government   Code,  
petition   that   effectively   contains   two   propositions,   one   of   which   which  outlined  the  procedure  for  local  initiatives:  
they  may  find  unacceptable.    
  Sec.  122.  Procedure  in  Local  Initiative.  —  
      xxx  xxx  xxx  
Peoples’  Initiatives  intends  a  revision,  which  is  outside  the  scope  of  Art   (b)   If   no   favorable   action   thereon   is   taken   by   the   sanggunian  
2,  Section  17   concerned,  the  proponents,  through  their  duly  authorized  and  
  A   people's   initiative   to   change   the   Constitution   applies   only   to   registered   representatives,   may   invoke   their   power   of  
an   amendment   of   the   Constitution   and   not   to   its   revision.   In   contrast,   initiative,  giving  notice  thereof  to  the  sangguniang  concerned.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   17  
 
• The  COMELEC  en  banc  denied  their  petition  for  local  initiative,  stating     It   follows   that   there   is   need   for   the   Comelec   to   supervise   an  
that   the   subject   thereof   was   merely   a   resolution   (PB)   and   not   an   initiative  more  closely,  its  authority  thereon  extending  not  only  to  the  
ordinance.   Meanwhile,   the   President   through   a   Proclamation   defined   counting  and  canvassing  of  votes  but  also  to  seeing  to  it  that  the  matter  
the  metes  and  bounds  of  the  SEZ.   or  act  submitted  to  the  people  is  in  the  proper  form  and  language  so  it  
• Thereafter,   the   COMELEC   issued   Resolutions   2845   and   2848   where   it   may   be   easily   understood   and   voted   upon   by   the   electorate.   This   is  
adopted  a  calendar  of  activities  for  the  local  referendum  for  Morong.   especially   true   where   the   proposed   legislation   is   lengthy   and   complicated,  
2848  issued  the  guidelines  for  the  holding  of  the  referendum.   and  should  thus  be  broken  down  into  several  autonomous  parts,  each  such  
• SBMA  appealed  to  the  SC,  stating  that  the  COMELEC  committed  GAOD   part   to   be   voted   upon   separately.   Care   must   also   be   exercised   that   "(n)o  
in  promulgating  Resolution  2848;  alleging  that  COMELEC  was  allowing   petition   embracing   more   than   one   subject   shall   be   submitted   to   the  
a  local  initiative  to  amend  a  national  law.  SBMA  also  stated  that  since   electorate,"   although   "two   or   more   propositions   may   be   submitted   in   an  
the   metes   and   bounds   of   the   SEZ   has   already   been   marked,   the   local   initiative".    
government  of  Morong  can  no  longer  withdraw  their  concurrence.      
• The  Garcia  group  stated  that  SBMA  has  no  cause  of  action,  as  there  is   Judicial  powers  of  courts  and  COMELEC  on  initiatives;  COMELEC  cannot  
no  justiciable  controversy  yet.   control/change  the  substance  of  proposed  legislation  
   
ISSUE:  WON  SBMA’s  action  is  premature.  YES     Regular   courts   -­‐   may   take   jurisdiction   over   "approved  
WON  the  COMELEC  committed  GAOD  when  it  promulgated  Resolution  2848.   propositions"  per  said  Sec.  18  of  R.A.  6735  
YES     COMELEC   –   may   adjudicate   and   pass   upon   proposals   (prior   to  
  approval)   but   only   as   far   as   their   form   and   language   are  
HELD:   concerned,   as   discussed   earlier;   and   it   may   be   added,   even   as   to  
Resolution   2848   erroneously   labeled   Garcia’s   Initiative   as   a   content,   where   the   proposals   or   parts   thereof   are   patently   and  
Referendum;  distinctions   clearly  outside  the  "capacity  of  the  local  legislative  body  to  enact."  
The   process   started   by   Garcia   was   an   INITIATIVE   but   the   Comelec   made    
preparations  for  a  REFERENDUM  only.     These   law-­‐making   powers   belong   to   the   people,   hence   the   respondent  
  Commission   cannot   control   or   change   the   substance   or   the   content   of  
Initiative  -­‐  is   the   power   of   the   people   to   propose   amendments   to   the   legislation.  In  the  exercise  of  its  authority,  it  may  (in  fact  it  should  have  done  
Constitution   or   to   propose   and   enact   legislations   through   an   election   so   already)   issue   relevant   and   adequate   guidelines   and   rules   for   the   orderly  
called   for   the   purpose.   It   is   further   defined   as   the   "power   of   the   people   exercise  of  these  "people-­‐power"  features  of  our  Constitution.  
to   propose   bills   and   laws,   and   to   enact   or   reject   them   at   the   polls      
independent  of  the  legislative  assembly."   The  value  and  importance  of  initiatives  and  referendums  
  Like   elections,   initiative   and   referendum   are   powerful   and   valuable   modes  
Referendum   -­‐   is   the   power   of   the   electorate   to   approve   or   reject   a   of  expressing  popular  sovereignty.  And  this  Court  as  a  matter  of  policy  and  
legislation   through   an   election   called   for   the   purpose;   and   further   doctrine   will   exert   every   effort   to   nurture,   protect   and   promote   their  
defined  as  the  right  reserved  to  the  people  to  adopt  or  reject  any  act  or   legitimate  exercise.  For  it  is  but  sound  public  policy  to  enable  the  electorate  
measure  which  has  been  passed  by  a  legislative  body  and  which  in   to  express  their  free  and  untrammeled  will,  not  only  in  the  election  of  their  
most  cases  would  without  action  on  the  part  of  electors  become  a  law."   anointed  lawmakers  and  executives,  but  also  in  the  formulation  of  the  very  
  rules  and  laws  by  which  our  society  shall  be  governed  and  managed.  
In   other   words,   while   initiative   is   entirely   the   work   of   the   electorate,    
referendum   is   begun   and   consented   to   by   the   law-­‐making   body.    
Initiative   is   a   process   of   law-­‐making   by   the   people   themselves   without   the  
participation  and  against  the  wishes  of  their  elected  representatives,  while  
referendum   consists   merely   of   the   electorate     approving   or   rejecting   what  
has  been  drawn  up  or  enacted  by  a  legislative  body.  Hence,  the  process  and  
the   voting   in   an   initiative   are   understandably   more   complex   than   in   a  
referendum   where   expectedly   the   voters   will   simply   write   either   "Yes"   of  
"No"  in  the  ballot.  
 
SBMA’s   action   is   premature,   court   did   not   rule   WON   a   local   initiative  
can  amend  national  law  
  SBMA   insists   that   the   creation   of   the   SEZ   is   now   fait   accompli  
(done  deed,  accomplished  fact),  and  that  by  virtue  of  its  creation  through  a  
national  law,  it  has  ceased  to  be  a  local  concern.  
  The   court   agreed   with   the   Garcia   group,   that   indeed,   the  
municipal   resolution   is   still   in   the   proposal   stage.   It   is   not   yet   an  
approved   law.   Should   the   people   reject   it,   then   there   would   be   nothing   to  
contest  and  to  adjudicate.  It  is  only  when  the  people  have  voted  for  it  and  it  
has   become   an   approved   ordinance   or   resolution   that   rights   and   obligations  
can   be   enforced   or   implemented   thereunder.   At   this   point,   it   is   merely   a  
proposal  and  the  writ  or  prohibition  cannot  issue  upon  a  mere  conjecture  or  
possibility.   Constitutionally   speaking,   courts   may   decide   only   actual  
controversies,  not  hypothetical  questions  or  cases.  
 
Duties  of  COMELEC  differ  between  initative  and  referendum  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   18  
 
    Article  IX-­‐C  of  the  Constitution  nor  Section  11  (b),  2nd  par.  
of   R.A.   6646   cannot  be  construed  to  mean  that  the  Comelec  has  
SET  4  -­‐  PLEBISCITES   also   been   granted   the   right   to   supervise   and   regulate   the  
  exercise   by   media   practitioners   themselves   of   their   right   to  
  expression   during   plebiscite   periods.   Media   practitioners  
CASE:  Sanidad  v  COMELEC   exercising  their  freedom  of  expression  during  plebiscite  periods  are  
G.R.  No.  90878  January  29,  1990   neither   the   franchise   holders   nor   the   candidates.  In  fact,  there  are  
PABLITO  V.  SANIDAD,  petitioner,  vs.  THE  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  respondent.  
no  candidates  involved  in  a  plebiscite.  
 
 
FACTS:  
 
• In  1989,  RA  6766  ‘An  Act  providing  for  an  Organic  Act  for  the   Evils  sought  to  be  prohibited:  unfair  advantage,  does  not  exist  
Cordillera  Autonomous  Region’  was  enacted.     in   plebiscite   cases;   regular   election   distinguished   from  
• Pursuant   to   6766,   Baguio   City   and   the   surrounding   provinces   plebiscite  
will  have  to  take  part  in  a  plebiscite  for  the  ratification  of  6766.     The   evil   sought   to   be   prevented   by   this   provision   is   the  
The   COMELEC   promulgated   Resolution   2187   to   govern   the   possibility   that   a   franchise   holder   may   favor   or   give   any   undue  
conduct  of  said  plebiscite.   advantage   to  a  candidate  in   terms   of   advertising   space   or   radio   or  
• Petitioner   Sanidad,   a   local   opinion   columnist,   assailed   the   television   time.   This   is   also   the   reason   why   a   "columnist,  
constitutionality   of   Section   19   of   Res.   2187,   which   imposed   a   commentator,  announcer  or  personality,  who  is  a  candidate  for  any  
prohibition   on   media   practictioners,   disallowing   them   to   use   elective  office  is   required   to   take   a   leave   of   absence   from   his   work  
their   column/program   to   campaign   for   or   against   the   during  the  campaign  period.  
plebiscite.   Sanidad   claims   that   the   provision   violates   the     The  evil  sought  to  be  prevented  in  an  election  which  led  to  
constitutional  guarantees  of  the  freedoms  of  expression  and  of   the   Court’s   ruling   in   Badoy   Jr.   v   COMELEC   does   not   obtain   in   a  
the   press   as   it   constituted   prior   restraint   and   subsequent   plebiscite.   In   a   plebiscite,   votes   are   taken   in   an   area   on   some  
punishment.     special   political   matter   unlike   in   an   election   where   votes   are  
• In   reply,   the   COMELEC   maintained   that   such   prohibition   is   cast  in  favor  of  specific  persons  for  some  office.  In  other  words,  
valid   re:   its   power   to   supervise   and   regulate   media   during   the   electorate   is   asked   to   vote   for   or   against   issues,   not  
election   time   (Article   9C,   1987   Consti).   The   COMELEC   further   candidates   in   a   plebiscite. In   fact,   there   are   no   candidates  
said   that   if   Sanidad   wanted   to   campaign,   he   could   do   so   but   involved  in  a  plebiscite.  
only  under  COMELEC  space  and  airtime.    
  COMELEC  cannot  mandate  use  of  COMELEC  space  and  air  time  
ISSUE:  WON  Section  19  of  Res.  2187  is  unconstitutional.  YES    While   this   limitation   does   not   absolutely   bar   petitioner's   freedom  
  of   expression,   it   is   still   a  restriction  on  his  choice  of   the   forum   where  
HELD:   he  may  express  his  view.  No  reason  was  advanced  by  respondent  to  
COMELEC  can  regulate  franchises,  permits  or  other  grants,  but   justify   such   abridgement.   The   Court   held   that   this   form   of  
cannot  regulate  free  speech   regulation  is  tantamount  to  a  restriction  of  petitioner's  freedom  of  
Article  IX-­‐C  of  the  1987  Constitution  provides:   expression  for  no  justifiable  reason.  
The   Commission   may,   during   the   election   period,   supervise   or    
regulate  the  enjoyment  or  utilization  of  all  franchises  or  permits   Press   freedom   and   free   speech   beneficial   to   public   during  
for   the   operation   of   transportation   and   other   public   utilities,   plebiscites  
media   of   communication   or   information,   all   grants,   special     Plebiscite   issues   are   matters   of   public   concern   and  
privileges,   or   concessions   granted   by   the   Government   or   any   importance.   The   people's   right   to   be   informed   and   to   be   able   to  
subdivision   xxx   Such   supervision   or   regulation   shall   aim   to   freely  and  intelligently  make  a  decision  would  be  better  served  by  
ensure  equal  opportunity,  time,  and  space,  and  the  right  to  reply,   access   to   an   unabridged   discussion   of   the   issues,   including   the  
including   reasonable,   equal   rates   therefor,   for   public   forum.   The   people   affected   by   the   issues   presented   in   a   plebiscite  
information   campaigns   and   forums   among   candidates   in   should  not  be  unduly  burdened  by  restrictions  on  the  forum  where  
connection   with   the   objective   of   holding   free,   orderly,   honest,   the   right   to   expression   may   be   exercised.   Comelec   spaces   and  
peaceful  and  credible  elections.   Comelec  radio  time  may  provide  a  forum  for  expression  but  they  do  
  not   guarantee   full   dissemination   of   information   to   the   public  
  It  is  clear  from  Art.  IX-­‐C  of  the  1987  Constitution  that  what   concerned   because   they   are   limited   to   either   specific   portions   in  
was   granted   to   the   Comelec   was   the   power   to   supervise   and   newspapers  or  to  specific  radio  or  television  times.  
regulate   the   use   and   enjoyment   of   franchises,   permits   or   other    
grants   issued   for   the   operation   of   transportation   or   other   public  
 
utilities,   media   of   communication   or   information   to   the   end   that  
equal  opportunity,  time  and  space,  and  the  right  to  reply,  including  
reasonable,   equal   rates   therefor,   for   public   information   campaigns  
and  forums  among  candidates  are  ensured.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   19  
 
CASE:  Padilla  Jr.  v  COMELEC   • However,  the  petitioners    contested  the  constitutionality  of  BP  
G.R.  No.  103328.  October  19,  1992.*   885,   claiming   that   it   failed   to     comply   with   the   requirements   of  
HON.   ROY   A.   PADILLA,   JR.,  In  his  capacity  as  Governor  of  the  Province  of  Camarines   the  Local  Government  Code.  Failed  requirement  was  allegedly  
Norte,  petitioner,  vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  respondent.  
the   total   land   area   of   Negros   del   Norte   which   would   only   be  
 
2765sq  km.  
FACTS:  
• The  plebiscite  was  held  as  scheduled  (it  was  Xmas  time  so  the  
• In  1991,  RA  7155  was  enacted,  which  created  the  new  town  of  
Court  was  not  able  to  rule  upon  the  constitutionality  of  BP885),  
Tulay-­‐na-­‐Lupa   by   reapportioning   12   barangays   from   the  
but  confined  only  to  the  3  cities  and  7  munipalities.    195k  were  
existing  municipality  of  Labo,  Camarines  Sur.  
in  favor,  30k  against.    
• Under   Section   10,   Article   X   of   the   1987   Constitution1   the  
• Despite   their   prayers   to   have   COMELEC   enjoined   from  
creation   of   a   municipality   shall   be   subject   to   approval   by   a  
proclaiming   the   results,   BP   885   was   proclaimed   ratified   and  
majority   of   votes   cast   in   a   plebiscite   in   the   political   units  
Negros   del   Norte   created.   Subsequently,   officials   for   the   new  
directly  affected.    
province  were  appointed.    
• Pursuant  to  7155,  the  COMELEC  promugated  Res.  2312,  which  
• On   this   basis,   the   respondents   claimed   that   the   petitioner’s  
would  govern  the  conduct  of  the  plebiscite.    
action   was   moot   and   academic,   as   the   plebiscite   has   now  
• During   the   plebiscite,   the   entirety   of   Labo   participated,   which  
become   fait   accompli.     Furthermore,   they   claim   that   they  
resulted  in  a  vote  that  rejected  the  creation  of  Tulay  na  Lupa.  
qualified   with   the   land   area   requirement,   as   the   court   should  
• Padilla,   as   Governor   of   CamSur,   sought   to   invalidate   the   also  count  the  waters  over  which  the  province  has  jurisdiction  
plebiscite,   claiming   that   the   results   were   invalid.   Padilla   claims   and  control.  
that  the  plebiscite  should  only  have  been  conducted  only  in  the    
political   unit/s   affected   (only   the   12   barangays   should   have   ISSUE:  WON  the  plebiscite  was  validly  conducted.  NO  
been  allowed  to  vote).   WON   the   creation   of   Negros   del   Norte   was   fait   accompli   and   no  
  longer  subject  to  judicial  review.  NO  
ISSUE:  WON  the  plebiscite  conducted  in  Labo  was  valid.  YES    
  HELD:  
HELD:   Creation  of  new  province  justiciable,  not  fait  accompli  
‘political  unit  or  units  affected’  includes  old  territory   Fait  accompli  –  french,  ‘a  done  deed,  a  deed  accomplished’  
  It   stands   to   reason   that   when   the   law   states   that   the     Considering   that   the   legality   of   the   plebiscite   itself   is  
plebiscite   shall   be   conducted   “in   the   political   units   directly   challenged   for   non-­‐compliance   with   constitutional   requisites,   the  
affected,”   it   means   that   residents   of   the   political   entity   who   fact   that   such   plebiscite   had   been   held   and   a   new   province  
would   be   economically   dislocated   by   the   separation   of   a   proclaimed   and   its   officials   appointed,   this   case   was   not   considered  
portion   thereof   have   a   right   to   vote   in   said   plebiscite.  Evidently,   moot  and  academic.  The  error  should  not  be  allowed  to  be  the  basis  
what   is   contemplated   by   the   phrase   “political   units   directly   for   the   continuous   existence   of   an   illegally-­‐born   province.   ‘Fait  
affected,”   is   the   plurality   of   political   units   which   would   participate   accompli’   could   also   be   used   in   the   future   to   create   more  
in   the   plebiscite.   Logically,   those   to   be   included   in   such   political   unconstitutional  LGUs.  
areas   are   the   inhabitants   of   the   12   barangays   of   the   proposed    
Municipality  of  Tulay-­‐Na-­‐Lupa  as  well  as  those  living  in  the  parent   Requisites  for  the  creation  of  new  local  government  units:  
Municipality  of  Labo,  Camarines  Norte.   Under  Article  XI,  Section  3  of  the  Constitution:  
  “No   province,   city,   municipality   or   barrio   may   be   created,  
POLICY:     divided,   merged,   abolished,   or   its   boundary   substantially  
  altered,   except   in   accordance   with   the   criteria   established   in  
  the   local   government   code,   and   subject   to   the   approval   by   a  
CASE:  Tan  v  COMELEC   majority  of  the  votes  in  a  plebiscite  in  the  unit  or  units  affected.”  
No.  L-­‐73155.  July  11,  1986.    
PATRICIO   TAN,   FELIX   FERRER,   JUAN   M.   HAGAD,   SERGIO   HILADO,   VIRGILIO   Section   197   of   the   LGC   enumerates   the   following   critera   for   the  
GASTON,   CONCHITA   MINAYA,   TERESITA   ESTACIO,   DESIDERIO   DEFERIA,   ROMEO  
GAMBOA,   ALBERTO   LACSON,   FE   HOFILENA,   EMILY   JISON,   NIEVES   LOPEZ   AND   creation  of  a  povince:  
CECILIA   MAGSAYSAY,   petitioners,   vs.   THE   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   THE   1. territory  of  at  least  3k  sqkm  
PROVINCIAL  TREASURER  OF  NEGROS  OCCIDENTAL,  respondents.   2. population  of  at  least  500k  
  3. certified   estimated   annual   income   not   less   than   10m   for  
FACTS:   the  last  3  consecutive  years  
• In   1985,   BP   885,   creating   the   province   of   Negros   del   Norte,   4. such   creation   shall   not   reduce   the   population   of   the  
went   into   effect.   The   law   aimed   to   separate   3   cities   and   7   mother   province/s   to   less   than   the   minimum  
municipalities   from   Negros   Occidental   to   form   the   new   requirements  
province.   BP   885   further   stated   that   the   required   plebiscite   5. need  not  be  contiguous  if  it  comprises  two  or  more  islands  
“shall   beconducted   in   the   proposed   new   province   which   are    
the  areas  affected.”  Thus,  the  COMELEC  scheduled  the  conduct     The   use   of   the   word   territory   in   this   particular   provision  
of  a  plebiscite  for  the  purpose.     of  the  Local  Government  Code  and  in  the  very  last  sentence  thereof,  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   20  
 
clearly   reflects   that   “territory”   as   therein   used,   has   reference   CASE:  City  of  Pasig  v  COMELEC  
only   to   the   mass   of   land   area   and   excludes   the   waters   over   CITY   OF   PASIG,  petitioner,  vs.  THE   HONORABLE   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and  
which   the   political   unit   exercises   control.   Thus,  BP885  failed  to   THE  MUNICIPALITY  OF  CAINTA,  PROVINCE  OF  RIZAL,  respondents.  
 
comply  with  a  legal  requirement.     MUNICIPALITY   OF   CAINTA,   PROVINCE   OF   RIZAL,   petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON  
  ELECTIONS,  CITY  OF  PASIG,  respondent.  
‘unit  or  units  affected’  include  mother  province    
Same  as  in  Padilla  Jr.  v  COMELEC  case   FACTS:  
  A  plebiscite  for  creating  a  new  province  should  include  the   • In  1996,  the  City  of  Pasig  proposed  to  create  2  new  barangays,  
participation   of   the   residents   of   the   mother   province   for   the   Brgy  Napico  and  Brgy  Karangalan.  Subsequently  after  enacting  
plebiscite  to  conform  to  the  constitutional  requirements.   the   relevant   ordinances,   plebiscites   for   both   barangays   were  
  When   the   law   says   the   “plebiscite   shall   be   conducted   in   scheduled.    
the   areas   affected”   this   means   that   residents   of   the   political   entity   • Note:  there  are  two  plebiscites  in  this  case:  one  for  Napico  and  
who   stand   to   be   economically   dislocated   by   the   separation   of   a   another  for  Karangalan.  
portion  thereof  have  the  right  to  participate  in  said  plebiscite.   • The   Municipality   of   Cainta   immediately   moved   to  
  Where   the   law   authorizing   the   holding   of   a   plebiscite   is   suspend/cancel   the   said   plebiscites   with   the   COMELEC.   They  
unconstitutional,   the   Court   cannot   authorize   the   holding   of   a   new   contended  that  the  proposed  barangays  were  in  areas  included  
one.   in  a  pending  boundery  dispute  in  the  RTC  of  Antipolo.    
  • The   COMELEC   suspended   the   plebiscite   of   the   creation   of  
  Karangalan,  but  dismissed  the  petition  for  Brgy.  Napico,  which  
CASE:  Tobias  v  Abalos   at   the   time   of   the   COMELEC’s   decision,   had   already   held   their  
G.R.  No.  114783.  December  8,  1994.   plebiscite  and  ratified  the  creation  of  Napico.    
ROBERT   V.   TOBIAS,   RAMON   M.   GUZMAN,   TERRY   T.   LIM,   GREGORIO   D.   GABRIEL,    
and   ROBERTO   R.   TOBIAS,   JR.,   petitioners,   vs.   HON.   CITY   MAYOR   BENJAMIN   S.  
ABALOS,   CITY   TREASURER   WILLIAM   MARCELINO,   and   THE   SANGGUNIANG   ISSUE:  WON  the  COMELEC  can  suspend  plebiscites.  YES  
PANLUNGSOD,  all  of  the  City  of  Mandaluyong,  Metro  Manila,  respondents.   WON  the  creation  of  barangay  Napico  was  fait  accompli.  NO  
   
FACTS:   HELD:  
• In   1994,   RA   7675,   which   converted   Mandaluyong   to   a   highly   Boundery  dispute  is  a  prejudicial  question.    
urbanized   city,   was   enacted   in   1994.   Thus,   a   plebiscite   was     The  boundary  dispute  between  the  Municipality  of  Cainta  
held  in  Mandaluyong  City  where  ‘yes’  won  by  a  landslide.   and   the   City   of   Pasig   presents   a   prejudicial   question   which   must  
• Prior  to  7675,  Mandaluyong  and  San  Juan  belonged  to  only  one   first   be   decided   before   plebiscites   for   the   creation   of   the  
legislative  district.  With  7675,  Mandaluyong  was  now  entitled   proposed  barangays  may  be  held.   As  a  general  rule,  prejudicial  
to  their  own  legislative  district.   questions   are   only   applicable   to   civil   and   criminal   cases,   in   the  
• Petitioners-­‐taxpayers   contested   the   constitutionality   of   7675   interest   of   good   order,   the   SC   can   very   well   suspend   action   on  
on   alleged   violating   the   ‘one   subject’   rule,   that   it   did   not   one   case   pending   the   final   outcome   of   another   case   closely  
conduct  a  census  prior  to  the  plebiscite,  and  that  the  residents   interrelated  or  linked  to  the  first.  
of  San  Juan  should  have  been  allowed  to  vote  in  the  plebiscite.      
  Creation  of  Brgy.  Napico  not  moot  and  academic  
ISSUE:   WON   the   plebiscite   in   Mandaluyong   City   was   valid   despite     Same  reasoning  as  in  Tan  v  Comelec.  SC  annulled  and  set  
the  exclusion  of  San  Juan.  YES   aside  the  conducted  plebiscite.  
   
HELD:   Other  considerations,  suspension  of  plebiscite  proper  
San   Juan   validly   excluded   as   plebiscite   only   concerned   the     Indeed,  a  requisite  for  the  creation  of  a  barangay  is  for  its  
change  of  status  of  Mandaluyong   territorial   jurisdiction   to   be   properly   identified   by   metes   and  
  The   principal   subject   involved   in   the   plebiscite   was   the   bounds  or  by  more  or  less  permanent  natural  boundaries.  (Sec  
conversion  of  Mandaluyong  into  a  highly  urbanized  city.  The  matter   386,  RA  7160)  
of   separate   district   repre-­‐sentation   was   only   ancillary   thereto.     Moreover,   considering   the   expenses   entailed   in   the  
Thus,  the  inhabitants  of  San  Juan  were  properly  excluded  from  the   holding   of   plebiscites,   it   is   far   more   prudent   to   hold   in   abeyance  
said  plebiscite  as  they  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  change  of  status  of   the  conduct  of  the  same,  pending  final  determination  of  whether  
neighboring  Mandaluyong.   or   not   the   entire   area   of   the   proposed   barangays   are   truly  
  San  Juan  did  not  lose  territory  over  Mandaluyong’s  status   within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  City  of  Pasig.  
change,   and   therefore   were   not   deemed   a   ‘political   unit   or   units     Where   territorial   jurisdiction   is   an   issue   raised   in   a  
affected.’   pending   civil   case,   until   and   unless   such   issue   is   resolved   with  
  finality,   to   define   the   territorial   jurisdiction   of   the   proposed  
  barangays  would  only  be  an  exercise  in  futility.  
 
 

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   21  
 
CASE:  Salva  v  Makalintal   No.   2987   is   thus   a   ministerial   duty   of   the   COMELEC   that   is  
G.R.  No.  132603.  September  18,  2000.*   enjoined   by   law   and   is   part   and   parcel   of   its   administrative  
ELPIDIO   M.   SALVA,   VILMA   B.   DE   LEON,   CLEMENTE   M.   MATIRA,   REGION   P.   DE   functions.  It  involves  no  exercise  of  discretionary  authority  on  the  
LEON,   MARILOU   C.   DE   LEON,   JAIME   RELEVO,   JOEY   S.   VERGARA,   CARMENCITA   A.  
SALVA,   DION-­‐ISIO   B.   DE   LEON,   JORGE   S.   VERGARA,   GORGONIO   B.   DE   LEON,   AND  
part   of   respondent   COMELEC;   let   alone   an   exercise   of   its  
OTHERS   TOO   NUMEROUS   TO   ENUMERATE   AS   A   CLASS   SUIT,  petitioners,  vs.  HON.   adjudicatory   or   quasi-­‐judicial   power   to   hear   and   resolve  
ROBERTO   L.   MAKALINTAL,   Presiding   Judge,   Regional   Trial   Court,   Br.   XI,   Balayan,   controversies   defining   the   rights   and   duties   of   party-­‐litigants,  
Batangas;  HON.  SANGGUNIANG  PANGLALAWIGAN  OF  BATANGAS,  BATANGAS  CITY;   relative   to   the   conduct   of   elections   of   public   officers   and   the  
HON.   SANGGUNIANG   PANGBAYAN,   CA-­‐LACA,   BATANGAS;   and   HON.   COMMISSION  
ON  ELECTIONS,  respondents.   enforcement  of  the  election  laws.  
    COMELEC   Resolution   No.   2987   which   provides   for   the  
FACTS:   rules   and   regulations   governing   the   conduct   of   the   required  
• In   1998,   the   Sangguinang   Panlalawigan   of   Batangas   enacted   plebiscite,   was   not   issued   pursuant   to   the   COMELEC’s   quasi-­‐judicial  
Ordinance  05  which  abolished  brgy  San  Rafael  and  ordered  its   functions   but   merely   as   an   incident   of   its   inherent   administrative  
merger  with  Brgy.  Dacanlao.   functions   over   the   conduct   of   plebiscites,   thus,   Resolution   2987  
• The   Governer   of   Batangas   vetoed   the   ordinance   as   it   was   not   may  not  be  deemed  as  a  “final  order”  reviewable  by  certiorari  
shown  that  it  complied  with  the  requisites  in  Sections  7  &  9  of   by   this   Court.   Any   question   pertaining   to   the   validity   of   said  
the  LGC.  The  governer’s  veto  was  overrode  by  Resolution  345.   resolution  may  be  well  taken  in  an  ordinary  civil  action  before  
• Consequently,   the   COMELEC   promulgated   Resolution   2987   to   the  trial  courts.  
govern  the  conduct  of  the  needed  plebiscite.      
• The  petitioners,  officials  and  residents  of  brgy  San  Rafael,  filed    
for   the   issuance   of   a   TRO   against   the   plebiscite   with   the   trial   CASE:  Buac/Bautista  v  COMELEC  
court.  The  trial  court  denied  their  petition,  claiming  that  it  had   G.R.  No.  155855.  January  26,  2004.  
MA.  SALVACION  BUAC  and  ANTONIO  BAUTISTA,  petitioners,  vs.  COMMISSION  ON  
no   jurisdiction   over   acts,   resolutions,   or   decisions   of   the  
ELECTIONS   and   ALAN   PETER   S.   CAYETANO,   respondents,   DANTE   O.   TINGA,  
COMELEC.  The  trial  court  directed  the  petitioners  to  bring  the   SIGFRIDO   R.   TINGA,   MILAGROS   VALENCIA-­‐RODRIGUEZ,   MARISSE   BALINA-­‐ERON,  
case  to  the  Supreme  Court.       HENRY   DUENAS,   JR.,   ALLAN   PAUL   C.   CRUZ,   ARNEL   M.   CERAFICA,   DELIO   SANTOS,  
• Aparently,   the   plebiscite   was   conducted   during   the   pendency   GAMALIEL   SAN   PEDRO,   ROBERTO   DIONISIO,   ELPIDIO   JAVIER,   HENDRY   DUENAS,  
SR.,   NICANOR   GARCIA,   PACIFICO   SANTOS,   RICARDO   NATIVIDAD,   GABRIEL  
of  the  case.   VICTORIA,   ROMEO   G.   SANTOS,   GEORGE   A.   ELIAS,   DANIEL   VALDEZ,   MARIANITO  
• The   petitioners   maintain   that   since   their   action   is   based   on   the   MIRANDA,   ROLANDO   C.   PAAC,   WILFREDO   C.   VILLAR,   MENANDRO   O.   TINGA,  
validity   of   Ordinance   05   and   Resolution   345   (basis   of   JULIAN   MARIATEGUI,   BERNARDINO   ELIAS,   HERMINIA   C.   PEREZ   and   RICARDO   J.  
JORDAN,   petitioners-­‐in-­‐Intervention,   RICARDO   D.   PAPA,   JR.,   respondent-­‐in-­‐
COMELEC  Res.  2987)  the  trial  court  had  jurisdiction.     Intervention,  ALAN  PETER  S.  CAYETANO,  respondent-­‐in-­‐Intervention.  
• They   further   maintained   that   the   the   SC   only   had   excusive    
jurisdiction   when   COMELEC   exercises   its   quasi-­‐judicial   FACTS:  
functions.   However,   when   the   COMELEC   acts   in   a   purely   • In   1988,   a   plebiscite   was   held   in   Taguig   for   the   ratification   of  
ministerial  manner,  the  case  may  be  subject  to  the  RTC.   the   Taguig   Cityhood   Law   (RA   8487).   The   plebiscite   BOC  
  declared  that  the  NO  votes  won  after  a  complete  canvas  of  the  
ISSUE:  WON  the  RTC  has  jurisdiction  over  the  case.  YES   election  returns.    
  • Petitioners   Buac   at   al   filed   a   petition   with   the   COMELEC   to  
HELD:     annul  the  plebiscite  results  and  conduct  a  revision  of  the  votes,  
COMELEC   Resolutions   on   the   conduct   of   plebicites   are   alleging   irregularities   during   the   casting   and   counting   of   the  
administrative  in  nature  and  subject  to  RTC     votes.  Buac’s  petition  was  docketed  as  an  election  protest.  
Section   7,   Article   IX-­‐A   of   the   1987   Constitution   provides   in   part   • PR   Cayetano   intervened,   claiming   that   the   COMELEC   had   no  
that:   jurisdiction   as   plebiscites   cannot   be   made   the   subject   of  
  election   protests.   Further   he   claimed   that   jurisdiction   over  
“SEC.7.xxx.   Unless   otherwise   provided   by   this   Constitution   plebiscite  complaints  belonged  to  the  RTC.    
or  by  law,  any  decision,  order,  or  ruling  of  each  Commission  
•  The   COMELEC   gave   due   course   to   Buac’s   petition   and   upheld  
may   be   brought   to   the   Supreme   Court   on   certiorari   by   the  
its   own   jurisdiction   to   hear   and   decide   petitions   conteting  
aggrieved   party   within   thirty   days   from   receipt   of   a   copy  
plebiscite  results.  
thereof.”  
• In   an   unverified   motion,   Cayetano   moved   for   reconsideration.  
 
The   COMELEC’s   2nd   Div.   this   time   around   ruled   that   it   had   no  
In  the  case  of  Filipinas   Engineering   v   Ferrer,   it   was   held   that   what  
jurisdiction  and  dismissed  Buac’s  petition.      
is  contemplated  by  the  term  final  orders,  rulings  and  decisions’  
• The  COMELEC  en  banc  affirmed  the  ruling  of  the  2nd  Div.  It  held  
of  the  COMELEC  reviewable  by  certiorari  by  the  Supreme  Court  
that   the   COMELEC   cannot   use   its   power   to   enforce   and  
are   those   rendered   in   actions   or   proceedings   before   the  
administer   all   laws   relative   to   plebiscites   as   this   power   is  
COMELEC   and   taken   cognizance   of   by   the   said   body   in   the  
purely   administrative   or   executive   and   not   quasi-­‐judicial   in  
exercise  of  its  adjudicatory  or  quasi-­‐judicial  powers.  
nature.   It   concluded   that   the   jurisdiction   over   the   petition   to  
 
annul   the   Taguig   plebiscite   results   is   lodged   with   the   RTC  
In   this   case,   Resolution   2987   was   only   issued   after   the   COMELEC  
under   Section   19   (6)   of   Batas   Pambansa   Blg.   129   which  
took   cognizance   of   Ordinance   05   and   Resolution   345.   Resolution  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   22  
 
provides  that  the  RTC  shall  have  exclusive  original  jurisdiction   the   COMELEC   (Resolution   2987)   governing   the   conduct   of   a  
in   cases   not   within   the   exclusive   jurisdiction   of   any   court   or   plebiscite.  
body  exercising  judicial  or  quasi-­‐judicial  functions.    
  Granting  RTCs  over  plebiscite  disputes:  possible  consequences  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   can   take   cognizance   of   plebiscite   The  SC  presented  a  hypothetical  situation  wherein  every  RTC  in  the  
disputes.  YES   country   would   have   jurisdiction   over   a   dispute   in   a   national  
  plebiscite.  In  cases  like  that,  the  court  said  it  would  be  better  to    let  
HELD:   the  COMELEC  have  jurisdiction  to  avoid  ‘jumbled  justice.’  
RTC   has   no   jurisdiction   as   plebiscite   disputes   involve   no    
violation  of  legally  demandable  rights     Regular   courts   and   quasi-­‐judicial   admin   agencies   only   have  
  Section   1,   Article   VIII   of   the   Constitution   defines   judicial   jurisdiction   over   contests   relating   to   the   elections,   returns   and  
power  as  including  “the  duty  of  the  courts  of  justice  to  settle  actual   qualifications  of  officials.  Everything  else  is  with  COMELEC.  
controversies   involving   rights   which   are   legally   demandable   and     Contests   which   do   not   involve   the   election,   returns   and  
enforceable   and   to   determine   whether   or   not   there   has   been   a   qualifications   of   elected   officials   are   not   subjected   to   the   exercise   of  
grave  abuse  of  discretion  amounting  to  lack  or  excess  of  jurisdiction   the   judicial   or   quasi-­‐judicial   powers   of   courts   or   administrative  
on  the  part  of  any  branch  or  instrumentality  of  the  Government.”   agencies.   Clearly,   controversies   concerning   the   conduct   of   a  
  According  to  Mr.  Justice  Isagani  Cruz,  “the  first  part  of  the   plebiscite  appertain  to  this  category.  In  the  case  at  bar,  the  conduct  
authority   represents   the   traditional   concept   of   judicial   power   of   the   Taguig   plebiscite   is   the   core   of   the   controversy.   This   is   a  
involving  the  settlement  of  conflicting  rights  as  conferred  by  law.”   matter   that   involves   the   enforcement   and   administration   of   a   law  
  The   case   at   bar   assailing   the   regularity   of   the   conduct   of   relative   to   a   plebiscite.   It   falls   under   the   jurisdiction   of   the  
the   Taguig   plebiscite   does   not   fit   the   kind   of   a   case   calling   for   the   COMELEC   under   Section   2(1),   Article   IX   (C)   of   the   Constitution  
exercise  of  judicial  power.  There  is  no  invocation  of  a  private  right   which   gives   it   the   power   “to   enforce   and   administer   all   laws   and  
conferred   by   law   that   has   been   violated   and   which   can   be   regulations  relative  to  the  conduct  of  a  xxx  plebiscite  xxx.”  
vindicated   alone   in   our   courts   of   justice   in   an   adversarial    
proceeding.   Rather,   the   issue   in   the   case   at   bar   is   the   Constitutional   powers   of   COMELEC   broad   enough   to   cover  
determination   of   the   sovereign   decision   of   the   electorate   of   plebiscites  
Taguig.   The   purpose   of   this   determination   is   more   to   protect   the     There  is  no  doubt  that  theintent  of  the  constitutional  grant  
sovereignty  of  the  people  and  less  to  vindicate  the  private  interest   of   powers   to   the   COMELEC   is   to   give   it   all   the   necessary   and  
of   any   individual.   Such   a   determination   does   not   contemplate   incidental   powers   for   it   to   achieve   the   holding   of   free,   orderly,  
the   clash   of   private   rights   of   individuals   and   hence   cannot   honest  and  peaceful  and  credible  elections.    
come  under  the  traditional  jurisdiction  of  courts.     While  the  jurisdiction  of  the  COMELEC  is  most  commonly  
  invoked  over  popular  elections—that  which  involves  the  choice  or  
Respondents   cannot   invoke   BP   129   (Judiciary   Reorganization   selection   of   candidates   to   public   office   by   popular   vote,   the   same  
Act);  Makalintal  ruling  not  applicable   may   likewise   be   invoked   in   connection   with   the   conduct   of  
Sec.   19.   Jurisdiction   in   civil   cases.—Regional   Trial   Courts   shall   plebiscite.  
exercise  exclusive  original  jurisdiction:    
  COMELEC   powers   over   plebiscites   not   absolutely  
1.   In   all   civil   actions   in   which   the   subject   of   the   litigation   is   administrative  
incapable  of  pecuniary  estimation;     Article  IX-­‐C,  Section  2(1)  is  very  explicit  that  the  COMELEC  
      x  x  x   has   the   power   to   “enforce   and   administer   all   laws   and   regulations  
6.   In   all   cases   not   within   the   exclusive   jurisdiction   of   any   court,   relative   to   the   conduct   of   an   election,   plebiscite,   initiative,  
tribunal,   person   or   body   exercising   jurisdiction   of   any   court,   referendum  and  recall.”  To  enforce  means  to  cause  to  take  effect  or  
tribunal,   person   or   body   exercising   judicial   or   quasi-­‐judicial   to   cause   the   performance   of   such   act   or   acts   necessary   to   bring   into  
functions.   actual   effect   or   operation,   a   plan   or   measure.   When   we   say   the  
  COMELEC   has   the   power   to   enforce   all   laws   relative   to   the  
  The  aforequoted  provisions  refer  to  civil  cases  or  actions.   conduct   of   a   plebiscite,   it   necessarily   entails   all   the   necessary  
A   civil   action   is   one   by   which   a   party   sues   another   for   the   and  incidental  power  for  it  to  achieve  the  holding  of  an  honest  
enforcement   or   protection   of   a   right   or   the   prevention   or   redress   of   and   credible   plebiscite.   Obviously,   the   power   of   the   COMELEC   is  
a  wrong.  As  stressed  above,  a  plebiscite  involves  the  expression  of   not   limited   to   the   mere   administrative   function   of   conducting   the  
the  public  will  on  a  public  issue.  The  determination  of  the  public   plebiscite.  
will  is  a  subject  that  does  not  fit  the  jurisdiction  of  civil  courts,    
for   civil   courts   are   established   essentially   to   resolve   Procedural  defects  in  Cayetano’s  Motion  for  Reconsideration  
controversies  between  private  persons.     The   COMELEC   2nd   Division   had   no   jurisdiction   to  
  Neither   can   respondents   rely   on   the   ruling   in   Makalintal,   entertain   his   Motion   as   this   was   filed   out   of   time   and   further,   was  
as   the   Salva  case  resolved  the  validity,  not  of  a  plebiscite  or  its   through  an  unverified  Motion  for  Reconsideration.    
result,   but   of   a   provision   in   the   rules   and   regulations   issued   by     Section   2,   Rule   19   of   the   COMELEC   Rules   of   Procedure  
provides   that   a   motion   for   reconsideration   should   be   filed   within  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   23  
 
five  (5)  days  from  receipt  of  the  COMELEC  Order  or  Resolution.  The   same   Rule   confines   the   power   of   this   Court   to   resolve   issues  
records   show   that   it   was   only   ten   (10)   days   after   said   receipt,   or   on   mainly  involving  jurisdiction,  including  grave   abuse   of   discretion  
October   19,   2001,   that   private   respondent   Cayetano   filed   his   amounting   to   lack   or   in   excess   of   jurisdiction   attributed   to   the  
undated  and  unverified  Motion  for  Reconsideration.   public  respondent.  
   
Effect   of   unverified   motion   -­‐   When   a   pleading   is   not   verified   b. COMELEC’s  findings  as  to  the  revision  are  completely  within  
when   such   verification   is   required,   it   is   considered   nothing   its   power,   to   be   respected   and   presumed   regularly  
more  than  a  scrap  of  paper.   conducted  
    The  above  factual  findings  of  the  COMELEC  supported  by  
  evidence,   are   accorded,   not   only   respect,   but   finality.   This   is   so  
  because   "the   conduct   of   plebiscite   and   determination   of   its  
CASE:  Buac/Bautista  v  COMELEC  companion  case   result   have   always   been   the   business   of   the   COMELEC   and   not  
G.R.  Nos.  166388  and  166652                          January  23,  2006   the  regular  courts.    
ALAN   PETER   S.   CAYETANO,   Petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   MA.     Such   a   case   involves   the   appreciation   of   ballots   which   is  
SALVACION  BUAC  and  ANTONIO  BAUTISTA,  Respondents.   best   left   to   the   COMELEC.   As   an   independent   constitutional  
 
 
body   exclusively   charged   with   the   power   of   enforcement   and  
Facts:     administration   of   all   laws   and   regulations   relative   to   the  
• This   case   is   about   the   Taguig   City   plebiscite.   (See   Set   4)   In   the   conduct   of   an   election,   plebiscite,   initiative,   referendum   and  
earlier  case,  petitioner  Cayetano  claimed  that  actions  concerning   recall,  the  COMELEC  has  the  indisputable  expertise  in  the  field  of  
the   conduct   of   plebiscites   are   not   in   the   jurisdiction   of   the   election  and  related  laws."  
COMELEC.    
  Its   acts,   therefore,   enjoy   the   presumption   of   regularity   in  
the  performance  of  official  duties.  
• The   Supreme   Court   found   otherwise,   that   the   conduct   of  
 
plebiscites   is   a   matter   that   involves   the   enforcement   and  
According  to  RULE  3,  Section  5B:  
administration   of   a   law   relative   to   a   plebiscite.   It   falls   under   the  
 
jurisdiction  of  the  COMELEC  under  Section  2  (1),  Article  IX  (C)  of  
Section  5.  Quorum;  Votes  Required.  –    
the  Constitution  authorizing  it  ‘to  enforce  and  administer  all  laws  
(a) When   sitting   en   banc,   four   (4)   Members   of   the  
and   regulations   relative   to   the   conduct   of   an   election,   plebiscite,  
Commission   shall   constitute   a   quorum   for   the   purpose   of  
initiative,  referendum,  and  recall.’"    
transacting  business.  The  concurrence  of  a  majority  of  the  
• The  COMELEC  was  ordered  to  reinstate  the  petition  to  annul  the  
Members   of   the   Commission   shall   be   necessary   for   the  
plebiscite,   and   the   case   was   handled   by   the   COMELEC   2nd  
pronouncement  of  a  decision,  resolution,  order  or  ruling.    
Division.  A  revision  of  the  votes  was  then  conducted.  
(b) When   sitting   in   Division,   two   (2)   Members   of   a   Division  
• Important   part   relating   to   procedure:   The   2nd   Division   failed  
shall   constitute   a   quorum   to   transact   business.   The  
to   render   a   decision   (could   not   obtain   the   required   number   of  
concurrence   of   at   least   two   (2)   Members   of   a   Division  
votes  among  its  members).  Thus,  pursuant  to  Rule  3,  Section  5b  
shall   be   necessary   to   reach   a   decision,   resolution,   order   or  
of  the  CRP,  the  case  was  elevated  to  the  En  Banc.  
ruling.   If   this   required   number   is   not   obtained,   the  
• The   COMELEC   en   banc   later   issued   a   Resolution   confirming   the   case   shall   be   automatically   elevated   to   the  
ratification  and  approval  of  the  conversion  of  Taguig  into  a  highly   Commission  en  banc  for  decision  or  resolution.    
urbanized  city.   (c) Any   motion   to   reconsider   a   decision,   resolution,   order   or  
• Cayetano  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  assailing  the  Resolution  of   ruling   of   a   Division   shall   be   resolved   by   the   Commission  
the  en  banc,  claiming  that  1)  the  revision  was  incomplete  and  that   en   banc   except   motions   on   interlocutory   orders   of   the  
2)  the  revision  proceedings  were  tainted  with  irregularities,  etc.   division   which   shall   be   resolved   by   the   division   which  
  issued  the  order.    
Issue:   WON   the   COMELEC   en   banc   committed   GAOD   in   upholding  
the  Taguig  plebiscite.  NO  
 
Rulings  +  Concepts:    
a. Issues   decided   upon   by   the   en   banc   were   FACTUAL   in  
nature,  and  are  improper  grounds  for  certiorari  
The   matters   being   alleged   -­‐   the   alleged   incomplete   canvass   of  
plebiscite   votes   during   the   revision   proceedings   and   the  
irregularities,   frauds,   and   anomalies   purportedly   committed  
therein  –  are  factual  in  nature.    
  They   involve   an   examination   of   the   admissibility   and  
sufficiency   of   the   evidence   presented   during   the   revision  
proceedings   before   the   COMELEC.   Certainly,   this   we   cannot   do  
in  the  present  special  civil  actions  for  certiorari  under  Rule  65  of  
the  1987  Rules  of  Civil  Procedure,  as  amended.  Section  1  of  the  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   24  
 
  why  it  cannot  be  entrusted  to  and  exercised  by  the  elected  representatives  
of  the  people.  
SET  5  -­‐  RECALL    
  On  Garcia’s  claim  that  PRAs  are  disadvantageous  to  minority  members:  
  law  mandates  that  PRA  composition  be  neutral  
CASE:  Garcia  v  COMELEC     Under   the   law,   all   mayors,   vice-­‐mayors   and   sangguniang  
G.R.  No.  111511.  October  5,  1993.*   members  of  the  municipalities  and  component  cities  are  made  members  of  
ENRIQUE   T.   GARCIA,   ET   AL.,  petitioners,  vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS   the  preparatory  recall  assembly  at  the  provincial  level.  Its   membership   is  
and  LUCILA  PAYUMO,  ET.  AL.,  respondents.   not   apportioned   to   political   parties.   No   significance   is   given   to   the  
  political  affiliation  of  its  members.     Secondly,   the   preparatory   recall  
FACTS:   assembly   at   the   provincial   level   includes   all   the   elected   officials   in   the  
• In  1992,  petitioner  Garcia  was  elected  Governor  of  Bataan.     province   concerned.   Considering   their   number,   the   greater   probability   is  
• In   1993,   a   group   of   individuals   comprising   of   mayors   and   other   local   that  no  one  political  party  can  control  its  majority.    
elective   officials   constituted   themselves   into   a   Preparatory   Recall     Thirdly,  sec.  69  of  the  Code  provides  that  the  only  ground  to  recall  
Assembly   (PRA).   They   passed   a   resolution   calling   for   Garcia’s   recall   on   a   locally   elected   public   official   is   loss   of   confidence   of   the   people.   The  
the  ground  of  ‘loss  of  confidence.’   members  of  the  PRAC  are  in  the  PRAC  not  in  representation  of  their  political  
• The  Resolution  passed  claimed  to  have  been  passed  by  a  majority  of  the   parties   but   as   representatives   of   the   people.   By   necessary   implication,   loss  
members   of   the   PRA.   Garcia   moved   that   COMELEC   deny   due   course   to   of   confidence   cannot   be   premised   on   mere   differences   in   political   party  
this  petition.  The  COMELEC  dismissed  this  and  scheduled  the  recall.   affiliation.   Indeed,   our   Constitution   encourages   the   multi-­‐party   system   for  
• Garcia   appealed   to   the   SC,   who   then   struck   down   the   Resolution   (and   the   the   existence   of   opposition   parties   is   indispensable   to   the   growth   and  
resulting   recall   election)   because   it   violated   the   due   process   of   the   nurture  of  the  democractic  system.  Clearly  then,  the  law  as  crafted  cannot  be  
Constitution   (notice   of   the   assembly   was   only   sent   to   selected   members   faulted   for   discriminating   against   elected   local   officials   belonging   to   the  
of  the  PRAC).   minority.  
• However,   later   that   same   year,   the   Payumo   group   tried   again.   After    
sending   out   the   required   notices,   the   PRAC   enacted   another   resolution   Nature  of  a  recall:  merely  a  proposal  until  the  people  have  voted;    
calling  for  Garcia’s  recall.       A   recall   election   does   not   subvert   the   will   of   the   people   who  
• Garcia   immediately   appealed   to   the   SC,   claiming   that   the   recall   election   elected   the   official.   A   resolution   of   recall     is   not   the   recall   itself.   A  
must   be   initiated   by   the   people   themselves   to   be   valid,   and   not   by   an   resolution  of  recall  is  a  mere  proposal  to  the  electorate  of  Bataan  to  subject  
assembly  such  as  the  PRAC.     petitioner  to  a  new  test  of  faith.  The  proposal  will  still  be  passed  upon  by  the  
sovereign  electorate  of  Bataan.  As  this  judgment  has  yet  to  be  expressed,  it  
• Garcia   further   alleged   that   as   far   as   it   allowed   PRAs   to   initiate   recall  
is  premature  to  conclude  that  the  sovereign  will  of  the  electorate  of  Bataan  
elections,  Section  70  of  RA  7160  should  be  declared  unconstitutional.  
has  been  subverted.    
 
  The  electorate  of  Bataan  may  or  may  not  recall  petitioner  Garcia  
ISSUE:  WON  a  recall  initiated  by  the  PRAC  valid.  YES  
in  an  appropriate  election.  If  the  electorate  re-­‐elects  petitioner  Garcia,  then  
NOTE:   RA   9244   (2004)   has   since   abolished   the   creation   of   recall  
the   proposal   to   recall   him   made   by   the   preparatory   recall   assembly   is  
assemblies  
rejected.   On   the   other   hand,   if   the   electorate   does   not   re-­‐elect   petitioner  
 
Garcia,  then  he  has  lost  the  confidence  of  the  people  which  he  once  enjoyed.  
HELD:  
 
Section   70   constitutional   as   the   Constitution   did   not   prescribe   how  
 
recalls  should  be  held  
  The   Court   looked   at   Philippine   history   and   found   RA   7160   was    
enacted  to  respond  to  the  constitutional  mandate  in  Section  3,  Article  X:   CASE:  PARAS  V  COMELEC  
Sec.   3.   The   Congress   shall   enact   a   local   government   code   which   shall   G.R.  No.  123169.  November  4,  1996.*  
provide   for   a   more   responsive   and   accountable   local   government   DANILO   E.   PARAS,   petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,  
structure  instituted  through  a  system  of  decentralization  with  effective   respondent.  
mechanisms   of   recall,   initiative,   and   referendum,   allocate   among   the    
different   local   government   units   their   powers,   responsibilities,   and   FACTS:  
resources,   and   provide   for   the   qualifications,   election,   appointment   • In  1994,  Danilo  Paras  won  as  Punong  barangay  of  Pula,  Cabanatuan  City.  
and   removal,   term,   salaries,   powers   and   functions   and   duties   of   local   A   petition   for   his   recall   was   filed   by   the   registred   voters   of   Pula.   The  
officials,   and   all   other   matters   relating   to   the   organization   and   COMELEC  set  a  recall  election  for  November  of  1995.  
operation  of  the  local  units.”   • The   recall   election   was   rescheduled   three   more   times,   the   latest   being  
  one  for  Jaunary  of  1996.    
  The   Constitution   did   not   provide   for   any   mode,   let   alone   a   • This   time   Paras   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   with   the   SC.   Paras   claims  
single   mode,   of   initiating   recall   elections.   Thus,   it   was   legislative   that   under   Section   74(b)   of   Republic   Act   No.   7160,   otherwise   known   as  
prerogative  to  empower  recall  assemblies  to  initiate  the  process  as  well,    as   the  Local  Government  Code,  “no  recall  shall  take  place  within  one  (1)  year  
it  would  be  easier  and  less  expensive.   from   the   date   of   the   official’s   assumption   to   office   or   one   (1)   year  
  Plus:  presumption  of  constitutionality  wins   immediately  preceding  a  regular  local  election.”  
  • Paras  claims  that  his  recall  election  cannot  take  place  as  it  will  happen  in  
PRAs  can  initiate  recall  as  they  are  representatives  of  the  people     the   same   year   as   the   Sangguniang   Kabataan   elections   for   May   1996.    
  The  court  also  said  that  an  initiation  made  by  the  PRAC  is  also  an   Paras   also   invoked   the   ruling   of   the   court   in   Associated   Labor   Union   v  
initiation  by  the  people,  albeit  done  indirectly  through  their  representatives.     Montejo,   where   the   SC   considered   the   SK   election   as   a   regular   local  
  Nothing  less  than  the  paramount  task  of  drafting  our  Constitution   election.  
is  delegated  by  the  people  to  their  representatives,  elected  either  to  act  as  a    
constitutional   convention   or   as   a   congressional   constituent   assembly.   The   ISSUE:   WON   Paras’   recall   election   is   barred   by   the   SK   election   happening  
initiation  of  a  recall  process  is  a  lesser  act  and  there  is  no  rhyme  or  reason   that  same  year.  NO  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   25  
 
HELD:   the  one  year  bar,  hence  no  invalidity  may  be  ascribed  to  Resolution  No.  96-­‐
Intent  of  the  law  not  to  be  defeated  by  literal  interpretation   2951  on  this  ground.  
  The   Court   said   that   the   intent   of   Section   74b   is   to   subject   an    
elective   local   official   to   recall   election   once   during   his   term   of   office.   De  Alban’s  petition  did  not  contain  required  number  of  signatures  
Paragraph   (b)   construed   together   with   paragraph   (a)   merely   designates   the     Section   69   (d)   of   the   Local   Government   Code   of   1991   expressly  
period   when   such   elective   local   official   may   be   subject   of   a   recall   election,   provides   that   “recall   of   any   elective   xxx   municipal   xxx   official   may   also   be  
that  is,  during  the  second  year  of  his  term  of  office.  If  Paras’  interpretation   validly   initiated   upon   petition   of   at   least   twenty-­‐five   percent   (25%)   of   the  
were   to   be   believed,   then   no   recall   election   would   take   place   -­‐   as   RA   7808   total   number   of   registered   voters   in   the   local   government   unit   concerned  
sets  SK  elections  to  happen  every  three  years  –  thereby  rendering  inutile  the   during   the   election   in   which   the   local   official   sought   to   be   recalled   was  
recall  provision  of  the  LGC.   elected.”   The   law   is   plain   and   unequivocal   as   to   what   initiates   recall  
  proceedings:   only   a   petition   of   at   least   25%   of   the   total   number   of  
‘regular   local   election’   is   one   where   position   of   official   sought   to   be   registered  voters,  may  validly  initiate  recall  proceedings.  
recalled  will  be  contested     The  Court  said  that  it  cannot  sanction  the  procedure  of  the  filing  
It   would,   therefore,   be   more   in   keeping   with   the   intent   of   the   recall   of   the   recall   petition   by   a   number   of   people   less   than   the   foregoing   25%  
provision   of   the   Code   to  construe  regular  local  election  as  one  referring   statutory   requirement,   much   less,   the   filing   thereof   by   just   one   person,   as   in  
to  an  election  where  the  office  held  by  the  local  elective  official  sought   the   instant   case,   since   this   is   indubitably   violative   of   clear   and   categorical  
to  be  recalled  will  be  contested  and  be  filled  by  the  electorate.   provisions  of  subsisting  law.  
   
Reasons  for  the  limitations  of  the  recall  provision   Reason   for   the   25%   voter   requirement:   recall   must   be   pursued   by  
  Finally,   recall   election   is   potentially   disruptive   of   the   normal   people,  not  by  election  losers  
working   of   the   local   government   unit   necessitating   additional   expenses,   While  recall  was  intended  to  be  an  effective  and  speedy  remedy  to  remove  
hence   the   prohibition   against   the   conduct   of   recall   election   one   year   an   official   who   is   not   giving   satisfaction   to   the   electorate   regardless   of  
immediately  preceding  the  regular  local  election.  The  proscription  is  due  to   whether  or  not  he  is  discharging  his  full  duty  to  the  best  of  his  ability  and  as  
the  proximity  of  the  next  regular  election  for  the  office  of  the  local  elective   his   conscience   dictates,18   it   is   a   power   granted   to   the   people   who,   in  
official  concerned.  The  electorate  could  choose  the  official’s  replacement  in   concert,  desire  to  change  their  leaders  for  reasons  only  they,  as  a  collective,  
the  said  election  who  certainly  has  a  longer  tenure  in  office  than  a  successor   can  justify.  In  other  words,  recall  must  be  pursued  by  the  people,  not  just  
elected  through  a  recall  election.   by   one   disgruntled   loser   in   the   elections   or   a   small   percentage   of  
  disenchanted  electors.  
Note:   Even   so,   the   Court   found   that   the   recall   election   against   Paras   could      Otherwise,  its  purposes  as  a  direct  remedy  of  the  people  shall  be  
not   take   place   as   the   regular   election   involving   the   barangay   office   was   only   defeated   by   the   ill   motives   of   a   few   among   them   whose   selfish   resort   to  
7  months  away.     recall  would  destabilize  the  community  and  seriously  disrupt  the  running  of  
  government.  
   
CASE:  ANGOBUNG  V  COMELEC    
G.R.  No.  126576  .  March  5,  1997.*   CASE:  MALONZO  V  COMELEC  
MAYOR   RICARDO   M.   ANGOBUNG,   petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   EN   G.R.  No.  127066.  March  11,  1997.*  
BANC,  and  ATTY.  AURORA  S.  DE  ALBAN,  respondents.   REYNALDO   O.   MALONZO,   petitioner,   vs.   THE   HONORABLE   COMMISSION   ON  
  ELECTIONS   and   THE   LIGA   NG   MGA   BARANGAY   (Caloocan   Chapter)   and   ALEX   L.  
FACTS:   DAVID,   CONRADO   G.   CRUZ,   TRINIDAD   REPUNO,   GLORIA   M.   CRUZ,   MIRALI   M.  
• In  1995,  petitioner  Angobung  was  elected  Mayor  of  Tumauni,  Isabela.     DURR,   FERMIN   JIMENEZ,   AURELIO   BILUAN,   ROGELIO   SARAZA,   HELENE  
VALBUENA,  and  HIGINO  RULLEPA,  respondents.  
• In   1996,   de   Alban   (who   was   also   a   candidate   for   the   mayoralty)   filed   a  
 
petition   for   recall   against   Angobung   with   the   COMELEC.   De   Alban’s   was  
FACTS:  
the  only  signature  on  the  petition,  but  the  COMELEC  approved  the  recall  
• In  1995,  petitioner  Malonzo  was  elected  Mayor  of  Caloocan.    
in  Resolution  96-­‐2951.  
• In   1996,   1,057   Punong   Barangays   and   Sangguniang   Barangay   members  
• Angobung     attacked   the   validity   of   the   resolution   on   two   main   grounds:  
and   Sangguniang   Kabataan   chairmen,   constituting   a   majority   of   the  
(1)   that   the   resolution   approved   the   Petition   for   Recall   albeit   same   was  
members  of  the  Preparatory  Recall  Assembly  of  the  City  of  Caloocan,  met,  
signed   by   just   one   person   in   violation   of   the   statutory   25%   minimum  
requirement   as   to   the   number   of   signatures   supporting   any   petition   for   and  upon  deliberation  and  election,  voted  for  the  approval  of  Preparatory  
recall;  and  (2)  that  the  resolution  scheduled  the  recall  election  within  one   Recall   Assembly   Resolution   No.   01-­‐96,   expressing   loss   of   confidence   in  
(1)  year  from  the  May  12,  1997  Barangay  Elections.   Mayor  Malonzo,  and  calling  for  the  initiation  of  recall  proceedings  against  
  him.  
ISSUE:  WON  the  barangay  elections  can  bar  a  recall  election  for  the  position   • Malonzo   claimed   that   the   recall   proceedings   were   invalid   as   it   was  
of  mayor.  NO   convened   by   the   Liga   ng   mga   Barangays.   Malonzo   also   claimed   that   the  
WON  de  Alban’s  petition  for  recall  was  valid.  NO   sending  of  the  notices  to  the  members  of  the  PRA  were  irregular.  
   
HELD:   ISSUE:   WON   the   recall   proceedings   against   Malonzo   were   validly   initiated.  
‘regular  local  election’  explained  (again)   YES  
  Same  ruling  in  Paras  v  COMELEC    
  For   the   time   bar   to   apply,   the   approaching   regular   local   HELD:  
election   must   be   one   where   the   position   of   the   official   to   be   recalled,   is   a. Even  though  the  Liga  ng  mga  Barangay  is  a  distinct  entity  from  the  
to  be  actually  contested  and  filled  by  the  electorate.  Thus,  in  the  instant   PRA,  its  membership  was  still  made  up  of  the  members  of  the  PRA.  
case   where   the   time   bar   is   being   invoked   by   petitioner   mayor   in   view   of   the     The  Liga  ng  mga  Barangay  is  undoubtedly  an  entity  distinct  from  
approaching   Barangay   Elections   in   May   1997,   there   can   be   no   application   of   the   Preparatory   Recall   Assembly.   It   just   so   happens   that   the  
personalities   representing   the   barangays   in   the   Liga   are   the   very  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   26  
 
members  of  the  Preparatory  Recall  Assembly,  the  majority  of  whom  met    
on   July   7,   1996,   and   voted   in   favor   of   the   resolution   calling   for   the   recall   b.   Recall   in   Section   74   refers   only   to   the   election   itself,   and   does   not  
of   Mayor   Malonzo,   after   deliberation   reported   in   the   record,   in   include  the  convening  of  the  PRA/gathering  signatures.  
accordance   with   the   existing   law.   Thus,   the   Punong   Barangays   and     Section   74   deals   with   restrictions   on   the   power   of   recall.   On   the  
Sangguniang  Barangay  members  convened  and  voted  as  members  of  the   other  hand,  §69  provides  that  "the  power  of  recall  .  .  .  shall  be  exercised  
Preparatory   Recall   Assembly   of   the   City   of   Caloocan,   and   not   as   by   the   registered   voters   of   a   local   government   unit   to   which   the   local  
members   of   the   Liga   ng   mga   Barangay.   The   recall   proceedings,   elective   official   belongs."   Since   the   power   vested   on   the   electorate   is   not  
therefore,  cannot  be  denied  merit  on  this  ground.   the  power  to  initiate  recall  proceedings  but  the  power  to  elect  an  official  
  into   office,   the   limitations   in   Section   74   cannot   be   deemed   to   apply   to  
b. Re:   as   to   Malonzo’s   claim   that   recall   proceedings   inform   because   the   entire   recall   proceedings.   In   other   words,   the   term   "recall"   in  
the   notices   for   the   meeting   were   not   sent   out   properly   to   the   paragraph  (b)  refers  only  to  the  recall  election,  excluding  the  convening  
members  of  the  PRA.   of  the  PRA  and  the  filing  of  a  petition  for  recall  with  the  COMELEC,  or  the  
  The   matter   of   validity   of   notices   to   the   members   of   the   gathering   of   the   signatures   of   at   least   25   %   of   the   voters   for   a   petition  
Preparatory   Recall   Assembly   was   sufficiently   considered   by   the   for  recall.  
respondent   Commission,   as   in   response   to   petitioner's   request   for   a    
technical  examination  of  the  recall  documents,  the  COMELEC  directed  its   c. Procedure:  the  PRA  can  convene/file  recall  petitions  as  many  times  
Election   Records   and   Statistics   Department   (ERSD)   to   resolve   the   as   they   want,   but   only   one   recall   election   is   allowed   within   the  
matter  of  notices  sent  to  the  Preparatory  Recall  Assembly  members.     period  stated.    
  Needless  to  state,  the  issue  of  propriety  of  the  notices  sent  to  the     There   may   be   several   PRAs   held   (as   in   the   case   of   Bataan  
PRA  members  is  factual  in  nature,  and  the  determination  of  the  same  is   Province   in   1993)   or   petitions   for   recall   filed   with   the   COMELEC   —  
therefore  a  function  of  the  COMELEC.  In  the  absence  of  patent  error,  or   there   is   no   legal   limit   on   the   number   of   times   such   processes   may   be  
serious  inconsistencies  in  the  findings,  the  Court  should  not  disturb  the   resorted   to.   These   are   merely   preliminary   steps   for   the   purpose   of  
same.   The   factual   findings   of   the   COMELEC,   based   on   its   own   initiating  a  recall.  The  limitations  in  §74  apply  only  to  the  exercise  of  the  
assessments   and   duly   supported   by   gathered   evidence,   are   conclusive   power  of  recall  which  is  vested  in  the  registered  voters.  It  is  this  —  and  
upon  the  court,  more  so,  in  the  absence  of  a  substantiated  attack  on  the   not   merely   the   preliminary   steps   required   to   be   taken   to   initiate   a   recall  
validity  of  the  same.     —  which  paragraph  (b)  of  §74  seeks  to  limit  by  providing  that  no  recall  
  shall  take  place  within  one  year  from  the  date  of  assumption  of  office  of  
  an  elective  local  official.  
 
CASE:  CLAUDIO  V  COMELEC  
G.R.  No.  140560.  May  4,  2000.*    
JOVITO  O.  CLAUDIO,  petitioner,  vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  DEPARTMENT  OF   CASE:  AFIADO  V  COMELEC  
BUDGET  AND  MANAGEMENT,  COMMISSION  ON  AUDIT  and  RICHARD  ADVINCULA,   G.R.  No.  141787.  September  18,  2000.*  
respondents.   MANUEL   H.   AFIADO,   JASMINIO   B.   QUEMADO,   JR.   and   GLESIE   L.   TANGONAN,  
  petitioners,  vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS  (COMELEC),  respondent.  
FACTS:    
• In  1998,  Jovito  Claudio  was  elected  Mayor  of  Pasay  City.     FACTS:  
• Seven   months   after   he   assumed   office,   a   group   of   barangay   chairmen   met   • In  1996,  Amelita  Navarro  was  elected  Vice-­‐Mayor  of  Santiago  City.    
and  discussed  filing  of  recall  proceedings  against  Claudio.   • Meanwhile,   an   election   protest   was   filed   against   the   Mayor-­‐elect,   Joel  
• In   1999,   1073   members   of   the   PRA   enacted   a   Resolution   calling   for   Miranda.   While   Miranda’s   case   was   pending   before   the   SC   on   July   12  
Claudio’s  recall.     1999,  petitioners  Afiado  et  al  composed  the  PRA  and  enacted  a  resolution  
• Claudio   opposed   the   petition   on   grounds   of   irregularities   attending   the   for  the  recall  of  VMayor  Navarro.  
signatures  of  the  PRA  members,  that  the  convening  of  the  PRA  took  place   • On   July   28,   2000,   the   SC   decided   Miranda’s   case,   ruling   against   him   and  
within  the  1yr  prohibited  period,  among  others.   annulling   his   proclamation.   Thus,   Navarro   succeeded   him   as   Mayor   of  
• The   COMELEC   dismissed   his   petition   and   granted   the   petition   for   recall,   Santiago  City.  
finding   that   the   signatures   of   958   PRA   members   were   sufficient.   On   • Navarro  then  sought  to  annul  the  said  recall  resolution  against  her.    
whether  the  petition  for  recall  violated  the  bar  on  recall  within  one  year   • Petitioners  Afiado  prayed  the  SC  to  compel  the  COMELEC  by  Mandamus  
from  the  elective  official’s  assumption  of  office,  the  COMELEC  ruled  in  the   to  hold  the  recall  elections  against  Afiado.  
negative,  holding  that  recall  is  a  process  which  starts  with  the  filing  of  the    
petition   for   recall.   Since   the   petition   was   filed   on   July   2,   1999,   exactly   one   ISSUE:   WON   the   recall   election   against   Navarro   when   she   was   still   Vice-­‐
year  and  a  day  after  petitioner  Claudio’s  assumption  of  office,  it  was  held   mayor  can  proceed  against  her  as  Mayor.  NO  
that  the  petition  was  filed  on  time.    
• Claudio  appealed  to  the  SC.   HELD:  
  Navarro’s  succession  to  mayoralty  was  a  supervening  event  
ISSUE:   WON  the  prohibited  period  in  Section  74  includes  the  convening  of   The   assumption   by   legal   succession   of   the   petitioner   as   the   new   Mayor   of  
the  PRA.  NO   Santiago   City   is   a   supervening   event   which   rendered   the   recall   proceeding  
  against  her  moot  and  academic.  A  perusal  of  the  said  Resolution  reveals  that  
HELD:   the   person   subject   of   the   recall   process   is   a   specific   elective   official   in  
a.    Recall  is  a  process.   relation   to   her   specific   office.   The   said   resolution   is   replete   with   statements,  
Recall  is  a  process  which  begins  with  the  convening  of  the  preparatory   which   leave   no   doubt   that   the   purpose   of   the   assembly   was   to   recall  
recall   assembly   or   the   gathering   of   the   signatures   at   least   25%   of   the   petitioner   as   Vice   Mayor   for   her   official   acts   as   Vice   Mayor.   The   title   itself  
registered   voters   of   a   local   government   unit,   and   then   proceeds   to   the   suggests  that  the  recall  is  intended  for  the  incumbent  Vice  Mayor  of  Santiago  
filing   of   a   recall   resolution   or   petition   with   the   COMELEC,   the   City.  Clearly,  the   intent   of   the   PRA   as   expressed   in   the   said   Resolution   is  
verification   of   such   resolution   or   petition,   the   fixing   of   the   date   of   the   to   remove   the   petitioner   as   Vice   Mayor   for   they   already   lost   their  
recall  election,  and  the  holding  of  the  election  on  the  scheduled  date.   confidence  in  her  by  reason  of  her  official  acts  as  such.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   27  
 
  RA   Resolution   No.   1   is   no   longer   applicable   to   her   inasmuch   as  
she  has  already  vacated  the  office  of  Vice-­‐Mayor  on  October  11,  1999  when  
SET  6  –  COMELEC  IN  GENERAL:    
she  assumed  the  position  of  City  Mayor  of  Santiago  City.   QUALIFICATIONS,  APPOINTMENTS,  
 
Prohibition  period  bars  another  attempt  at  recall  against  Navarro   REMOVALS  
  Even   if   the   Preparatory   Recall   Assembly   were   to   reconvene   to  
adopt   another   resolution   for   the   recall   of   Amelita   Navarro,   this   time   as  
 
Mayor  of  Santiago  City,  the  same  would  still  not  prosper  in  view  of  Section    
74  (b)  of  the  Local  Government  Code  of  1991  which  provides  that  “No  recall  
shall  take  place  within  one  (1)  year  from  the  date  of  the  official’s  assumption  
COMELEC  –  QUALIFICATIONS    
of  office  or  one  (1)  year  immediately  preceding  a  regular  election.”  There  is    
no   more   allowable   time   in   the   light   of   that   law   within   which   to   hold   recall   CASE:  Cayetano  v  Monsod  
elections  for  that  purpose.  The  then  Vice-­‐Mayor  Amelita  S.  Navarro  assumed   G.R.  No.  100113  September  3,  1991  
office   as   Mayor   of   Santiago   City   on   October   11,   1999.   One   year   after   her   RENATO   CAYETANO,   petitioner,  vs.  CHRISTIAN   MONSOD,   HON.   JOVITO   R.  
assumption   of   office   as   Mayor   will   be   October   11,   2000   which   is   already   SALONGA,   COMMISSION   ON   APPOINTMENT,   and   HON.   GUILLERMO   CARAGUE,   in  
within   the   one   (1)   year   prohibited   period   immediately   preceding   the   next   his  capacity  as  Secretary  of  Budget  and  Management,  respondents.  
regular  election  in  May  2001.    
  FACTS:  
  • In  1991,  then  Pres.  Cory  Aquino  nominated  Christian  Monsod  as  
  Chairman  of  the  COMELEC.    
  • Renato   Cayetano   opposed   the   nomination   as   allegedly,   Monsod  
did   not   possess   the   10-­‐   year   practice   of   law   requirement   listed   in  
the  Constitution  under  Section  1(1),  Article  9C:  
 
There   shall   be   a   Commission   on   Elections   composed   of   a  
Chairman  and  six  Commissioners  who  shall  be  natural-­‐born  
citizens   of   the   Philippines   and,   at   the   time   of   their  
appointment,   at   least   thirty-­‐five   years   of   age,   holders   of   a  
college   degree,   and   must   not   have   been   candidates   for   any  
elective   position   in   the   immediately   preceding   -­‐elections.  
However,   a   majority   thereof,   including   the   Chairman,   shall  
be  members  of  the  Philippine  Bar  who   have   been   engaged   in  
the  practice  of  law  for  at  least  ten  years.  
 
• Some  of  Monsod’s  qualifications  and  credentials  are  as  follows:  
-­‐ Worked  in  father’s  law  office  
-­‐ Operations  officer  for  the  World  Bank  for  2  yrs  
-­‐ Chief   Exec   Officer   for   various   banks   and   orgs   such   as  
MERALCO  
-­‐ National  Chairman  of  NAMFREL  
-­‐ Member   of   Davide   Commission   and   and   Constitutional  
Commission  
 
• Cayetano   claimed   that   Monsod   did   not   have   10   years   of  
experience   in   litigation   and   appearing   in   court,   etc   (traditional  
definition)  
 
ISSUE:   WON   Monsod   possesses   the   requirement   of   the   10   year  
practice  of  law?  YES.  
 
HELD:  
Definition  of  ‘practice  of  law’  has  evovled  through  the  years  
  According   to   Justice   Cruz,   since   law   covers   almost   all  
situations,  most  individuals,  in  making  use  of  the  law  or  in  advising  
others  on  what  the  law  means,  are  actually  practicing  law.      
  Mr   Monsod   is   a   lawyer   and   a   member   of   the   Philippine  
Bar,     and   has   been   practicing   law   (   according   to   the   SC:   election,  
international,     and   constitutional   law   at   least)   for   more   than   10  
years.    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   28  
 
  There  was  also  no  apparent  lack  of  jurisdiction  on  the  part   COMELEC  –  APPOINTMENT  
of   the   Commission   on   Appointments   in   nominating   Monsod.    
Therefore,  Monsod’s  position  as  chairman  is  upheld.  
CASE:  Brillantes  v  Yorac  
  [G.R.  No.  93867  :  December  18,  1990.]  
Some  definitions  of  law  as  mentioned  in  this  case:   SIXTO   S.   BRILLANTES,   JR.,   Petitioner,   vs.   HAYDEE   B.   YORAC,   in   her   capacity   as  
• The   rendition   of   services   requiring   the   knowledge   and   the   ACTING  CHAIRPERSON  of  the  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  Respondent.  
application   of   legal   principles   and   technique   to   serve   the    
interest   of   another   with   his   consent.   It   is   not   limited   to   FACTS:  
appearing  in  court,  or  advising  and  assisting  in  the  conduct  of   • At  the  time,  Hilario  Davide  served  as  Chairman  of  the  COMELEC.  
litigation,  but  embraces  the  preparation  of  pleadings,  and  other   However,  he  was  named  chairman  of  the  fact-­‐finding  commission  
papers   incident   to   actions   and   special   proceedings,   to   investigate   the   December   1989   coup   d’etat   attempt.   Thus,   a  
conveyancing,   the   preparation   of   legal   instruments   of   all   kinds,   vacancy  in  the  Chairmanship  of  the  COMELEC  was  created.  
and   the   giving   of   all   legal   advice   to   clients.   It   embraces   all   • Sometime  after,  Haydee  Yorac  was  designated  by  Cory  Aquino  to  
advice   to   clients   and   all   actions   taken   for   them   in   matters   be  the  Acting  Chairman.  
connected  with  the  law.  An  attorney  engages  in  the  practice  of   • Brillantes   opposed   this,   claiming   that   the   President   should   not  
law   by   maintaining   an   office   where   he   is   held   out   to   be-­‐an   appoint   the   COMELEC   Chairman   as   the   COMELEC   is   intended   to  
attorney,  using  a  letterhead  describing  himself  as  an  attorney,   be   an   independent   constitutional   body.   Brillantes   cited   an   earlier  
counseling   clients   in   legal   matters,   negotiating   with   opposing   case   wherein   Pres.   Elpidio   Quirino   made   a   similar   appointment,  
counsel  about  pending  litigation,  and  fixing  and  collecting  fees   but   which   was   later   declared   unconstitutional   by   the   Supreme  
for  services  rendered  by  his  associate.  (Black)   Court.    
  • Brillanted   further   claims   that   the   choice   on   who   should   be  
• One  who,  in  a  representative  capacity,  engages  in  the  business   Chairman   is   an   internal   matter   that   could   be   resolved   by   the  
of  advising  clients  as  to  their  rights  under  the  law,  or  while  so   COMELEC  members  themselves  without  the  need  of  Presidential  
engaged  performs  any  act  or  acts  either  in  court  or  outside  of   intervention.    
court  for  that  purpose,  is  engaged  in  the  practice  of  law.     • The  SolGen  defended  the  appointment  of  the  President,  claiming  
  that   while   there   was   no   rule/law   to   govern   the   succession   at   the  
• Practice   of   law   under   modem   conditions   consists   in   no   small   Commission   on   Elections,   the   appointment   should   be   upheld   for  
part   of   work   performed   outside   of   any   court   and   having   no   ‘administrative   expidiency’   and   to   prevent   disruption   of  
immediate   relation   to   proceedings   in   court.   It   embraces   COMELEC   functions.   UNLIKE   IN   THE   CASE   OF   THE   SC,   WHICH  
conveyancing,   the   giving   of   legal   advice   on   a   large   variety   of   HAS  RULES  ON  SUCCESSION,  THUS  PRESIDENT  HAS  TO  STEP  IN  
subjects,   and   the   preparation   and   execution   of   legal    
instruments   covering   an   extensive   field   of   business   and   trust   ISSUE:  WON  Yorac’s  appointment  proper.  NO  
relations   and   other   affairs.   Although   these   transactions   may    
have   no   direct   connection   with   court   proceedings,   they   are   HELD:  
always  subject  to  become  involved  in  litigation.  They   require   in   Appointment  is  baseless  and  made  on  dubious  grounds  
many   aspects   a   high   degree   of   legal   skill,   a   wide   experience     Expediency   is   a   dubious   justification.   It   may   also   be   an  
with   men   and   affairs,   and   great   capacity   for   adaptation   to   overstatement  to  suggest  that  the  operations  of  the  Commission  on  
difficult  and  complex  situations.   Elections  would  have  been  disturbed  or  stalemated  if  the  President  
  of   the   Philippines   had   not   stepped   in   and   designated   an   Acting  
• Practice   of   law   means   any   activity,   in   or   out   of   court,   which   Chairman.  There  did  not  seem  to  be  any  such  problem.  In  any  event,  
requires   the   application   of   law,   legal   procedure,   knowledge,   even   assuming   that   difficulty,   the   Court   did   not   agree   that   "only   the  
training  and  experience.  "To  engage  in  the  practice  of  law  is  to   President  (could)  act  to  fill  the  hiatus,”  
perform  those  acts  which  are  characteristics  of  the  profession.     The   lack   of   a   statutory   rule   covering   the   situation   at  
Generally,  to  practice  law  is  to  give  notice  or  render  any  kind  of   bar   is   no   justification   for   the   President   of   the   Philippines   to   fill  
service,  which  device  or  service  requires  the  use  in  any  degree   the   void   by   extending   the   temporary   designation   in   favor   of   the  
of  legal  knowledge  or  skill.   respondent.  This  is  still  a  government  of  laws  and  not  of  men.  The  
  problem  allegedly  sought  to  be  corrected,  if  it  existed  at  all,  did  not  
  call   for   presidential   action.   The   situation   could   have   been   handled  
by   the   members   of   the   Commission   on   Elections   themselves  
without  the  participation  of  the  President,  however  well-­‐meaning.  
 
Choice  of  temporary  chairman:  prerogative  of  COMELEC  
  Article   IX-­‐A,   Section   1,   of   the   Constitution   expressly  
describes   all   the   Constitutional   Commissions   as   "independent."  
Although   essentially   executive   in   nature,   they   are   not   under   the  
control  of  the  President  of  the  Philippines  in  the  discharge  of  their  
respective   functions.   Each   of   these   Commissions   conducts   its   own  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   29  
 
proceedings  under  the  applicable  laws  and  its  own  rules  and  in  the   CASE:  In  re:  Gonzales  
exercise  of  its  own  discretion.  Its  decisions,  orders  and  rulings  are   A.M.  No.  88-­‐4-­‐5433  April  15,  1988  
subject  only  to  review  on  Certiorari  by  this  Court  as  provided  by  the   IN   RE   FIRST   INDORSEMET   FROM   HONORABLE   RAUL   M.   GONZALEZ   DATED   16  
MARCH   1988   REQUESTING   HONORABLE   JUSTICE   MARCELO   B.   FERNAN   TO  
Constitution  in  Article  IX-­‐A,  Section  7.   COMMENT  ON  AN  ANONYMOUS  LETTER-­‐COMPLAINT.  
  The  choice  of  a  temporary  chairman  in  the  absence  of  the    
regular   chairman   comes   under   that   discretion.   That   discretion   FACTS:  
cannot   be   exercised   for   it,   even   with   its   consent,   by   the   President   of   • In   1988,   Miguel   Cuenco   filed   a   charge   of   disbarment   against  
the  Philippines.   Justice  Marcelo  Fernan.    
  A   designation   as   Acting   Chairman   is   by   its   very   terms  
• An   anonymous   letter   was   sent   purportedly   by   ‘concerned  
essentially   temporary   and   therefore   revocable   at   will.   No   cause  
employees   of   the   SC’   to   Hon.   Raul   Gonzales   (who   was   then   a  
need   be   established   to   justify   its   revocation.   Assuming   its   validity,  
presecutor   with   the   Tanodbayan)   to   ‘do   something’   about   the  
the   designation   of   the   respondent   as   Acting   Chairman   of   the  
disbarment  proceedings.  
Commission  on  Elections  may  be  withdrawn  by  the  President  of  the  
 
Philippines   at   any   time   and   for   whatever   reason   she   sees   fit.   It   is  
ISSUE:  WON  Justice  Fernan  may  be  disbarred.  NO  
doubtful   if   the   respondent,   having   accepted   such   designation,   will  
 
not  be  estopped  from  challenging  its  withdrawal.    
HELD:  
 
Concept   re:   removing   an   officer   who   is   member   of   Philippine  
Reason   for   prohibition:   safeguard   the   COMELEC’s  
bar  
independence  
A   public   officer   who   under   the   Constitution   is   required   to   be   a  
  The   Constitution   provides   for   many   safeguards   to   the   Member  of  the  Philippine  Bar  as  a  qualification  for  the  office  held  by  
independence   of   the   Commission   on   Elections,   foremost   among   him   and   who   may   be   removed   from   office   only   by   impeachment,  
which  is  the  security  of  tenure  of  its  members.  That  guaranty  is  not   cannot  be  charged  with  disbarment  during  the  incumbency  of  such  
available  to  the  respondent  as  Acting  Chairman  of  the  Commission   public   officer.   Further,   such   public   officer,   during   his   incumbency,  
on  Elections  by  designation  of  the  President  of  the  Philippines.   cannot   be   charged   criminally   before   the   Sandiganbayan   or   any  
  other   court   with   any   offence   which   carries   with   it   the   penalty   of  
>  Act  was  unconstitutional:  direct  transgression  of  Constitution  
removal  from  office,  or  any  penalty  service  of  which  would  amount  
  to  removal  from  office.  
   
COMELEC  –  REMOVAL   Disbarment   would   circumvent   Consti   provision   that   such  
  officers  may  only  be  removed  through  impeachment  
  Members   of   the   Supreme   Court   must,   under   Article   VIII  
Article  XI.     (7)   (1)   of   the   Constitution,   be   members   of   the   Philippine   Bar   and  
Sec.  2     may   be   removed   from   office   only   by   impeachment   (Article   XI   [2],  
The   President,   the   Vice-­‐President,   the   Members   of   the   Constitution).  To  grant  a  complaint  for  disbarment  of  a  Member  of  
Supreme   Court,   the   Members   of   the   Constitutional   the   Court   during   the   Member's   incumbency,   would   in   effect   be   to  
Commissions,   and   the   Ombudsman   may   be   removed   circumbent   and   hence   to   run   afoul   of   the   constitutional   mandate  
from   office,   on   impeachment   for,   and   conviction   of,   theat   Members   of   the   Court   may   be   removed   from   office   only   by  
impeachment  for  and  conviction  of  certain  offenses  listed  in  Article  
culpable   violation   of   the   Constitution,   treason,   bribery,  
XI   (2)   of   the   Constitution.   Precisely   the   same   situation   exists   in  
graft   and   corruption,   other   high   crimes,   or   betrayal   of   respect   of   the   Ombudsman   and   his   deputies   (Article   XI   [8]   in  
public   trust.   All   other   public   officers   and   employees   may   relation   to   Article   XI   [2],   Id.),   a   majority   of   the   members   of   the  
be   removed   from   office   as   provided   by   law,   but   not   by   Commission   on   Elections   (Article   IX   [C]   [1]   [1]   in   relation   to  
impeachment.   Article   XI   [2],   Id.   and   the   members   of   the   Commission   on   Audit  
  who  are  not  certified  public  accountants  (Article  XI  [D]  [1][1],  Id.),  
Sec.  3  xxx  xxx  xxx   all   of   whom   are   constitutionally   required   to   be   members   of   the  
(7)   Judgment   in   cases   of   impeachment   shall   not   extend   Philippine  Bar.  
further   than   removal   from   office   and   disqualification   to     The   mentioned   provision   proscribes   removal   from   office  
of  the  aforementioned  constitutional  officers  by  any  other  method;  
hold  any  office  under  the  Republic  of  the  Philippines,  but  
otherwise,  to  allow  a  public  officer  who  may  be  removed  solely  
the   party   convicted   shall   nevertheless   be   liable   and   by   impeachment   to   be   charged   criminally   while   holding   his  
subject   to   prosecution,   trial   and   punishment   according   office,   would   be   violative   of   the   clear   mandate   of   the  
to  law.     fundamental  law.  
   
Remove  first  before  liability  may  be  ascertained  
  It   is   important   to   make   clear   that   the   Court   is   not   here  
saying   that   it   Members   or   the   other   constitutional   officers   we  
referred   to   above   are   entitled   to   immunity   from   liability   for  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   30  
 
possibly   criminal   acts   or   for   alleged   violation   of   the   Canons   of      
Judicial   Ethics   or   other   supposed   misbehavior.   What   the   Court   is   SET  7:  POWERS  OF  THE  COMELEC  
saying  is  that  there  is  a  fundamental  procedural  requirements  that  
must   be   observed   before   such   liability   may   be   determined   and    
enforced.   A   Member   of   the   Supreme   Court   must   first   be    
removed   from   office   via   the   constitutional   route   of   CASE:  Zaldivar  v  Estenzo  
impeachment  under  Sections  2  and  3  of  Article  XI  of  the  1987   G.R.  No.  L-­‐26065  May  3,  1968  
GERONIMO   B.   ZALDIVAR,   petitioner,  vs.  HON.   NUMERIANO   ESTENZO,   Judge   of   the  
Constitution.   Should   the   tenure   of   the   Supreme   Court   Justice   be   Court  of  First  Instance  of  Ormoc  City,  and  SOTERO  PEPITO,  respondents.  
thus   terminated   by   impeachment,   he   may   then   be   held   to   answer    
either   criminally   or   administratively   (by   disbarment   proceedings)   FACTS:  
for   any   wrong   or   misbehavior   that   may   be   proven   against   him   in   • Geronimo   Zaldivar   was   the   mayor   of   Albuera   Leyte.   It   was  
appropriate  proceedings.   alleged   that   Zaldivar,   along   with   another   Mayor   (Larrazabal),   in  
  their   official   capacities   as   Mayor,   appointed   special   policemen  
  and   agents   to   terrorize   and   arrest   electors   who   supported   the  
  congressional  campaign  of  Dominador  Tan.  
• In  1986,  PRs  Sotero  Pepito  and  Luis  Sorcare  (who  was  municipal  
councilors),   seemingly   frustrated   by   the   lack   of   action   on  
COMELEC’s  part,  approached  the  sala  of  Judge  Estenzo,  who  was  
then  the  judge  at  the  CFI  (RTC)  of  Ormoc  City.    
• Pepito   and   Sorcare   filed   a   special   civil   action   for   prohibition   as  
well  as  praying  for  a  warrant  of  arrest  against  Zaldivar.    
• In  April  28  1966,  the  judge  granted  the  petition  and  ordered  the  
arrest  of  Zaldivar,  and  granted  the  writ  of  preliminary  injunction.    
• Zaldivar  appealed  to  the  SC  through  a  petition  for  certiorari  with  
preliminary   injunction,   claiming   that   the   orders   promulgated   by  
Judge  Estenzo  was  issued  beyond  his  jurisdiction.  
 
ISSUE:  WON  a  CFI  (RTC)  may  pass  upon  and  entertain  a  special  civil  
action  for  prohibition  against  a  municipal  mayor.  NO  
 
HELD:  
a.  Under   the   Constitution,   the   Commission   on   Elections   has  
exclusive   charge   of   the   enforcement   and   administration   of  
all   laws   relative   to   the   conduct   of   elections   and   shall  
exercise   all   other   functions   which   may   be   conferred   upon   it  
by  law.  
In   the   implementation   of   the   above   constitutional   prerogative,  
the  Commission  on  Elections  is  vested  under  the  Election  Code  
with   direct   and   immediate   supervision   over   the   provincial,  
municipal,   and   city   officials   designated   by   law   to   perform   duties  
relative  to  the  conduct  of  elections.    
  Both   under   the   Constitution   and   the     Revised   Election  
Code,   it   is   the   duty   of   the   Commission   on   Elections   to   exercise  
supervision   over   municipal   officials   precisely   to   enforce   the  
Election   Code.   No   other   agency   is   better   suited   to   preclude  
abuse   of   authority   on   the   part   of   local   officials,   the   sanction  
being  that  it  could  recommend  to  the  President  their  removal  if  
found   guilty   of   "non-­‐feasance,   malfeasance   or   misfeasance   in  
connection   with   the   performance   of   their   duties   relative   to   the  
conduct  of  elections.  
  Politics  is  a  practical  matter,  and  political  questions  must  
be   dealt   with   realistically   —   not   from   the   standpoint   of   pure  
theory.  The  Commission  on  Elections,  because  of  its  fact-­‐finding  
facilities,   its   contacts   with   political   strategists,   and   its  
knowledge   derived   from   actual   experience   in   dealing   with  
political   controversies,   is   in   a   peculiarly   advantageous   position  
to  decide  complex  political  questions."  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   31  
 
  HELD:  
b. The   Judiciary   may   not   be   a   co-­‐participant   in   the   COMELEC  has  the  exclusive  chage  to  enforce  all  laws  relative  to  
enforcement  of  election  laws.     conduct  of  elections  
  It  is  easy  to  realize  the  chaos  that  would  ensue  if  the  Court     Considering   that   the   COMELEC   is   vested   by   the  
of   First   Instance   of   each   and   every   province   were   to   arrogate   Constitution   with   the   exclusive   charge   of   the   enforcement   of   all  
unto   itself   the   power   to   disregard,   suspend,   or   contradict   any   laws   relative   to   the   conduct   of   elections,   the   assumption   of  
order   of   the   Commission   on   Elections;   the   COMELEC   would   be   jurisdiction   by   the   trial   court   over   a   case   involving   the  
speedily   reduced   to   impotence.   Note:  this  was  echoed  in  the  Buac   enforcement   of   the   Election   Code   is   at   war   with   the   plain  
decision   on   why   the   RTC   did   not   have   jurisdiction   over   the   consitutional  command.  
plebiscite.     However,  respondent  Judge  can  hardly  justify  his  acts  not  
  only   of   entertaining   Special   Civil   Case   No.   465   and   issuing   a  
c. Judges   to   refrain   from   deciding   matters   that   would   temporary  restraining  order  stopping  the  prosecution  of  the  public  
jeopardize  the  fairness  and  integrity  of  the  judge/judiciary.     works   projects   on   the   ground   that   it   violated   the   45-­‐day   ban   on  
  The   petition   against   Zaldivar   is   essentially,   political   in   public  works  imposed  by  the  Omnibus  Election  Code.    
character.   The   Court   noted   that   any   way   the   judge   would   have    
decided   on   the   petition,   it   would   have   been   perceived   as   the    
court  lending  its  prestige  and  authority  to  favor  a  congressional   CASE:  Libardos    v  Casar  
aspirant.     A.M.  No.  MTJ-­‐92-­‐728  July  8,  1994  
  Even  if  greater  care  and  circumspection,  than  did  exist  in   MAYOR   PERLITA   LIBARDOS,   complainant,     vs.   JUDGE   ABDULLAH   M.   CASAR,  
this   case,   would   be   employed   by   judges   thus   appealed   to,   it   is   respondent.  
not   unlikely   that   the   shadow   of   suspicion   as   to   alleged    
partisanship   would   fall   on   their   actuations,   whichever   way   the   FACTS:  
matter  before  them  is  decided.  It  is   imperative  that  the  faith  in   • Perlita  Libardos  and  Wilfredo  Randa  were  mayoralty  candidates  
the  impartiality  of  the  judiciary  be  preserved  unimpaired.   in  the  1992  elections  in  Maigo,  Lanao  del  Norte.  
    • During   the   canvassing   of   the   votes,   Randa   filed   a   complaint   for  
POLICY:     The   RTC   has   no   jurisdiction   over   election   offenses   preliminary   injunction   at   the   MCTC   of   Maigo,   presided   over   by  
allegedly  committed  by  municipal  officials.     Judge  Casar.  
  • Judge  Casar  granted  the  petition  and  ordered  the  BOC  to  suspend  
  the  canvassing  of  the  election  returns  until  the  COMELEC/RTC  in  
Iligan  City  could  act  on  Randa’s  complaint.  
CASE:  Gallardo  v  Tabamo  
A.M.  No.  RTJ-­‐92-­‐881.  June  2,  1994.*  
• The   canvassing   only   resumed   when   the   COMELEC   issued   an  
ANTONIO   A.   GALLARDO,   ANTONIO   AREVALO,   CRESENCIO   ECHAVEZ,   EMMANUEL   order  that  the  restraining  order  of  Casar.  
ARANAS,   PALERMO   SIA,   RONNIE   RAMBUYON,   PRIMO   NAVARRO   and   NOEL   • Libardos   claimed   that   the   judge   had   no   jurisdiction   to   issue   the  
NAVARRO,  petitioners,  vs.  JUDGE  SINFOROSO  V.  TABAMO,  JR.,  respondent.   order.  
 
• Judge   Casar   admitted   that   he   issued   the   order   without  
FACTS:   jurisdiction,   but   he   justified   its   issuance   was   to   prevent   further  
• Cong.   Romualdo   and   Gov.   Gallardo   were   both   candidates   in   the   trouble   and   violence   between   the   Christians   and   Muslims   in   the  
1992  elections  in  Camiguin.     area.    
• One   month   before   the   elections,   Cong.   Romualdo   filed   a   special    
civil   action   for   prohibition   before   the   sala   of   respondent   judge   ISSUE:   WON   the   judge   had   jurisdiction   to   order   the   suspension   of  
Tabamo  of  the  RTC.  This  petition  sought  to  prevent  Gallardo  and   canvassing.  NO  
other  provincial  officers  from  releasing  funds  to  build  projects.      
• Romualdo   claimed   that   Gallardo   was   building   projects   despite   HELD:  
the  45-­‐day  ban  on  public  works  imposed  by  the  OEC.     Judge  had  no  jurisdiction  
• Tabamo   immediately   issued   a   temporary   restraining   order     While   his   reasons   for   issuing   the   assailed   order   are  
against   Gallardo,   leading   Gallardo   to   file   a   petition   for   certiorari   perhaps  commendable  and  demonstrative  of  his  concern  for  peace  
directly   with   the   Supreme   Court.   Gallardo   claimed   that   the   RTC   and   order   during   the   election   period   in   the   given   community,   he  
did  not  have  jurisdiction.   lost  sight  of  his  bounden  duty,  as  a  Judge,  to  be  the  embodiment  of  
• The  judge’s  granting  of  the  TRO  against  Gallardo  led  to  protests  at   competence,  integrity,  and  independence.  
the   court   premises,   which   eventually   escalated   into   a   rumble     The   reason/defense   interposed   by   Judge   Casar   is  
between   the   Romualdo   and   Gallardo   camps.   Judge   Tabamo   unavailing.  As  a  judicial  officer,  he  is  to  (sic)  know  and  keep  abreast  
became   sort   of   a   local   joke   and   was   called   ‘tuta   ni   Romualdo’   with  the  latest  law  and  jurisprudence.  His  feeling  of  sympathy  and  
among  other  things.     fairness  cannot  serve  as  a  license  for  him  to  deliberately  transgress  
  or  dispense  with  the  existing  laws  involving  the  controversy.  
ISSUE:   WON   a   judge   can   issue   a   TRO   against   a   local   official   for     A   Judge   should   behave   at   all   times   as   to   promote   public  
alleged  violations  of  the  OEC.  NO   confidence   in   the   integrity   and   impartiality   of   the   judiciary   (Rule  
  2.01,  Canon  2,  supra).  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   32  
 
  bidding.’  In  awarding  the  contract  to  an  entity  that  did  not  even  
Liability  only  attaches  with  corruption   participate   in   the   process   is   violative   of   the   public   policy   on  
  To  hold  the  Judge  administratively  liable  for  ignorance  of   public  biddings,  as  well  as  the  spirit  and  intent  of  RA  8436.    
the   law,   there   must   be   reliable   evidence   to   show   the   judicial   acts     The   whole   point   in   going   through   the   public   bidding  
complained   of   were   ill-­‐motivated   and   corrupt.   The   documents   on   exercise  was  completely  lost.  The  very  rationale  of  public  bidding  
file   in   the   case   do   not   show   that   questioned   order   was   ill-­‐motivated   was  totally  subverted  by  the  Commission.  
or  corrupt.    
  b. The  COMELEC’s  rash  actions  regarding  the  contract,  without  
  adequately   checking   and   observing   mandatory   financial,  
CASE:   Information   Technology   Foundation   v   technical   and   legal   requirements,   put   its   own   mandate   in  
jeopardy.  
COMELEC     Comelec   has   not   merely   gravely   abused   its   discretion   in  
G.R.  No.  159139  January  13,  2004  
INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY  FOUNDATION  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES,  MA.  CORAZON   awarding   the   Contract   for   the   automation   of   the   counting   and  
M.  AKOL,  MIGUEL  UY,  EDUARDO  H.  LOPEZ,  AUGUSTO  C.  LAGMAN,  REX  C.  DRILON,   canvassing  of  the  ballots.  It  has  also  put  at  grave  risk  the  holding  
MIGUEL   HILADO,   LEY   SALCEDO,   and   MANUEL   ALCUAZ   JR.,   petitioners,  vs.   of   credible   and   peaceful   elections   by   shoddily   accepting  
COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS;   COMELEC   CHAIRMAN   BENJAMIN   ABALOS   SR.;  
COMELEC   BIDDING   and   AWARD   COMMITTEE   CHAIRMAN   EDUARDO   D.   MEJOS   and  
electronic  hardware  and  software  that  admittedly  failed  to  pass  
MEMBERS   GIDEON   DE   GUZMAN,   JOSE   F.   BALBUENA,   LAMBERTO   P.   LLAMAS,   and   legally  mandated  technical  requirements.  
BARTOLOME  SINOCRUZ  JR.;  MEGA  PACIFIC  eSOLUTIONS,  INC.;  and  MEGA  PACIFIC     The   illegal,   imprudent   and   hasty   actions   of   the  
CONSORTIUM,  respondents.   Commission  have  not  only  desecrated  legal  and  jurisprudential  
  norms,   but   have   also   cast   serious   doubts   upon   the   poll   body’s  
FACTS:   ability   and   capacity   to   conduct   automated   elections.   Truly,   the  
• In  1995,  RA  8046  was  passed,  which  authorized  the  COMELEC  to   pith   and   soul   of   democracy   -­‐-­‐   credible,   orderly,   and   peaceful  
conduct   a   nationwide   demo   of   the   computerized   election   system,   elections   -­‐-­‐   has   been   put   in   jeopardy   by   the   illegal   and   gravely  
and  to  pilot-­‐test  the  system  in  the  ARMM  elections.   abusive  acts  of  Comelec.  
• In   1997,   RA   8346   was   enacted,   which   allowed   the   COMELEC   to    
use  an  automated  election  system  (AES).    
 
• In  2002,  COMELEC  issued  Resolution  02-­‐0170,  which  made  for  a  
modernization  program  for  the  2004  elections.  It  was  composed   CASE:   Laban   ng   Demokratikong   Pilipino   v  
of  three  phases:   COMELEC/Aquino  
  Phase  1  –  voter  registration  and  validation  system   G.R.  No.  161265.  February  24,  2004.*  
  Phase  2  –  automated  counting  and  canvassing  system     LABAN   NG   DEMOKRATIKONG   PILIPINO,   represented   by   its  
  Phase  3  –  electronic  transmission   Chairman   EDGARDO   J.   ANGARA,   petitioner,   vs.   THE  
• In   2003,   PGMA   authorized   a   release   of   a   total   3B   PHP   to   fund   the   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   AGAPITO   A.   AQUINO,  
AES.  The  COMELEC  soon  put  out  an  invitation  to  bid.   respondents.  
• Out   of   57   bidders,   the   COMELEC   Bids   and   Awards   Committee    
awarded   the   contract   to   Mega   Pacific   Consortium   despite   MPC’s   FACTS:  
bid  having  technical  failures.   • This   case   is   an   inter-­‐party   dispute   in   the   LDP.   In   2003,   the   LDP  
• In   2003,   the   petitioners   wrote   to   COMELEC   Chair   Abalos,   informed   the   COMELEC   that   only   the   Party   Chairman,   then   Sen.  
protesting   the   award   to   MPC   “"due   to   glaring   irregularities   in   the   Edgardo   Angara,   may   endorse   the   COC   of   the   party’s   official  
manner  in  which  the  bidding  process  had  been  conducted.”    They   candidates.   The   same   manifestation   by   the   LDP   informed   the  
further   claim   that   MPC   did   not   comply   with   eligibility   COMELEC  that  Angara  had  placed  LDP  Secretary  Butz  Aquino  on  
requirements,   as   well   as   other   procedural   and   technical   forced  leave.  
irregularities.   • Meanwhile,  then  SecGen  of  the  LDP  Rep.  Butz  Aquino  replied  that  
• The  COMELEC  rejected  their  protest.  The  petitioners  appealed  to   there  was  no  basis  in  claiming  that  only  Angara  can  endorse  the  
the  SC  through  a  petition  for  certiorari.   party’s   official   candidates.   Later,   it   seemed   that   Aquino   had  
  suspended   Angara   as   well,   leading   to   a   confusing   mess   of   ‘who  
ISSUE:   WON  the  COMELEC  committed  GAOD  when,  in  the  exercise   suspended  whom.’  
of   its   administrative   functions,     it   awarded   the   contract   to   MPC,   a   • In   short,   Aquino   and   Angara   were   quarreling   over   who   gets   to  
non-­‐eligible  entity.  YES   sign  and  endorse  LDP  candidates’  COCs.    
  • In  2004,  the  COMELEC  arrived  at  a  decision  to  split  the  party  into  
HELD:   two  wings:  the  Angara  Wing  and  the  Aquino  Wing,  and  devised  a  
a. The   COMELEC   violated   laws   re:   bidding,   RA   8189,   and   RA   system  in  which  both  wings  might  co-­‐exist  within  the  party.  
8436.      
RA   8436   states   that   in   order   to   carry   out   the   policy   of   switching   ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC’s   ‘resolution’   to   LDP’s   dilemma   was  
to  an  automated  system  of  elections,  the  COMELEC  is  authorized   proper.  NO.  
to   purchase   supplies,   materials   and   equipment   needed   for   the    
purpose   but   only   through   ‘an   expedited   process   of   public    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   33  
 
HELD:   Commission  to  recognize  only  those  certificates  of  candidacy  signed  
COMELEC  has  power  to  ascertain  leaders  of  political  parties  to   by   petitioner   Sen.   Angara   or   his   authorized   representative,   and   no  
prevent  electorate  confusion   other.  To  resolve  this  simple  issue,  the  COMELEC  need  only  to  turn  
  The  COMELEC  correctly  stated  that  “the  ascertainment  of   to   the   Party   Constitution.   It   need   not   go   so   far   as   to   resolve   the   root  
the   identity   of   [a]   political   party   and   its   legitimate   officers”   is   a   of  the  conflict  between  the  party  officials.  It  need  only  resolve  such  
matter   that   is   well   within   its   authority.   The   source   of   this   questions   as   may   be   necessary   in   the   exercise   of   its   enforcement  
authority   is   no   other   than   the   fundamental   law   itself,   which   powers.  
vests  upon  the  COMELEC  the  power  and  function  to  enforce  and    
administer   all   laws   and   regulations   relative   to   the   conduct   of   The   philosophy   behind   political   parties   is   that   they   perform  
an   election.   In   the   exercise   of   such   power   and   in   the   discharge   of   the   function   of   articulating   the   interests   and   aspirations   of   a  
such   function,   the   Commission   is   endowed   with   ample   substantial   segment   of   the   citizenry.   Any   COMELEC   action   re:  
“wherewithal”   and   “considerable   latitude   in   adopting   means   and   political  parties  should  advance  this  philosophy.      
methods   that   will   ensure   the   accomplishment   of   the   great     Government   derives   its   strength   from   the   support,   active  
objectives   for   which   it   was   created   to   promote   free,   orderly   and   or   passive,   of   a   coalition   of   elements   of   society.   In   modern   times  
honest  elections.   the   political   party   has   become   the   instrument   for   the  
  In   Kalaw  v  Commission,  the   Court   said   that   the   COMELEC   organization  of  societies.  This  is  predicated  on  the  doctrine  that  
powers   include   the   determination   of   the   conflicting   claims   which   government   exists   with   the   consent   of   the   governed.   Political  
are  likely  to  cause  confusion  among  the  electorate  if  not  resolved.     parties   perform   an   "essential   function   in   the   management   of  
  Additionally,   the   COMELEC   is   mandated   by   the   Election   succession   to   power,   as   well   as   in   the   process   of   obtaining  
Code  to  inter  alia  require  candidates  to  specify  their  political  party   popular  consent  to  the  course  of  public  policy.  
affiliation   in   their   certificates   of   candidacy,   allow   political   parties   to     The   assailed   COMELEC   Resolution   does   not   advance,   but  
appoint   watchers,   limit   the   expenditures   of   each   political   party,   subverts,  this  philosophy  behind  political  parties.  
determine   whether   or   not   a   political   party   shall   retain   its    
registration   on   the   basis   of   its   showing   in   the   preceding   elections,    
etc.   These   matters   include   the   ascertainment   of   the   identity   of   the   The  COMELEC  cannot  invoke  the  constitutional  policy  towards  
political  party  and  its  legitimate  officers  responsible  for  its  acts.   a  free  and  open  system  in  splitting  LDP.      
  When   the   Constitution   speaks   of   a   multi-­‐party   system,   it   does  
In  general,  party  business  is  outside  COMELEC  jurisdiction   not  contemplate  the  COMELEC  splitting  parties  into  two.  LOL  
  Political   parties   are   generally   free   to   conduct   their    
internal   affairs   free   from   judicial   supervision;   this   common   law   Importance   of   COMELEC   power   to   settle   cases   over   party  
principle   of   judicial   restraint,   rooted   in   the   constitutionally   leadership:  
protected   right   of   free   association,   serves   the   public   interest   by   A   candidate   misrepresenting   himself   or   herself   to   be   a   party's  
allowing   the   political   processes   to   operate   without   undue   candidate,   therefore,   not   only   misappropriates   (he   party's   name  
interference.   and   prestige   but   foists   a   deception   upon   the   electorate,   who  
  In   the   case   at   bar,   the   Party   Chairman,   purporting   to   may   unwittingly   cast   its   ballot   for   him   or   her   on   the   mistaken  
represent  the  LDP,  contends  that  under  the  Party  Constitution  only   belief  that  he  or  she  stands  for  the  party's  principles.  To  prevent  
he   or   his   representative,   to   the   exclusion   of   the   Secretary   General,   this   occurrence,   the   COMELEC   has   the   power   and   the   duty   to  
has   the   authority   to   endorse   and   sign,   party   nominations.   The   step   in   and   enforce   the   law   not   only   to   protect   the   party   but,  
Secretary  General  vigorously  disputes  this  claim  and  maintains  his   more  importantly,  the  electorate,  in  line  with  the  Commission's  
own   authority.   Clearly,   the   question   of   party   identity   or   broad  constitutional  mandate  to  ensure  orderly  elections.  
leadership   has   to   be   resolved   if   the   COMELEC   is   to   ascertain  
whether  the  candidates  are  legitimate  party  standard  bearers    
or  not.    
 
Limit   of   COMELEC   interference   in   party   disputes:   only   those  
ADJUDICATORY  POWERS  
necessary  in  its  enforcement  powers    
  To   resolve   the   simple   issue   of   determining   who   as   CASE:  Jamil  v  COMELEC  
G.R.  No.  123648  December  15,  1997  
between   the   Party   Chairman   and   the   Secretary   General   has   the  
ABDULLAH   A.   JAMIL,   petitioner,   vs.THE   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   (New)  
authority  to  sign  certificates  of  candidacy  of  the  official  candidates   MUNICIPAL   BOARD   OF   CANVASSERS   OF   SULTAN   GUMANDER   and   ALINADER  
of   the   party,   the   COMELEC   need   only   to   turn   to   the   Party   BALINDONG,  respondents.  
Constitution–it   need   not   go   so   far   as   to   resolve   the   root   of   the    
conflict  between  the  party  officials.   FACTS:  
  The   only   issue   in   this   case,   as   defined   by   the   COMELEC   • Jamil  and  Balindong  were  mayoralty  candidates  in  Lanao  del  Sur  
itself,   is   who   as   between   the   Party   Chairman   and   the   Secretary   during  the  1995  elections.    
General   has   the   authority   to   sign   certificates   of   candidacy   of   the   • During   the   canvassing   of   the   MBOC   (headed   by   Sansarona),  
official   candidates   of   the   party.   Indeed,   the   petitioners’   Balindong   objected   to   the   inclusion   of   4   election   returns   from  
Manifestation   and   Petition   before   the   COMELEC   merely   asked   the   precincts   5,   10-­‐1   (allegedly   prepared   under   duress   to   ensure  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   34  
 
Jamil   would   win),   20-­‐1   (ER   not   signed   by   officials),   and   20   Macadato   MBC   Report   merely   recommended   inclusion   of  
(original  ER  missing).     contested  ERs,  also  not  considered  a  “ruling”  
• The   Sansarona   MBC   issued   “rulings”   on   3   of   the   said   objections,     The  investigation  report  submitted  by  the  Macadato  MBC  
setting   aside   ERs  5,  10-­‐1,  and  20-­‐1  for  further  investigation.  This   was   not   in   form   or   substance   a   ruling   of   the   MBC   because   it   did   not  
MBC  did  not  rule  on  ER  20.   make   a   definitive   pronouncement   or   disposition   resolving   the  
• Later  the  MBOC  changed  its  composition.  This  MBOC,  headed  by   issues   regarding   the   questioned   returns   but   only   a  
Macadato,   denied   the   inclusion   of   ER   20   in   the   canvass.   The   recommendation  to  the  COMELEC.    
Macadato  MBC  recommended  inclusion  of  the  three  disputed  ERs.     There  being  no  ruling  on  the  inclusion  or  exclusion  of  
• Jamil   appealed   the   Sansarona   MBC   “rulings”   which   set   aside   the   the   disputed   returns,   there   could   have   been   no   complete   and  
contested   ERs.   Jamil   claimed   that   the   true   will   of   the   electorate   valid  canvass  which  is  a  prerequisite  to  a  valid  proclamation.  
was  expressed  in  those  ERs.      
• Meanwhile,  Jamil  was  proclaimed  by  the  Macadato  MBC  on  June   Balindong’s   proclamation   null   as   it   was   based   on   incomplete  
26.   Balindong   filed   an   urgent   motion   to   annul  the  proclamation  of   canvass  
Jamil,  and  prayed  for  a  new  BOC.     The  proclamation  of  private  respondent  Balindong  for  the  
• On   July   11,   the   2nd   Div.   issued   an   order   which   said   that   “…all   same   reason   was   null   and   void,   as   it   was   not   based   on   a   complete  
rulings  of  BOCs…are  deemed  affirmed.”   and  valid  canvass,  but  on  supposed  "rulings"  of  the  Sansarona  MBC  
• Soon   thereafter,   the   COMELEC   2nd   Division,   on   the   basis   of   the   which   merely   "set   aside   for   further   investigation"   the   three   (3)  
Sansarona   MBC’s   setting   aside   of   the   ERs,   issued   an   order   challenged  election  returns.  
annulling   Jamil’s   proclamation,   and   ordered   that   Alindong   be     It  is  a  settled  rule  that  an  incomplete  canvass  of  votes  
proclaimed  mayor  after  a  new  BOC  is  constituted.   is  illegal  and  cannot  be  the  basis  of  a  valid  proclamation.    All  of  
• Jamil   filed   an   urgent   ex-­‐parte   motion   to   suspend   implementation   the   votes   cast   in   the   election   must   be   counted   and   all   the   returns  
of  this  order.   presented  to  the  board  must  be  considered  as  the  disregard  of  the  
• Thereafter,   a   MBOC   headed   by   Cariga   reconvened   and   same  would  in  effect  disenfranchise  the  voters  affected.    A  canvass  
proclaimed  Balindong  winner.     cannot   be   reflective   as   the   true   vote   of   the   electorate   unless   all  
the  returns  are  considered.  
• The   COMELEC   en   banc   deliberated   on   Jamil’s   urgent   motion.  
 
Around   this   time,   4   Commissioners   expressed   their   desire   to   rule  
Procedure:  when  COMELEC  is  deadlocked  
for   Jamil,   with   3   against.   Before   promulgation,   one   of   the   pro-­‐
Note:  Jamil’s  action  was  an  URGENT  EX-­‐PARTE  MOTION  
Jamil  commissioners  died.    
Rule   18,   Section   6   of   the   1993   COMELEC   Rules   of   Procedure   clearly  
• In   the   end,   the   Commission   voted   3-­‐3,   ultimately   DISMISSING   the  
provides:  
petition  as  per  COMELEC  Rules  of  Procedure.  
 
• Jamil   filed   a   motion   for   certiorari   at   the   SC,   alleging   that  
Sec.   6.  Procedure  if  Opinion  is  Equally  Divided.  —  When   the  
Balindong’s   proclamation   be   annulled   as   Balindong’s   was   based  
Commission   en  banc   is   equally   divided   in   opinion;   or   the  
on   an   incomplete   canvass.   Jamil   further   prayed   that   the   opinion  
necessary   majority   cannot   be   had,   the   case   shall   be  
of  the  dead  commissioner  in  his  favor  should  be  considered.  
reheard,  and  if  rehearing  no  decision  is  reached,  the  action  
 
or  proceeding  shall  be  dismissed  if  originally  commenced  
ISSUE:  Who  should  be  proclaimed  Mayor?  NEITHER    
in   the   Commission;   in   appealed   cases,   the   judgment   or  
WON   the   opinion   of   the   pro-­‐Jamil   commissioner   should   be  
order   appealed   from   shall   stand   affirmed;   and   in   all  
considered  in  Jamil’s  favor.  NO  
incidental   matters,   the   petition   or   motion   shall   be  
 
denied.  
HELD:  
 
Sansarona   MBC   “rulings”   are   not   “rulings”   contemplated   by  
  So  that  when  3  commissioners  voted  to  affirm  the  August  
law,   thus   no   complete   canvass   so   as   to   result   in   valid  
24,   1995   Resolution   of   the   Second   Division   as   against   3   other  
proclamation  
commissioners,   no   rules   were   breached   as   the   motion   for  
  The   May   23,   1995   issuances   cannot   be   considered   as  
reconsideration   was   deemed   denied   for   having   failed   to   get   a  
"rulings"   within   the   contemplation   of   law;     they   are   not   definitive  
majority  vote  in  accordance  with  the  foregoing  rule.  
rulings   of   exclusion   by   the   MBC   because   they   merely   deferred   the  
 
inclusion   of   the   election   returns   pending   "further   investigation."  
Procedure:   opinion   of   dead   commissioner   cannot   be  
Hence,   they   are   not   "rulings"   of   the   board   of   canvassers   that   are  
considered  
deemed   affirmed   within   the   purview   of   Comelec's   July   11  
  It   is   immaterial   whether   Commissioner   Claravall   allegedly  
Resolution.  
expressed   or   signified   her   intention   to   vote   for   the   granting   of   the  
Ruling:   “Ruling”   is   “a   judicial   or   administrative  
motion  for  reconsideration  and  thereafter  affixed  her  signature  on  
interpretation   of   a   provision   of   a   statute,   order,   regulation  
the  questioned  resolutions.    
or   ordinance.”   (Black’s)   “Rulings”   means   exposition   of   law  
  We  take  judicial  notice  of  the  fact  that  said  commissioner  
or   legal   reasons   upon   which   the   courts   rest   their  
passed   away   29   days   prior   to   the   promulgation   of   the   questioned  
judgment.    
resolution  on  February  12,  1996.    
 

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   35  
 
  A  public  official  ceases  to  hold  office  upon  his  death  and  all   "to   achieve   an   orderly,   just,   expeditious   and   inexpensive  
his   rights,   duties   and   obligations   pertinent   to   the   office   are   determination   and   disposition   of   every   action   and   proceeding  
extinguished   thereby.   A   decision   becomes   binding   only   after   it   is   brought  before  the  Commission.  
validly   promulgated.   Consequently,   if   at   the   time   of   the    
promulgation  of  a  decision  or  resolution,  a  judge  or  a  member  of  the   Remedies  of  MFR  and  certiorari  explained  
collegiate   court   who   had   earlier   signed   or   registered   his   vote,   has     Contrary   to   petitioners'   statement   that   a   resort   to   a  
vacated  his  office,  his  vote  is  automatically  withdrawn  or  cancelled.   motion  for  reconsideration  is  "dilatory,  "  it  bears  stressing  that  the  
  purpose   of   the   said   motion   is   to   give   the   COMELEC   an  
>   Thus   COMELEC   correctly   annulled   the   proclamations   and   opportunity   to   correct   the   error   imputed   to   it.   If   the   error   is  
properly  ordered  the  reconstitution  of  new  MBOC.     immediately  corrected  by  way  of  a  motion  for  reconsideration,  then  
  it   is   the   most   expeditious   and   inexpensive   recourse.   But   if   the  
  COMELEC   refuses   to   correct   a   patently   erroneous   act,   then   it  
CASE:  Bernardo  v  Abalos   commits   a   grave   abuse   of   discretion   justifying   a   recourse   by   the  
G.R.  No.  137266            December  5,  2001   aggrieved  party  to  a  petition  for  certiorari.  
ANTONIO   M.   BERNARDO,   ERNESTO   A.   DOMINGO,   JR.   and   JESUS   C.   CRUZ,     A   petition   for   certiorari   under   Rule   65   of   the   1997  
petitioners,     vs.   BENJAMIN   S.   ABALOS,   SR.,   BENJAMIN   "BENHUR"   D.   ABALOS,   JR.,   Rules  of  Civil  Procedure,  as  amended,  can  only  be  resorted  to  if  
DR.   EDEN   C.   DIAZ,   ROMEO   F.   ZAPANTA,   ARCADIO   S.   DE   VERA   and   THE  
COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  respondents.    
"there   is   no   appeal,   or   any   plain,   speedy,   and   adequate   remedy  
  in   the   ordinary   course   of   law."  Having  failed  to  file  the  required  
FACTS:   motion   for   reconsideration   of   the   challenged   Resolution,  
• In  1998,  a  criminal  complaint  for  violation  of  Sec  261  of  the  OEC   petitioners'  instant  petition  is  certainly  premature.  
(vote-­‐buying)   was   charged   against   the   respondents.   Abalos   was    
running  for  mayor  at  the  time.     COMELEC  dismissal  of  complaint  proper  
  Note:  vote-­‐buying  is  an  election  offense     The  COMELEC  found  that  the  evidence  of  the  respondents  
have   "more   probative   value   and   believable   than   the   evidence   of   the  
• Allegedly,  a  few  weeks  before  the  elections,  Abalos  hosted  an  all-­‐
complainants;"   and   that   the   evidence   submitted   by   petitioners   are  
expense  paid  trip  for  Mandaluyong  City  public  school  teachers  at  
"mere   self-­‐serving   statements   and   uncorroborated   audio   and   visual  
a   beach   resort.   During   this   outing,   Abalos   made   a   speech   where  
recording  and  a  photograph."  
he  promised  the  teachers  an  increase  in  their  allowances.  
  Section   28   of   RA   6646   states   that   a   complaint   for   vote-­‐
• The  Law  Dept.  of  the  COMELEC  conducted  PI,  but  recommended  
buying   must   be   supported   by   affidavits   of   complaining   witnesses  
to  the  en  banc  to  dismiss  the  complaint  for  lack  of  evidence.    
attesting   to   the   offer   or   promise   by   or   of   the   voter's   acceptance   of  
• Soonafter,   the   en   banc   issued   a   Resolution   dismissing   the  
money   or   other   consideration   from   the   relatives,   leaders   or  
complaint  "for  insufficiency  of  evidence  to  establish  a   prima  facie  
sympathizers   of   candidate.   Such   affidavit   was   missing   in   the  
case."  
complaint,  warranting  its  dismissal.  
• Instead   of   submitting   a   MFR,   the   petitioners   filed   a   petition   for    
certiorari   before   the   SC,   claiming   that   the   said   resolution   of   the  
en  banc  was  made  with  GAOD.      
• The  petitioners  claimed  that  they  would  rather  go  directly  to  the   CASE:  Coquilla  v  COMELEC  
G.R.  No.  151914                        July  31,  2002  
Supreme   Court   as   a   MFR   at   the   COMELEC   level   would   be  
TEODULO  M.  COQUILLA,  petitioner,    vs.  THE  HON.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS  and  
‘dilatory.’   MR.  NEIL  M.  ALVAREZ,  respondents.  
   
ISSUE:   WON  the  petitioner’s  certiorari  should  be  given  due  course.   FACTS:  
NO   • Coquilla  was  naturalized  as  a  US  citizen  sometime  around  1965.  
  He   returned   to   the   PHL   in   1998,   and   subsequently   was  
HELD:   repatriated  under  RA  8171.  He  took  his  oath  and  was  issued  his  
MFR   for   en   banc   ruling   allowed   in   election   offense   cases;   Certificate  of  Repatriation  on  November  2000.    
petitioners   should   have   exhausted   other   remedies   at   the   • Soonafter,   Coquilla   was   registered   as   a   voter   of   Oras,   E.   Samar   on  
COMELEC  level   Jan.  2001.  On  February  2001,  he  filed  his  COC  to  run  for  mayor.  
  The   petitioners   should   have   sought   a   reconsideration   of   • Incumbent   re-­‐electionist   Neil   Alvarez   sought   the   cancellation   of  
the   assailed   COMELEC   En  Banc   Resolution   as   required   by   Section   1,   Coquilla’s   COC   on   the   ground   that   Coquilla   made   a   material  
Rule  13  of  the  1993  COMELEC  Rules  of  Procedure,  thus:   misrepresentation  that  he  had  been  living  in  Oras  for  two  years,  
  when  really,  he  had  only  been  for  6  months.  
Section   1.   What   Pleadings   are   not   Allowed.   -­‐   The   following   • The   COMELEC   failed   to   render   judgment   on   the   case   before   the  
pleadings  are  not  allowed:   elections,  where  Coquilla  was  elected  mayor.    
        x  x  x  
• On   July   19,   2001,   the   2nd   Div   issued   a   Resolution   which   granted  
d)   motion   for   reconsideration   of   an   en   banc   ruling,   Alvarez’s  petition  and  ordered  the  cancellation  of  Coquilla’s  COC.  
resolution,  order  or  decision  except  in  election  offense  cases;   5  days  after  receiving  the  Resolution,  Coquilla  filed  an  MFR  but  
  Petitioners'   failure   to   file   the   required   motion   for   the  en  banc  denied  it  on  January  30,  2002  for  being  pro-­‐forma.  
reconsideration   utterly   disregarded   the   COMELEC   Rules   intended  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   36  
 
• In   the   en   banc’s   decision   to   deny   Coquilla’s   MFR,   the   COMELEC    
said:     COMELEC   still   has   jurisdiction   over   the   case   even   if   Coquilla  
“An  incisive  examination  of  the  allegations  in  the  Motion  for   was  successfully  elected  
Reconsideration  shows  that  the  same  [are]  a  mere  rehash  of     According  to  RA  6466,  the  rule  is  that  candidates  who  are  
his   averments   contained   in   his   Verified   Answer   and   disqualified   by   final   judgment   before   the   election   shall   not   be   voted  
Memorandum.   Neither   did   respondent   raise   new   matters   for  and  the  votes  cast  for  them  shall  not  be  counted.  
that   would   sufficiently   warrant   a   reversal   of   the   assailed     But   those   against   whom   no   final   judgment   of  
resolution   of   the   Second   Division.   This   makes   the   said   disqualification   had   been   rendered   may   be   voted   for   and  
Motion  pro  forma.”   proclaimed,   unless,   on   motion   of   the   complainant,   the   COMELEC  
  suspends   their   proclamation   because   the   grounds   for   their  
• On  Feb  11,  2002,    Coquilla  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  assailing   disqualification  or  cancellation  of  their  certificates  of  candidacy  are  
the  resolution  of  the  2nd  Div  as  well  as  the  en  banc’s  denial  of  his   strong.    
MFR.     Meanwhile,   the   proceedings   for   disqualification   of  
• Alvarez  claims  that  Coquilla’s  petition  be  dismissed  as  it  was  filed   candidates   or   for   the   cancellation   or   denial   of   certificates   of  
out  of  time:  Coquilla  received  the  2nd  Div  Res.  on  July  28,  2001,  so   candidacy,   which   have   been   begun   before   the   elections,   should  
that  Coquilla  only  had  until  August  2001  to  file  the  petition.     continue   even   after   such   elections   and   proclamation   of   the  
• According   to   Alvarez,   since   the   en   banc   found   Coquilla’s   MFR   to   winners.  
be   pro-­‐forma,   the   filing   of   the   MFR   with   the   en   banc   did   not    
suspend   the   30-­‐day   prescriptive   period   to   question   the   2nd   Div.   ! In   any   case,   the   SC   looked   at   the   merits   of   the   case   and  
ruling.   found   that   the   2nd   Division’s   order   cancelling   Coquilla’s  
  COC  was  justified  as  he  indeed  misrepresented  a  material  
  fact  on  his  COC.  
ISSUE:  WON  Coquilla’s  petition  was  barred  by  prescription.  NO    
WON  Coquilla’s  MFR  with  the  COMELEC  was  pro-­‐forma.  NO   Just  in  case:  refresher  on  domicile  as  used  in  election  law  
    The   term   “residence”   is   to   be   understood   not   in   its  
HELD:   common  acceptation  as  referring  to  “dwelling”  or  “habitation,”  but  
Just  because  a  MFR  reiterates  issues  decided  upon  by  the  court,   rather  to  “domicile”  or  legal  residence,  that  is,  “the   place   where   a  
does  not  make  it  pro-­‐forma   party   actually   or   constructively   has   his   permanent   home,  
  The   Court   mentioned   the   purpose   of   a   MFR:   to   convince   where  he,  no  matter  where  he  may  be  found  at  any  given  time,  
the  court  that  its  ruling  is  erroneous  and  improper.       eventually  intends  to  return  and  remain  (animus  manendi).”    
  The   court   said   that   the   nature   of   a   Motion   for     A  domicile  of  origin  is  acquired  by  every  person  at  birth.  It  
Reconsideration   has   to   necessarily   revisit   issues   already   is  usually  the  place  where  the  child’s  parents  reside  and  continues  
passed    upon  by  the  court.  If  a  motion  for  reconsideration  may  not   until   the   same   is   abandoned   by   acquisition   of   new   domicile  
discuss  these  issues,  the  consequence  would  be  that  after  a  decision   (domicile  of  choice).  
is   rendered,   the   losing   party   would   be   confined   to   filing   only    
motions  for  reopening  and  new  trial.    
     
 
 
Instances  where  MFRs  are  considered  pro-­‐forma:  
1. it  was  a  second  motion  for  reconsideration  
2.  it  did  not  comply  with  the  rule  that  the  motion  must  
specify   the   findings   and   conclusions   alleged   to   be  
contrary  to  law  or  not  supported  by  the  evidence,  
3.  it  failed  to  substantiate  the  alleged  errors,  
4. it   merely   alleged   that   the   decision   in   question   was  
contrary  to  law,  or    
5.  the  adverse  party  was  not  given  notice  thereof.  
 
Note:   the   Court   did   not   really   explain   why   Coquilla’s   MFR  
was  not  pro-­‐forma.  They  just  said  that  it  didn’t  suffer  from  
any  of  the  aforementioned  defects.  :/  
 
! The  motion  for  reconsideration  was  not  pro  forma  and  its  
filing   did   suspend   the   period   for   filing   the   petition   for  
certiorari  in  this  case.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   37  
 
RULE  13.  Section  1.  What  Pleadings  are  not  Allowed.  -­‐  The     As  the  case  before  the  COMELEC  is  not  an  election  offense,  
following  pleadings  are  not  allowed:   according   to   Rule   13,   Sec1   (d),     reconsideration   of   the   COMELEC  
  resolution   was   not   possible   and   petitioner   had   no   appeal   or   any  
plain,   speedy,   and   adequate   remedy   in   the   ordinary   course   of   law.  
(a) motion  to  dismiss;  
For   him   to   wait   until   the   COMELEC   denied   his   motion   would   be  
(b) motion  for  a  bill  of  particulars;     to   allow   the   reglementary   period   for   filing   a   petition   for  
(c) motion  for  extension  of  time  to  file   certiorari  with  this  Court  to  run  and  expire.  
memorandum  or  brief;    
(d) motion  for  reconsideration  of  an  en  banc   Tan   did   not   commit   forum-­‐shopping;   procedure   on   quo  
ruling,  resolution,  order  or  decision   warranto  
except  in  election  offense  cases;     Without   merit.   Tan   withdrew   the   quo   warranto   case  
(e) motion  for  re-­‐opening  or  re-­‐hearing  of  a   before  filing  the  petition  for  annulment  of  proclamation.    
case;       Second,   while   the   filing   of   a   petition   for   quo   warranto  
precludes  the  subsequent  filing  of  a  pre-­‐proclamation  controversy,  
(f) reply  in  special  actions  and  in  special  
this   principle   admits   of   several   exceptions,   such   as   when   such  
cases;  and    
petition  is  not  the  proper  remedy.     Under   §253   of   the   Omnibus  
(g) supplemental  pleadings  in  special   Election   Code,   the   grounds   for   a   petition   for   quo   warranto   are  
actions  and  in  special  cases.   ineligibility   or   disloyalty   to   the   Republic   of   the   Philippines   of   the  
  respondent.    
CASE:  Angelia  v  COMELEC     Since   in   the   present   case,   Tan   alleged   the   existence   of  
G.R.  No.  135468  May  31,  2000   manifest  errors  in  the  preparation  of  election  returns,  clearly,  
DIOSCORO   O.   ANGELIA,   petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and  
FLORENTINO  R.  TAN,  respondents.  
the   proper   remedy   is   not   a   petition   for   quo   warranto   but   a  
  petition  for  annulment  of  proclamation.  
FACTS:    
• Angelia   and   PR   Tan   were   Sangguniang   bayan   candidates   in   the   Procedure:   when   it   involves   clerical   errors,   the   proper  
1998  elections  in  Abuyog,  Leyte.     procedure  is  to  reconvene  the  BOC,  not  annul  the  proclamation  
without  notice  and  hearing  
• During   canvass,   Angelia   was   proclaimed   as   the   eighth   SB  
  In   Castromayor   v   COMELEC,   it   was   held   that   if   the   case  
member,  with  only  a  4-­‐vote  advantage  from  Tan,  who  ranked  9th.  
involved   a   manifest   error,   the   expedient   course   of   action   was   for  
• Tan   lter   filed   a   petition   for   quo   warranto   with   the   RTC   alleging  
the   Municipal   Board   of   Canvassers   to   reconvene   and,   after   notice  
that   there   were   clerical   errors   in   the   counting   of   votes   to   his  
and  hearing  in  accordance  with  Rule  27,  §7  of  the  COMELEC  Rules  
prejudice.  Meanwhile,  Angelia  took  his  oath  and  assumed  office.    
of  Procedure,  to  effect  the  necessary  corrections  on  the  certificate  of  
• Tan   withdrew   his   quo   warranto   petition   and   filed   a   petition   for  
canvass   and   proclaim   the   winning   candidate   or   candidates   on   the  
annulment  of  proclamation  with  the  COMELEC.    
basis  thereof.    
• In   a   Resolution   dated   Aug   18,   1998   the   COMELEC   annulled    
Angelia’s   proclamation   and   ordered   the   MBOC   to   make   the  
Quo  warranto,  Latin  ‘by  what  warrant/power’  
necessary  corrections  in  the  ERs  in  the  contested  precincts.    
-­‐ a   writ   or   legal   action   requiring   a   person   to   show   by   what  
• The   MBOC   reconvened   and   later   declared   Tan   as   the   8th   SB   warrant  an  office  or  franchise  is  held,  claimed,  or  exercised.  
member.   -­‐ Found   under   Rule   66,   Rules   of   Court   as   an   action   for   the  
• Angelia   filed   a   MFR   with   the   COMELEC   en   banc   alleging   that   he   usurpation   of   a   public   office,   position   or   franchise   may   be  
was   not   given   due   notice   and   hearing.   Without   waiting   for   commenced  by  a  verified  petition  brought  in  the  name  of  the  
resolution   on   his   MFR,   Angelia   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   Republic  of  the  Philippines  
against  the  Aug  18  1998  Resolution  of  the  COMELEC.    
• Tan  claims  that  the  certiorari  petition  should  be  dismissed  as  it  is   ! the   Court   modified   the   en   banc’s   ruling   and   deleted   the  
premature,  as  he  had  a  pending  MFR  with  the  en  banc.   annulment   of   Angelia’s   proclamation,   while   ordering   the  
  BOC  to  reconvene  
ISSUE:  WON  Angelia’s  filing  for  certiorari  is  proper.  YES    
WON  Angelia’s  petition  for  certiorari  should  be  dismissed.  YES  
 
 
HELD:   CASE:  Bañaga  v  COMELEC  
G.R.  No.  134696                              July  31,  2000  
Angelia’s   petition   for   certiorari   is   proper   as   an   MFR   of   an   en   TOMAS   T.   BANAGA,   JR.,   petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and  
banc  ruling  is  a  prohibited  pleading.     FLORENCIO  M.  BERNABE,  JR.,  respondents.  
  Angelia   acted   correctly   in   filing   the   present   petition    
because  the  resolution  of  the  COMELEC  in  question  is  not  subject  to   FACTS:  
reconsideration  and,  therefore,  any  party  who  disagreed  with  it  had   • Banaga  and  Bernabe  were  vice-­‐mayor  candidates  for  Pque  during  
only  one  recourse,  and  that  was  to  file  a  petition  for  certiorari  under   the   1998   elections,   where   the   CBOC   proclaimed   Bernabe   as   the  
Rule  65  of  the  Rules  of  Civil  Procedure.   winner.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   38  
 
• Banaga  filed  an  action  with  the  COMELEC  an  action  denominated   in   a   special   action   becomes   final   and   executory   after   five  
as   a   “petition  to  declare  failure  of  elections  and/or  for  annulment   (5)   days   from   promulgation,   unless   restrained   by   the  
of   elections,”   alleging   that   the   elected   was   tainted   with   Supreme   Court.   For   that   reason,   a   petition   cannot   be  
widespread   fraud,   vote-­‐buying   and   flying   voters.   Banaga   also   treated   as   both   an   election   protest   and   a   petition   to  
claimed   that   there   were   ‘discrepancies   and   omissions’   during   the   declare  failure  of  elections.  
canvassing  stage.      
• Banaga   also   prayed   for   the   holding   of   a   special   election   for   the   No  failure  of  elections  
Vice-­‐mayor  position.     Before   the   COMELEC   can   act   on   a   verified   petition   seeking  
• The   COMELEC   en   banc   dismissed   Banaga’s   action,   holding   that   to  declare  a  failure  of  election  two  conditions  must  concur:    
the   grounds   cited   do   not   fall   under   the   circumstances   1. no   voting   took   place   in   the   precinct   or   precincts   on   the  
enumerated   in   Section   6   of   the   OEC   that   would   warrant   the   date  fixed  by  law,  or  even  if  there  was  voting,  the  election  
declaration  of  failure  of  elections.   resulted  in  a  failure  to  elect;  and      
• Banaga   filed   a   timely   petition   for   certiorari   with   the   Supreme   2. the   votes   not   cast   would   have   affected   the   result   of   the  
Court  (recall  ruling  in  Angelia  re:  prohibited  pleadings).     election.    
• Banaga   claimed   that   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   when   it     Note   that   the   cause   of   such   failure   of   election   could   only  
dismissed   his   petition   motu   propio   and   without   giving   him   the   be  any  of  the  following:  force   majeure,  violence,  terrorism,  fraud  or  
benefit   of   a   hearing.   Banaga   also   claimed   that   his   previously   filed   other  analogous  causes.  
action  should  be  considered  as  an  election  protest.     Banaga  did  not  allege  at  all  that  elections  were  either  not  
  held   or   suspended.   Neither   did   he   aver   that   although   there   was  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   when   it   dismissed   voting,   nobody   was   elected.   On   the   contrary,   he   conceded   that   an  
Banaga’s  complaint.  NO   election   took   place   for   the   office   of   vice-­‐mayor   of   Parañaque   City,  
  but   only   that   it   was   marred   with   fraud.   It   must   be   noted   that   to  
HELD:   warrant   a   declaration   of   failure   of   election   the   commission   of  
Banaga’s  action  could  not  be  considered  an  election  protest;     fraud  must  be  such   that  it  prevented  or  suspended  the  holding  
      of   an   election,   or   marred   fatally   the   preparation   and  
  Banaga’s   “petition”   was   instituted   pursuant   to   Section   4   of   transmission,   custody   and   canvass   of   the   election   returns.  
Republic   Act   No.   7166   in   relation   to   Section   6   of   the   Omnibus   Banaga  failed  to  allege  these  essential  facts.  
Election   Code.   Section   4   of   RA   7166   refers   to   "postponement,  failure    
of   election   and   special   elections   while   Section   6   of   the   Omnibus   Hearing  not  required  if  petition  prima  facie  insufficient  
Election  Code  relates  to  "failure  of  election.”     The   fact   that   a   verified   petition   has   been   filed   does   not  
  The   allegations   in   a   petition   decisively   determines   its   mean   that   a   hearing   on   the   case   should   first   be   held   before  
nature.    In  his  petition,  Banaga  claimed  that  the  1998  elections  was   COMELEC  can  act  on  it.  The  petition  to  declare  a  failure  of  election  
attended  by  circumstances  that  amounted  to  a  failure  of  election.   and/or   to   annul   election   results   must   show   on   its   face   that   the  
    conditions   necessary   to   declare   a   failure   to   elect   are   present.   In  
Reasons  why  Banaga’s  action  cannot  be  an  election  protest:   their  absence,  the  petition  must  be  denied  outright.  The  COMELEC  
1. He  filed  it  as  a  special  action  and  paid  the  corresponding   had  no  recourse  but  to  dismiss  petition.  
fee.  The  case  was  docketed  as  SPA,  while  election  protest    
cases  are  docketed  as  EPC.    
2. Banaga  did  not  comply  with  requirements  for  filing  an   CASE:  Reyes  v  RTC  Mindoro  
election   protest.   He   failed   to   pay   the   required   filing   fee   G.R.  No.  108886  May  5,  1995  
and   cash   deposits   for   an   election   protest.   Failure   to   pay   AQUILES   U.   REYES,   petitioner,     vs.   REGIONAL   TRIAL   COURT   OF   ORIENTAL  
MINDORO,  BRANCH  XXXIX,  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  ADOLFO  G.  COMIA,  AND  
filing   fees   will   not   vest   the   election   tribunal   jurisdiction   THE  SANGGUNIANG  BAYAN  OF  NAUJAN,  ORIENTAL  MINDORO,  respondents.  
over   the   case.   Such   procedural   lapse   on   the   part   of   a    
petitioner  would  clearly  warrant  the  outright  dismissal  of   FACTS:  
his  action.   • Reyes   and   Cornia   were   SBayan   candidates   for   Calapan,   Mindoro  
  during  the  1992  elections.    
Distinctions  between  ordinary  actions  and  special  actions  
• During  the  canvassing,  Cornia  moved  to  exclude  certain  election  
1. AS   TO   GOVERNING   RULES   -­‐   An   election   protest   is   an  
returns,  on  the  ground  that  there  were  irregularities  in  counting  
ordinary  action  while  a  petition  to  declare  a  failure  of  
in  favor  of  Reyes.    
elections   is   a   special   action   under   the   1993   COMELEC  
• The  MBOC  proclaimed  Reyes  without  acting  on  Cornia’s  petition  
Rules   of   Procedure   as   amended.   An   election   protest   is  
on  May  13,  1992.  Reyes  assumed  office.  
governed  by  Rule  20  on  ordinary  actions,  while  a  petition  
• On   June   1   1992,   Reyes   filed   an   election   protest   with   the   trial  
to  declare  failure  of  elections  is  covered  by  Rule  26  under  
court,   alleging   that   the   CBOC   made   a   ‘vital   mistake’   in   the  
special  actions.  
mathematical  computation  of  the  votes.    
2. AS  TO  EXECUTION  -­‐  an  en  banc  decision  of  COMELEC  in  an  
ordinary   action   becomes   final   and   executory   after   thirty   • Cornia  moved  to  dismiss  Reyes’  petition  on  the  ground  that  it  was  
filed   beyond   the   reglementary   period   of   10days   from  
(30)  days  from  its  promulgation,  while  an  en  banc  decision  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   39  
 
proclamation.   The   trial   court   denied   his   motion.   Meanwhile,   the   pre-­‐proclamation   controversies.   All   such   election   cases  
CBOC  admitted  the  mathematical  error.   shall   be   heard   and   decided   in   division,   provided   that  
• Subsequently,   the   trial   court   annuled   Reyes’   proclamation   and   motions   for   reconsideration   of   decisions   shall   be   decided  
declared  Tan  the  8th  SB  member.     by  the  Commission  en  banc.  
• Reyes   appealed   to   the   COMELEC.   The   COMELEC   1st   Division    
dismissed  his  appeal  as  he  failed  to  pay  the  appeal  fee.      
• Reyes   then   filed   for   certiorari  with   the   SC,   alleging   that   the   trial   1st   Div   properly   dismissed   the   appeal   for   failure   to   pay   the  
court   and   the   COMELEC   1st   Div   committed   GAOD   when   they   took   appeal  fee  on  time  
cognizance  of  a  petition  which  has  been  filed  out  of  time.   Rule  22,  §9  of  the  COMELEC  Rules  of  Procedure  expressly  provides:  
• The   SolGen   in   behalf   of   COMELEC   claimed   that   Reyes’   present    
action  with  the  SC  is  premature  as  he  failed  to  file  a  MFR  before   Sec.   9.   Grounds   for   dismissal   of   appeal.   —   The   appeal   may   be  
the  COMELEC  en  banc.     dismissed   upon   motion   of   either   party   or   at   the   instance   of   the  
  Commission  on  any  of  the  following  grounds:  
ISSUE:  WON  Reyes’  petition  for  certiorari  is  premature.  YES     (a)  Failure  of  the  appellant  to  pay  the  appeal  fee;  
   
HELD:   Procedure:   appeal   fee   must   be   paid   5   days   the   promulgation   of  
Filing  a  MFR  is  a  prerequisite  to  filing  for  certiorari   the  decision  of  the  Court  
It   is   now   settled   that   in   providing   that   the   decisions,   orders   and   Rule  22,  §3  of  the  Rules  of  Procedure  of  the  COMELEC  provides:  
rulings   of   COMELEC   "may   be   brought   to   the   Supreme   Court   on   Notice   of   Appeal.   Within   five   (5)   days   after   promulgation   of   the  
certiorari"   the   Constitution   in   its   Art.   IX,   A,   §7   means   the   special   decision  of  the  court,  the  aggrieved  party  may  file  with  said  court  a  
civil  action  of  certiorari  under  Rule  65,  §1.     notice   of   appeal,   and   serve   a   copy   thereof   upon   the   attorney   of  
  Since  a  basic  condition  for  bringing  such  action  is  that  the   record  of  the  adverse  party.  
petitioner   first   file   a   motion   for   reconsideration,     it   follows   that    
petitioner's   failure   to   file   a   motion   for   reconsideration   of   the   Reyes  estopped  from  questioning  trial  court’s  jurisdiction  
decision  of  the  First  Division  of  the  COMELEC  is  fatal  to  his  present     Reyes   not   only   appealed   from   the   decision   of   the   trial  
action.   court   to   the   COMELEC   raising   this   question,   but   he   also   filed   a  
  petition   for   mandamus   and   prohibition   in   the   Court   of   Appeals.  
Only   en   banc   decisions   may   be   brought   before   the   SC   on   Having  decided  on  this  course  of  action,  he  should  not  be  allowed  to  
certiorari   file  the  present  petition  just  because  he  lost  in  those  cases.  
  According  to  the  Constitution,  all  election  cases,  including    
pre-­‐proclamation  controversies,  must  be  decided  by  the  COMELEC    
in  division.  Should  a  party  be  dissatisfied  with  the  decision,  he  may   CASE:  Garces  v  CA  
file  a  motion  for  reconsideration  before  the  COMELEC  en  banc.  It  is,   G.R.  No.  114795  July  17,  1996  
therefore,   the   decision,   order   or   ruling   of   the   COMELEC   en   banc   LUCITA   Q.   GARCES,   petitioner,     vs.   THE   HONORABLE   COURT   OF   APPEALS,  
that,   in   accordance   with   Art.   IX,   A,   §7,   "may   be   brought   to   the   SALVADOR  EMPEYNADO  and  CLAUDIO  CONCEPCION,  respondents.  

Supreme  Court  on  certiorari."    

  FACTS:  
  Basis:   Art.   XI-­‐C   (2).   The   Commission   on   Elections   shall   • In   1986,   Lucita   Garces   was   appointed   Election   Registrar   of  
exercise  the  following  powers  and  functions:   Gutalac,  Zmbo  del  Norte  to  replace  Claudio  Concepcion  who  was  
      xxx  xxx  xxx   being  transferred  to  Liloy,  Zmbo  del  Norte.  
(2)   Exercise   exclusive   original   jurisdiction   over   all   • Both  appointments  were  to  take  effect  upon  assumption  of  office.  
contests   relating   to   the   elections,   returns,   and   Concepcion  refused  to  transfer.  As  as  the  position  was  not  vacant,  
qualifications   of   all   elective   regional,   provincial,   and   city   Garces   was   prevented   by   PR   Prov.   Election   Supervisor  
officials,   and   appellate   jurisdiction   over   all   contests   Empeynado  from  assuming  the  position.    
involving   elective   municipal   officials   decided   by   trial   • Garces   then   filed   before   the   RTC   a   petition   for   mandamus   with  
courts   of   general   jurisdiction,   or   involving   elective   with   preliminary   prohibitory   and   mandatory   injunction   and  
barangay   officials   decided   by   trial   courts   of   limited   damages  against  Concepcion  and  Empeynado.  
jurisdiction.   • The   en   banc   issued   a   Resolution   which   recognized   Concepcion   as  
  the   ER   for   Guatalac,   and   ordered   that   Garces’   and   Concepcion’s  
Decisions,   final   orders,   or   rulings   of   the   Commission   on   appointments  cancelled.    
election   contests   involving   elective   municipal   and   • Empeynado   moved   to   dismiss   the   petition   for   mandamus,  
barangay   offices   shall   be   final,   executory,   and   not   claiming  that  it  had  become  moot  and  academic  because  of  the  en  
appealable.   banc  resolution.  
  • Empeynado  also  claimed  that  the  COMELEC  resolution  should  be  
Id.  (3)  The  Commission  on  Elections  may  sit  en  banc  or  in   raised   only   on   certiorari   before   the   Supreme   Court   and   not  
two  divisions,  and  shall  promulgate  its  rules  of  procedure   before  the  RTC  
in  order  to  expedite  disposition  of  election  cases,  including  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   40  
 
• The  RTC  dismissed  the  mandamus  petition  on  two  grounds:  that   The   "case"   or   "matter"   referred   to   by   the   constitution   must   be  
quo   warranto   is   the   proper   remedy,   and   that   it   did   not   have   something   within   the   jurisdiction   of   the   COMELEC,   i.e.,   it   must  
jurisdiction  over  the  case.   pertain   to   an   election   dispute.   The   settled   rule   is   that   "decision,  
  rulings,   order"   of   the   COMELEC   that   may   be   brought   to   the  
ISSUE:  WON  mandamus  is  the  proper  remedy.  NO   Supreme   Court   on   certiorari   under   Sec.   7   Art.   IX-­‐A   are   those  
WON  the  RTC  has  jurisdiction.  YES   that   relate   to   the   COMELEC's   exercise   of   its   adjudicatory   or  
  quasi-­‐judicial   powers   involving   "elective   regional,   provincial,  
HELD:   and  city  officials."  
Quo   warranto   the   proper   action,   only   applies   where    
petitioner’s  right  is  founded  clearly  in  law       In   this   case,   what   is   being   assailed   is   the   COMELEC's  
  The   Gutalac   post   was   not   vacated.   Furthermore,   choice   of   an   appointee   to   occupy   the   Gutalac   Post   which   is   an  
Concepcion   Concepcion   was   transferred   without   his   consent.   A   administrative  duty  done  for  the  operational  set-­‐up  of  an  agency.  
transfer   requires   a   prior   appointment.   19   If   the   transfer   was   made     The   controversy   involves   an   appointive,   not   an   elective,  
without   the   consent   of   the   official   concerned,   it   is   tantamount   to   official.  Hardly  can  this  matter  call  for  the   certiorari  jurisdiction  of  
removal   without   valid   cause   20   contrary   to   the   fundamental   the   Supreme   Court.   To   rule   otherwise   would   surely   burden   the  
guarantee   on   non-­‐removal   except   for   cause.   21   Concepcion's   Court  with  trivial  administrative  questions  that  are  best  ventilated  
transfer   thus   becomes   legally   infirm   and   without   effect   for   he   was   before   the   RTC,   a   court   which   the   law   vests   with   the   power   to  
not   validly   terminated.   His   appointment   to   the   Liloy   post,   in   fact,   exercise  original  jurisdiction  over  "all  cases  not  within  the  exclusive  
was   incomplete   because   he   did   not   accept   it.   Acceptance,   it   must   be   jurisdiction   over   of   any   court,   tribunal,   person   or   body   exercising  
emphasized,   it   is   indispensable   to   complete   an   appointment.     judicial  or  quasi-­‐judicial  functions.  
Corollarily,  Concepcion's  post  in  Gutalac  never  became  vacant.    
  There   can   be   no   appointment   to   a   non-­‐vacant   position.    
The   incumbent   must   first   be   legally   removed,   or   his   appointment   CASE:  Filipinas  Engr.  &  Machine  Shop  v  Ferrer  
validly  terminated  before  one  could  be  validly  installed  to  succeed   G.R.  No.  L-­‐31455  February  28,  1985  
him.   Further,   Garces'   appointment   was   ordered   to   be   deferred   by   FILIPINAS   ENGINEERING   AND   MACHINE   SHOP,   petitioner,     vs.   HON.   JAIME   N.  
the   COMELEC.   The   deferment   order,   we   note,   was   not   FERRER,   LINO   PATAJO   and   CESAR   MIRAFLOR   as   Commissioners   of   the  
Commission   on   Elections;   COMELEC   BIDDING   COMMITTEE   CHAIRMAN   EMILIO  
unequivocably   lifted.   Worse,   her   appointment   to   Gutalac   was   even   AGUILA   and   MEMBERS   PACIENCIO   BALLON,   ALEJANDRO   MACARANAS,   TOMAS  
cancelled  by  the  COMELEC  en  banc.   MALLONGA   and   ERNESTO   LOMBOS;   HON.   JUDGE   JOSE   LEUTERIO   of   the   Court   of  
  As  correctly  ruled  by  respondent  court,  mandamus,  which   First   Instance   of   Manila,   Branch   11   and   ACME   STEEL   MANUFACTURING  
petitioner  filed  below,  will  not  lie  as  this  remedy  applies  only  where   COMPANY,  respondents.  
petitioner's   right   is   founded   clearly   in   law   and   not   when   it   is    
doubtful.    It  will  not  issue  to  give  him  something  to  which  he  is  not   FACTS:  
clearly  and  conclusively  entitled.       • In  preparation  of  the  1969  National  elections,  the  COMELEC  put  
  Considering   that   Concepcion   continuously   occupies   the   out   an   INVITATION   TO   BID   calling   for   submission   of   bid  
disputed   position   and   exercises   the   corresponding   functions   proposals  for  the  manufacture  and  delivery  of  11k  voting  booths.  
therefor,   the   proper   remedy   should   have   been   quo   warranto   and   • The   voting   booths   had   certain   specifications,   and   so   the  
not  mandamus.    Quo   warranto   tests  the  title  to  one's  office  claimed   COMELEC  asked  bidders  to  bring  samples  as  well.  
by   another   and   has   as   its   object   the   ouster   of   the   holder   from   its   • Filipinas   was   one   of   the   17   bidders,   along   with   PR   Acme   Steel.  
enjoyment,   while   mandamus   avails   to   enforce   clear   legal   duties   and   Filipinas’   bid   was   128/123   pesos   per   unit,   while   Acme’s   price  
not  to  try  disputed  titles.   was  78  per  unit.  
    • The  COMELEC  Bidding  Committee  noted  that  while  Acme  bid  the  
The   RTC   has   jurisdiction;   ‘case’   or   ‘matter’   must   pertain   to   lowest   price,   their   bid   had   to   be   rejected   as   their   sample   was  
election  dispute   found   to   be   substandard.   The   Committee   recommended   the  
Sec.  7,  Art.  IX-­‐A  of  the  Constitution  provides:   award  of  the  contract  to  Filipinas.    
Each  commission  shall  decide  by  a  majority  vote  of  all  its   • The   COMELEC,   however,   granted   the   contract   to   ACME.  
members  any  case  or  matter  brought  before  it  within  sixty   Thereafter,  the  COMELEC  issued  a  Purchase  Order  for  the  voting  
days   from   the   date   of   its   submission   for   decision   or   booths.  
resolution.   A   case   or   matter   is   deemed   submitted   for   • Filipinas   filed   an   injunction   suit   with  the  CFI  of  Manila.  Filipinas  
decision  or  resolution  upon  the  filing  of  the  last  pleading,   also   asked   for   a   writ   of   preliminary   injunction,   but   this   was  
brief,   or   memorandum   required   by   the   rules   of   the   denied  by  the  CFI.  
commission  or  by  the  commission  itself.  Unless  otherwise   • The   respondents   filed   a   motion   to   dismiss,   claiming   that   the  
provided   by   this   constitution   or   by   law,   any   decision,   lower   court   has   no   jurisdiction   over   the   suit.   The   court   granted  
order,  or  ruling   of   each   commission   may   be   brought   to   the  respondents’  motion  and  denied  Filipinas’  MFR.  
the  supreme  court  on  certiorari  by  the  aggrieved  party   • Note:  In  effect  ,  what  the  RTC/CFI  was  saying  was  that  the  
within  thirty  days  from  receipt  of  a  copy  thereof   jurisdiction   over   the   case   did   not   belong   to   the   RTC,   and  
  that  Filipinas  should  bring  the  case  to  the  SC.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   41  
 
• ACME   later   complied   with   its   contract   with   COMELEC   (which   • Fransisco  Chavez  then  filed  an  urgent  motion  with  the  COMELEC  
should   have   rendered   the   issue   moot   and   academic   but   the   Court   to   disseminate   the   Court’s   Resolution   ASAP,   to   order   election  
noted  the  importance  of  the  issues  raised).   officials   to   delete   Melchor’s   name   from   the   tally   sheets   and   ERs,  
  and   finally,   to   count   all   votes   for   Melchor   Chavez   in   favor   of  
ISSUE:  WON  the  RTC  has  jurisdiction  over  a  suit  involving  contract   Fransisco  Chavez  (lol).  
awards  granted  by  the  COMELEC.  YES   • The   COMELEC   issued   a   Resolution   which   resolved   to   delete  
  Melchor’s   name   from   the   list   of   qualified   candidates.   However,  
HELD:   the  COMELEC  failed  in  actually  deleting  the  name  from  the  list.  It  
Note:   this  case  was  decided  based  on  laws  effective  at  the  time,  the   failed  to  order  the  crediting  of  Melchor’s  votes  to  Fransisco.    
1935  Constitution  and  RA  180  (the  prevailing  Election  law)   • Thus   on   election   day,   Melchor’s   name   was   still   in   the   list,  
  confusing  the  electorate  and  annoying  Fransisco  greatly.  
Under   prevailing   laws,   the   orders   of   the   COMELEC   cognizable   •  The   COMELEC   later   issued   a   Resolution   ordering   all   election  
by   the   SC   are   those   which   are   exercised   in   its   adjudicatory   and   officers  to  credit  the  Chavez  votes  to  Fransisco,  and  even  issued  a  
quasi-­‐judicial  powers   directive  over  TV  and  radio.  However,  Fransisco  alleged  that  the  
  What   is   contemplated   by   the   term   "final   orders,   rulings   directive  came  too  late  and  failed  to  reach  all  BEIs.  
and   decisions"   of   the   COMELEC   reviewable   by   certiorari   by   the   • Fran  wrote  COMELECto  devise  ways  to  credit  the  Chavez  votes  in  
Supreme   Court   as   provided   by   law   are   those   rendered   in   actions   or   his  favor.  When  the  COMELEC  failed  to  act  on  this  request  he  filed  
proceedings   before   the   COMELEC   and   taken   cognizance   of   by   the   an   urgent   petition   with   the   COMELEC   praying   that   they   reopen  
said   body   in   the   exercise   of   its   adjudicatory   or   quasi-­‐judicial   all  ballot  boxes  in  all  provinces  and  recount  all  the  Chavez  votes  
powers.     which  may  have  been  strayed  or  invalidated.  LOL.  Fransisco  also  
  An  order  of  the  COMELEC  awarding  a  contract  to  a  private   prayed   that   the   COMELEC   suspend   the   proclamation   of   the   24th  
party,  as  a  result  of  its  choice  among  various  proposals  submitted  in   winning  senatoriable.  
response  to  its  invitation  to  bid  DOES  NOT  come  within  the  purview   • Still   dissatisfied   at   COMELEC’s   failure   to   act   on   his   requests,  
of  a  "final  order"  which  is  exclusively  and  directly  appealable  to  this   Fransisco  filed  with  the  SC  an  urgent  petition  ad  cautelam  praying  
court  on  certiorari.   for   the   issuance   of   a   TRO   to   enjoin   the   COMELEC   from  
  proclaiming  the  24th  winning  senatorial  candidate.  
Powers  of  the  COMELEC    
  Under   the   law   and   the   constitution,   the   Commission   on   ISSUE:  WON  the  SC  has  jurisdiction  over  Chavez’  petition.  NO  
Elections   has   not   only   the   duty   to   enforce   and   administer   all   laws    
relative  to  the  conduct  of  elections  (ADMINISTRATIVE  POWER),  but   HELD:  
also  the  power  to  try,  hear  and  decide  any  controversy  that  may  be   COMELEC’s   alleged   failure   to   implement   its   own   resolution   is  
submitted   to   it   in   connection   with   the   elections   (QUASI-­‐JUDICIAL   undoubtedly   administrative   in   nature,   hence,   beyond   judicial  
POWERS)   interference.  
  The   order   of   the   COMELEC   in   this   case   was   issued     The   alleged   inaction   of   respondent   Comelec   in   ordering  
pursuant   to   its   authority   to   enter   into   contracts   in   relation   to   the   deletion   of   Melchor   Chavez’s   name   in   the   list   of   qualified  
election   purposes.     In   short,   the   COMELEC   resolution   awarding   candidates   does   not   call   for   the   exercise   of   the   Court’s   function   of  
the   contract   in   favor   of   Acme   was   not   issued   pursuant   to   its   judicial  review.  This  Court  can  review  the  decisions  or  orders  of  the  
quasi-­‐judicial   functions   but   merely   as   an   incident   of   its   Comelec  only  in  cases  of  grave  abuse  of  discretion  committed  by  it  
inherent   administrative   functions   over   the   conduct   of   in   the   discharge   of   its   quasijudicial   powers   and   not   those   arising  
elections,   and   hence,   the   said   resolution   may   not   be   deemed   as   a   from  the  exercise  of  its  administrative  functions.  
"final  order"  reviewable  by  certiorari  by  the  Supreme  Court.        
  Being   non-­‐judicial   in   character,   no   contempt   may   be   Chavez’   action   is   one   in   the   nature   of   pre-­‐proclamation;   pre-­‐
imposed   by   the   COMELEC   from   said   order,   and   no   direct   and   proc  for  senators  not  allowed  
exclusive   appeal   by   certiorari   to   this   Tribunal   lie   from   such     A   simple   reading   of   the   petition   would   readily   show   that  
order.     Any  question  arising  from  said  order  may  be  well  taken   petitioner   has   no   cause   of   action,   the   controversy   presented   being  
in  an  ordinary  civil  action  before  the  trial  courts.   one  in  the  nature  of  apre-­‐proclamation.  While  the  Commission  has  
  exclusive   jurisdiction   over   pre-­‐proclamation   controversies  
  involving  local  elective  officials  (Sec.  242,  Omnibus  Election  Code),  
  nevertheless,   pre-­‐proclamation   cases   are   not   allowed   in   elections  
CASE:  Chavez  v  COMELEC     for  President,  Vice-­‐President,  Senator  and  Member  of  the  House  of  
G.R.  No.  105323  July  3,  1992   Representatives.(Section  15,  RA  7166)  
FRANCISCO  I.  CHAVEZ,  petitioner,  vs.COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  respondent.     What   is   allowed   is   the   correction   of   "manifest   errors  
  in  the  certificate  of  canvass  or  election  returns."  To  be  manifest,  
FACTS:   the  errors  must  appear  on  the  face  of  the  certificates  of  canvass  or  
• Earlier   in   1992,   the   SC   in   a   Resolution   disqualified   Melchor   election   returns   sought   to   be   corrected   and/or   objections   thereto  
Chavez  as  a  senatorial  candidate  for  the  1992  elections.     must   have   been   made   before   the   board   of   canvassers   and  
specifically  noted  in  the  minutes  of  their  respective  proceedings.  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   42  
 
  It  is  quite  obvious  that  petitioner's  prayer  does  not  call  for   • The   petitioners   maintain   that   since   their   action   is   based   on   the  
the   correction   of   "manifest   errors   in   the   certificates   of   canvass   or   validity   of   Ordinance   05   and   Resolution   345   (basis   of  
election   returns"   before   the   Comelec   but   for   the   re-­‐opening   of   the   COMELEC  Res.  2987)  the  trial  court  had  jurisdiction.    
ballot   boxes   and   appreciation   of   the   ballots   contained   therein.   • They   further   maintained   that   the   the   SC   only   had   excusive  
Chavez   has   not   even   pointed   to   any   "manifest   error"   in   the   jurisdiction   when   COMELEC   exercises   its   quasi-­‐judicial  
certificates  of  canvass  or  election  returns  he  desires  to  be  rectified.   functions.   However,   when   the   COMELEC   acts   in   a   purely  
There  being  none,  Chavez's   proper   recourse   is   to   file   a   regular   ministerial  manner,  the  case  may  be  subject  to  the  RTC.  
election   protest   which,   under   the   Constitution   and   the    
Omnibus   Election   Code,   exclusively   pertains   to   the   Senate   ISSUE:  WON  the  RTC  has  jurisdiction  over  the  case.  YES  
Electoral  Tribunal.    
  HELD:    
SET  has  exclusive  jurisdiction   COMELEC   Resolutions   on   the   conduct   of   plebicites   are  
  Sec.   17,   Art.   VI   of   the   Constitution   provides   that   "(t)he   administrative  in  nature  and  subject  to  RTC    
Senate   and   the   House   of   Representatives   shall   each   have   an   Section   7,   Article   IX-­‐A   of   the   1987   Constitution   provides   in   part  
Electoral   Tribunal   which   shall   be   the   sole   judge   of   all   contests   that:  
relating  to  the  election,  returns,  and  qualifications  of  their  respective    
Members.  .  .  ."   “SEC.7.xxx.   Unless   otherwise   provided   by   this   Constitution  
  The   word   "sole"   underscores   the   exclusivity   of   the   or  by  law,  any  decision,  order,  or  ruling  of  each  Commission  
Tribunals'   jurisdiction   over   election   contests   relating   to   their   may   be   brought   to   the   Supreme   Court   on   certiorari   by   the  
respective  Members.  It  is  therefore  crystal  clear  that  this  Court  has   aggrieved   party   within   thirty   days   from   receipt   of   a   copy  
no   jurisdiction   to   entertain   the   instant   petition.   It   is   the   Senate   thereof.”  
Electoral   Tribunal   which   has   exclusive   jurisdiction   to   act   on   the    
complaint  of  petitioner  involving,  as  it  does,  contest  relating  to  the   In  the  case  of  Filipinas   Engineering   v   Ferrer,   it   was   held   that   what  
election  of  a  member  of  the  Senate.     is  contemplated  by  the  term  final  orders,  rulings  and  decisions’  
  As   aforesaid,   petitioner's   proper   recourse   is   to   file   a   of  the  COMELEC  reviewable  by  certiorari  by  the  Supreme  Court  
regular   election   protest   before   the   Senate   Electoral   Tribunal   after   are   those   rendered   in   actions   or   proceedings   before   the  
the  winning  senatorial  candidates  have  been  proclaimed.   COMELEC   and   taken   cognizance   of   by   the   said   body   in   the  
  exercise  of  its  adjudicatory  or  quasi-­‐judicial  powers.  
   
CASE:  Salva  v  Makalintal     In   this   case,   Resolution   2987   was   only   issued   after   the   COMELEC  
G.R.  No.  132603.  September  18,  2000.*   took   cognizance   of   Ordinance   05   and   Resolution   345.   Resolution  
ELPIDIO   M.   SALVA,   VILMA   B.   DE   LEON,   CLEMENTE   M.   MATIRA,   REGION   P.   DE   No.   2987   is   thus   a   ministerial   duty   of   the   COMELEC   that   is  
LEON,   MARILOU   C.   DE   LEON,   JAIME   RELEVO,   JOEY   S.   VERGARA,   CARMENCITA   A.   enjoined   by   law   and   is   part   and   parcel   of   its   administrative  
SALVA,   DION-­‐ISIO   B.   DE   LEON,   JORGE   S.   VERGARA,   GORGONIO   B.   DE   LEON,   AND  
OTHERS   TOO   NUMEROUS   TO   ENUMERATE   AS   A   CLASS   SUIT,  petitioners,  vs.  HON.   functions.  It  involves  no  exercise  of  discretionary  authority  on  the  
ROBERTO   L.   MAKALINTAL,   Presiding   Judge,   Regional   Trial   Court,   Br.   XI,   Balayan,   part   of   respondent   COMELEC;   let   alone   an   exercise   of   its  
Batangas;  HON.  SANGGUNIANG  PANGLALAWIGAN  OF  BATANGAS,  BATANGAS  CITY;   adjudicatory   or   quasi-­‐judicial   power   to   hear   and   resolve  
HON.   SANGGUNIANG   PANGBAYAN,   CA-­‐LACA,   BATANGAS;   and   HON.   COMMISSION  
controversies   defining   the   rights   and   duties   of   party-­‐litigants,  
ON  ELECTIONS,  respondents.  
  relative   to   the   conduct   of   elections   of   public   officers   and   the  
FACTS:   enforcement  of  the  election  laws.  
  COMELEC   Resolution   No.   2987   which   provides   for   the  
• In   1998,   the   Sangguinang   Panlalawigan   of   Batangas   enacted  
Ordinance  05  which  abolished  brgy  San  Rafael  and  ordered  its   rules   and   regulations   governing   the   conduct   of   the   required  
merger  with  Brgy.  Dacanlao.   plebiscite,   was   not   issued   pursuant   to   the   COMELEC’s   quasi-­‐judicial  
functions   but   merely   as   an   incident   of   its   inherent   administrative  
• The   Governer   of   Batangas   vetoed   the   ordinance   as   it   was   not  
functions   over   the   conduct   of   plebiscites,   thus,   Resolution   2987  
shown  that  it  complied  with  the  requisites  in  Sections  7  &  9  of  
may  not  be  deemed  as  a  “final  order”  reviewable  by  certiorari  
the  LGC.  The  governer’s  veto  was  overrode  by  Resolution  345.  
by   this   Court.   Any   question   pertaining   to   the   validity   of   said  
• Consequently,   the   COMELEC   promulgated   Resolution   2987   to  
resolution  may  be  well  taken  in  an  ordinary  civil  action  before  
govern  the  conduct  of  the  needed  plebiscite.    
the  trial  courts.  
• The  petitioners,  officials  and  residents  of  brgy  San  Rafael,  filed  
 
for   the   issuance   of   a   TRO   against   the   plebiscite   with   the   trial  
court.  The  trial  court  denied  their  petition,  claiming  that  it  had    
no   jurisdiction   over   acts,   resolutions,   or   decisions   of   the  
COMELEC.  The  trial  court  directed  the  petitioners  to  bring  the  
case  to  the  Supreme  Court.      
• Aparently,   the   plebiscite   was   conducted   during   the   pendency  
of  the  case.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   43  
 
CASE:  Bulaong  v  COMELEC   notwithstanding   the   mandate   of   Section   5   of   Rule   19   of   the  
(220  SCRA  745,  G.R.  No.  107987.  March  31,  1993)   COMELEC  Rules.  NO  
JOSE   M.   BULAONG,   M.D.,   petitioner,   vs.   COMELEC,   FIRST   DIVISION,   and   LUIS    
VILLAFUERTE,  respondents.      
 
HELD:  
FACTS:  
SC  dismissed  the  petition.  It  is  not  mandatory  on  the  part  of  a  
• Petitioner   Dr.   Jose   Bulaong,   and   private   respondent   Luis   division   of   the   COMELEC   to   refer   all   pending   MRs   to   the  
Villafuerte   were   both   candidates   for   the   office   of   the   provincial   COMELEC  en  banc.  
governor   of   Camarines   Sur   in   the   May   1992   local   elections.   Section  5  of  Rule  19  of  the  Comelec  Rules  provides:  
Bulaong  was  proclaimed  by  the  PBC  as  the  duly  elected  governor.    
Accordingly,  Bulaong  took  his  oath  of  office.   "How   motion   for   reconsideration   disposed   of  —  Upon  
• On   July   9,   1992,   Villafuerte   filed   an   election   protest   the  filing  of  a  motion  to  reconsider  a  decision,  resolution,  
questioning  the  precinct  results  of  ten  (10)  Municipalities  and  the   order  or  ruling  of  a  Division,  the  Clerk  of  Court  concerned  
City   of   Iriga.   Subsequently,   on   August   21,   1992,   Villafuerte   filed   shall  within  twenty  four  (24)  hours  from  the  filing  thereof,  
an   Omnibus   Motion   praying   that   the   venue   for   the   ballot   revision   notify  the  Presiding  Commissioner.  The  latter  shall  within  
proceedings   be   conducted   at   the   main   office   of   the   Comelec   in   two  (2)  days  thereafter,  certify  the  case  to  the  Commission  
Intramuros,   Manila.   Bulaong   opposed   citing   that   ballot   revision   en  banc."  
proceedings   need   not   be   held   in   Manila   since   there   was   no    
untoward  incident  that  happened  during  the  canvassing  of  votes   For   said   motion   to   be   considered   en   banc,   it   requires   the  
in  Naga  City.   unanimous   vote   of   the   members   of   the   division   as   mandated   by  
• In  an  Order  dated  September  9,  1992,  the  First   Division   of   the   Section  2  of  Rule  3  of  the  COMELEC  Rules.  In  the  case  at  bar,  there  
Comelec   granted   Villafuerte's   prayer   for   a   revision   of   ballots   to   was  an  absence  of  such  vote.  
be   held   in   Manila.   This   order   was   received   by   Bulaong   on    
September   16.   On   September   22,   1992,   Bulaong   filed   his   MR   COMELEC  did  not  commit  GAoD  in  refusing  to  refer  petitioner's  
dated  September  21,  1992.   MR   to   the   COMELEC   en   banc   because   it   exercised   its  
• On  October  19,  1992,  COMELEC  thru  its  First  Division  denied  his   discretionary  power  under  Sec  6  Rule  20  of  the  Comelec  Rules.  
MR.   On   the   same   day,   Bulaong   also   filed   an   Omnibus   motion   Instead   of   withholding   its   decision   on   such   interlocutory  
praying   that   his   two   MRs   (1st   MR-­‐on   the   order   granting   matter,   the   First   Division   of   the   COMELEC   decided   to   exercise   its  
VIllafuerte’s  prayer,  2nd  MR  denying  Bulaong’s  urgent  motion  for   power   under   Section   6   of   Rule   20   of   the   COMELEC   Rules   which  
1  day  extension)  be  certified  to  the  Comelec  en  banc  pursuant  to   states:  
Section  5  of  Rule  19  of  the  Comelec  Rules  of  Procedure.    
• Later,   Bulaong   filed   with   the   COMELEC   en   banc   a   manifestation   "When   the   allegations   in   a   protest   or   counter-­‐protest   so  
end   motion   praying   that   his   MRs   and   his   Omnibus   Motion   filed   warrant,  or  whenever  in  the  opinion  of  the  Commission  or  
with   the   First   Division   be   ordered   certified   to   it   for   resolution.   Division   the   interest   of   justice   so   demands,   it   shall  
The   First   Division   of   the   COMELEC   denied   Bulaong's   immediately   order   the   ballot   boxes   containing   ballots   and  
manifestation   that   its   MRs   be   certified   to   the   COMELEC   en   banc   their  keys,  list  of  voters  with  voting  records,  book  of  voters  
because  the  order  directing  the  Provincial  Election  Supervisor  of   and   other   documents   used   in   the   election   to   be   brought  
Camarines   Sur   to   immediately   send   the   649   ballot   boxes   to   before   the   Commission,   and   shall   order   the   revision   of   the  
Manila  is  merely  interlocutory.   ballots  .  .  .  
• Hence,   Bulaong   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   and   mandamus    
with  prayer  for  a  TRO  to  enjoin  the  order  to  the  First  Division  of   "The   revision   of   ballots   shall   be   made   in   the   office   of   the  
the  COMELEC  dated  September  9,  1992.  While  Bulaong  concedes   Clerk   of   Court   concerned   or   at   such   places   as   the  
that  the  order  of  the  COMELEC  designating  Manila  as  the  venue  of   Commission   or   Division   shall   designate,   and   shall   be  
the   revision   proceedings   is   interlocutory,   he   nonetheless   completed   within   three   (3)   months   from   the   date   of   the  
contends  that  a  reading  of  Section  2  of  Rule  3  in  conjunction  with   order,  unless  otherwise  directed  by  the  Commission."    
Section  5  (c)  of  the  same  rule  would  reveal  that  it  is  the  duty  of    
the   First   Division   of   the   COMELEC   to   refer   his   MR   to   the   Comelec   cannot   be   compelled   through   Mandamus   where   it  
COMELEC  en  banc,  since  the  matter  concerning  the  venue  of  the   exercises  its  discretionary  power  
revision   of   ballots   is   a   substantial   issue   which   the   latter   should   A   mandamus   proceeding   involving   a   discretionary   power  
review.     of   the   COMELEC   does   not   lie.   A   perusal   of   the   aforecited   section  
• Bulaong   prays   that   a   writ   of   mandamus   he   issued   directing   the   impliedly   reveals   the   discretionary   power   of   the   COMELEC   Division  
First  Division  of  the  COMELEC  to  certify  and  elevate  his  motions   or  En  Banc  to  order  a  revision  of  ballots.  This  can  be  gleaned  from  
for  reconsideration  to  the  COMELEC  en  banc.   the   use   of   the   phrase,   "whenever   in   the   opinion   of   the  
  Commission   or   Division   the   interest   of   justice   so   demand."  
ISSUE:   WON  the   First   Division   of   the   COMELEC   committed   GAoD   Although   in   most   instances   the   revision   of   ballots   takes   place   in   the  
when   it   refused   to   refer   BUlaong's   MRs   to   the   COMELEC   en   banc   office   of   the   Clerk   of   Court   concerned,   revision   of   ballots   may   also  
be   held   in   "such   places   as   the   Commission   or   Division   shall  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   44  
 
designate."   Bulaong   is   to   be   reminded   that   mandamus,   as   a   CASE:  Soller  v  COMELEC    
remedy,   is   available   to   compel   the   doing   of   an   act   specifically   (339  SCRA  685,  G.R.  No.  139853,  September  5,  2000)  
enjoined   by   law   as   a   duty.   It   cannot   compel   the   doing   of   an   act   FERDINAND  THOMAS  M.  SOLLER,  petitioner,    vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  RTC  
OF   PINAMALAYAN,   ORIENTAL   MINDORO   (Branch   42)   and   ANGEL   M.  
involving   the   exercise   of   discretion   one   way   or   the   other.   SAULONG,  respondents.  
Undoubtedly,   the   First   Division   of   the   COMELEC   was   within   its    
powers  in  designating  Manila  as  the  venue  of  the  revision  of  ballots.   FACTS:  
  • Ferdinand   Thomas   Soller   and   and   Angel   Saulong   were   both  
  candidates   for   mayor   of   the   municipality   of   Bansud,   Oriental  
OTHER  DISCUSSIONS  THAT  MAY  BE  ASKED:   Mindoro   in   the   May   11,   1998   elections.   On   May   14,   1998,   the  
  municipal  BOC  proclaimed  Soller  duly  elected  mayor.  
Bulaong’s   MR   was   filed   out   of   time;   only   MFRs   filed   within  
• On   May   19,   Saulong   filed   with   the   COMELEC   a   "petition   for  
reglementary  period  may  be  referred  to  the  en  banc  
annulment  of  the  proclamation/exclusion  of  election  return".  On  
Even   if   SC   is   to   consider   the   case   at   bar   as   falling   within  
May   25,   Saulong   filed   with   the   RTC   of   Pinamalayan,   Oriental  
the   jurisdiction   of   the   COMELEC   en   banc   by   virtue   of   Section   3   of  
Mindoro,  an  election  protest  against  Soller.  
Rule   5(c)   of   the   COMELEC   Rules,   it   goes   without   saying   that   only  
• Soller   filed   his   answer   with   counter-­‐protest.   He   also   moved   to  
MRs   filed   within   the   five   (5)   day   reglementary   period   as   prescribed  
dismiss   Saulong's   protest   on   the   ground   of   lack   of   jurisdiction,  
by   Section   2   of   Rule   19   of   said   Rules   can   be   referred   to   the  
forum-­‐shopping,  and  failure  to  state  cause  of  action.  
COMELEC   en   banc.   Bulaong   should   have   filed   his   MR   on   or   before  
• COMELEC  dismissed  the  pre-­‐proclamation  case  filed  by  Saulong.  
September   21,   1992   considering   that   he   received   the   COMELEC's  
order   dated   September   9,   1992   on   September   16,   1992.   Bulaong   • On  October  1,  1998  RTC  denied  Soller's  motion  to  dismiss.  Soller  
moved   for   reconsideration   but   said   motion   was   denied.   He   then  
may   have   been   overly   optimistic   in   expecting   that   his   "urgent  
filed   with   the   COMELEC   a   petition   for  certiorari  contending   that  
motion   for   one-­‐day   extension"   would   be   granted   forthwith   by   the  
RTC  acted  without  or  in  excess  of  jurisdiction  or  with  GAoD  in  not  
First   Division,   which   it   did   not.   Hence,   upon   the   lapse   of   five   (5)  
dismissing  Saulong's  election  protest.  
days,   the   order   of   the   COMELEC   can   no   longer   be   questioned;   much  
less  can  it  be  referred  to  the  COMELEC  en  banc.   • On   August   31,   1999,   the   COMELEC  en   banc  dismissed   Soller's  
  suit.   The   election   tribunal   held   that   Saulong   paid   the   required  
September   9,   1992   First   Division   Comelec   Order   is   filing   fee.   It   also   declared   that   the   defect   in   the   verification   is   a  
interlocutory   mere  technical  defect  which  should  not  bar  the  determination  of  
Admittedly,   the   order   regarding   the   revision   of   ballots   is   the   merits   of   the   case.   The   election   tribunal   stated   that   there   was  
an   interlocutory   order   because   it   still   requires   a   party   to   perform   no  forum  shopping  to  speak  of.
certain  acts  leading  to  the  final  adjudication  of  a  case.  The  order  in    
the   case   at   bar   is   for   the   Provincial   Election   Supervisor   of   ISSUE:    
Camarines   Sur   to   transfer   the   ballot   boxes   from   Camarines   Sur   to   WON  Soller  properly  filed  the  petition  for  certiorari  before  the  SC.  –  
Manila   for   a   recount   and   revision   of   ballots,   for   the   purpose   of   YES  
determining  who  won  the  gubernatorial  race  in  Camarines  Sur.   WON  COMELEC  gravely  abused  its  discretion  amounting  to  lack  or  
excess   of   jurisdiction   in   not   ordering   the   dismissal   of   Saulong's  
election  protest.  –  YES  
 
 What  is  an  interlocutory  order?   HELD:  
An  order  is  interlocutory  if  it  still  requires  a  party  to  perform   Procedure:   MR   of   en   banc   decision   a   prohibited   pleading,  
certain  acts  leading  to  the  adjudication  of  a  case.  The  order  in   unless  relating  to  election  offense.  
the   case   at   bar   is   for   the   Provincial   Election   Supervisor   of     Under   the   COMELEC   Rules,   an   MR   of   its  en  banc  ruling   is  
Camarines   Sur   to   transfer   the   ballot   boxes   from   Camarines   Sur   prohibited   except   in   a   case   involving   an   election   offense.  Since   the  
to  Manila  for  a  recount  and  revision  of  ballots,  for  the  purpose   present   controversy   involves   no   election   offense,   reconsideration   is  
of   determining   who   won   the   gubernatorial   race   in   Camarines   not   possible   and   Soller   has   no   appeal   or   any   plain,   speedy   and  
Sur.   adequate  remedy  in  the  ordinary  course  of  law.  Accordingly,  Soller  
  properly  filed  the  instant  petition  for  certiorari  with  SC.  
Procedure  re:  interlocutory  orders:    
1. Motions   on   interlocutory   orders   of   a   division   shall   be   COMELEC   en   banc   does   not   have   authority   to   hear   and   decide  
resolved   by   the   division   which   issued   the   order   (Rule   3,   election  cases  in  the  first  instance.  This  power  pertains  to  the  
Section  5c)   divisions  of  the  Comelec.  
2. The   COMELEC   en   banc   may   only   decide   on   interlocutory   Section  3,  Subdivision  C  of  Article  IX  of  the  Constitution  reads:  
orders   upon   a   unanimous   vote   of   all   the   members   of   a    
Division  to  refer  it  to  the  en  banc   "The   Commission   on   Elections   may   sit  en   banc  or   in   two  
  divisions,   and   shall   promulgate   its   rules   of   procedure   in  
  order   to   expedite   the   disposition   of   election   cases,  
  including  pre-­‐proclamation  controversies.  All  such  election  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   45  
 
cases   shall   be   heard   and   decided   in  division,   provided   that   • Both  their  protests  were  raffled  off  to  the  COMELEC  1st  Div,  who  
motions   for   reconsideration   of   decision   shall   be   decided   consolidated   their   petitions.   It   then   ordered   the   retrieval   of   all  
by  the  Commission  en  banc."   ballot  boxes  and  election  documents  of  the  39  precincts.    
  • Soon   after,   Matba   and   Usman   filed   a   Menifestation   and   Ex-­‐parte  
  Thus,   in  Sarmiento   vs.   COMELEC5  and   in   subsequent   Motion  wherein  they  prayed  that  instead  of  a  mere  recounting  of  
cases,  SC  ruled  that  the  COMELEC,   sitting  en  banc,  does   not   have   the  ballots,  the  COMELEC  should  order  the  technical  examination  
the   requisite   authority   to   hear   and   decide   election   cases   of   the   ballots,   the   Election   Day   Computerized   Voters   List  
including   pre-­‐proclamation   controversies   in  the  first  instance.   (EDCVL),   the   Voters   Registration   Record   (VRR)   and   the   Book   of  
This   power   pertains   to   the   divisions   of   the   Commission.   Any   Voters.    
decision   by   the   Commission  en   banc  as   regards   election   cases   Technical   examination:   comparing   the   signatures   and  
decided  by  it  in  the  first  instance  is  null  and  void.   thumbmarks  on  the  EDCVL  vs  the  VRRs/Books  of  Voters  etc  
  • The   1st   Div.   granted   the   motion   and   ordered   the   conduct   of   the  
The   COMELEC   en   banc   has   no   authority   to   hear   and   decide   technical  examination.      
election  cases  in  the  first  instance.  Thus,  the  COMELEC  en  banc     Note:  this  Order  is  interlocutory  
erred   in   taking   cognizance   of   the   petition,   as   it   should   have   • Sadikul   and   Ruby   filed   with  the  1st  Div.  a   Strong  Manifestation  of  
passed  through  a  division  first.       Grave   Concern   and   MFR,   stating  that  such  order  by  the  COMELEC  
  Soller's  petition  with  the  COMELEC  was  not  referred  to  a   was   issued   without   due   process;   that   the   1st   Div.   cannot   just  
division   of   that   Commission   but   was,   instead,   submitted   directly   to   order  a  technical  examination  in  the  absence  of  published  Rules.  
the   Commission  en   banc.  The   petition   for   certiorari  assails   the   • The   COMELEC   averred   that   it   can   order   a   technical   examination  
trial  court's  order  denying  the  motion  to  dismiss  Saulong's  election   as  per  Section  1,  Rule  18  of  COMELEC  Res.  8804.  
protest.   The   questioned   order   of   the   trial   court   is   interlocutory   • Sadikul   and   Ruby   filed   the   present   petition   for   certiorari  before  
because   it   does   not   end   the   trial   court's   task   of   adjudicating   the   the   SC,   alleging   that   the   COMELEC   1st   Div.   committed   GAOD   in  
parties'   contentions   and   determining   their   rights   and   liabilities   as   promulgating  the  said  order.  
regards  each  other.  In  SC’s  view,  the  authority  to  resolve  petition    
for  certiorari  involving   incidental   issues   of   election   protest,   ISSUE:  WON  the  petition  for  ceritorari  is  proper.  NO  
like   the   questioned   order   of   the   trial   court,   falls   within   the   WON   the   COMELEC   can   order   the   technical   examination   of   ballot  
division  of  the  COMELEC  and  not  on  the  COMELEC  en  banc.     boxes.  YES  
  Note   that   the   order   denying   the   motion   to   dismiss   is   but    
an   incident   of   the   election   protest.   If   the   principal   case,   once   HELD:  
decided   on   the   merits,   is   cognizable   on   appeal   by   a   division   of   the   The   COMELEC’s   Order   was   interlocutory,   and   therefore   not  
COMELEC,   then,   there   is   no   reason   why   petitions   subject  to  review  for  certiorari  
for  certiorari  relating  to  incidents  of  election  protest  should  not  be     Sadikul   and   Ruby   cannot   resort   to   the   extraordinary  
referred   first   to   a   division   of   the   COMELEC   for   resolution.   Clearly,   remedy   of   certiorari   to   assail   an   interlocutory   order   issued   by   the  
the   COMELEC  en   banc  acted   without   jurisdiction   in   taking   COMELEC  First  Division.    
cognizance  of  Soller's  petition  in  the  first  instance.     A   party   aggrieved   by   an   interlocutory   order   issued   by   a  
  Division   of   the   COMELEC   in   an   election   protest   may   not   directly  
Note:   SC   also   ruled   in   this   case   that   the   RTC   erred   and   committed   assail   the   order   in   this   Court   through   a   special   civil   action   for  
GAoD  in  failing  to  dismiss  Saulong's  election  protest  against  Soller.   certiorari.  The  remedy  is  to  seek  the  review  of  the  interlocutory  
SC   reiterated   that   COMELEC  en   banc  had   no   jurisdiction   to   affirm   order   during   the   appeal   of   the   decision   of   the   Division   in   due  
the  refusal  of  RTC  to  dismiss  Saulong's  election  protest.   course.  
    Under  the  Constitution,  the  power  of  this  Court  to  review  
  election  cases  falling  within  the  original  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  
CASE:  Sahali  v  COMELEC     COMELEC   only   extends   to   final   decisions   or   resolutions   of   the  
G.R.  No.  201796                              January  15,  2013   COMELEC   en   banc,   certainly   not   to   interlocutory   orders   issued   by   a  
GOVERNOR   SADIKUL   A.   SAHALI   and   VICE-­‐GOVERNOR   RUBY   M.   SAHALl,   Division  thereof.  
Petitioners,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   (FIRST   DIVISION),   RASHIDIN   H.   MA  
TBA  and  JILKASI  J.  USMAN,  Respondents.  
  Here,   the   Orders   dated   March   5,   2012   and   May   3,   2012  
  issued   by   the   First   Division   of   the   COMELEC   were   merely  
FACTS:   interlocutory   orders   since   they   only   disposed   of   an   incident   in   the  
• Sadikul   Sahali   and   Matba   were   gubernatorial   candidates   in   Tawi-­‐ main  case  i.e.  the  propriety  of  the  technical  examination  of  the  said  
tawi  during  the  2010  elections;  while  Ruby  Sahali  and  Usman  ran   election   paraphernalia.   Thus,   the   proper   recourse   for   the  
for   Vgov.   Both   the   Sahalis   were   declared   the   winners   by   the   petitioners  is  to  await  the  decision  of  the  COMELEC  First  Division  in  
PBOC.   the  election  protests  filed  by  Matba  and  Usman,  and  should  they  be  
• Alleging   that   the   Sahalis   rigged   the   election,   Matba   and   Usman   aggrieved  thereby,  to  appeal  the  same  to  the  COMELEC  en  banc  by  
both   filed   separate   Election   Protests   Ad   Cautelam   with   the   filing  a  motion  for  reconsideration.  
COMELEC,   wherein   they   contested   the   results   in   39   out   of   the      
282  precincts.       Summary:  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   46  
 
If   aggrieved   by   interlocutory   order   >   wait   until   Division   COMELEC   First   Division   does   not   have   the   power   to   order   the  
decides  >  file  an  MFR  with  en  banc  >  cerriorari  with  SC   conduct  of  such  technical  examination.  
    The   power   of   the   COMELEC   First   Division   to   order   the  
Exceptions  when  SC  can  review  interlocutory  orders:   technical   examination   election   paraphernalia   in   election   protest  
Exceptionally,  this  Court  may  take  cognizance  of  a  certiorari  action   cases  stems  from  its  "exclusive  original  jurisdiction  over  all  contest  
directed   against   an   interlocutory   order   issued   by   a   Division   of   the   relating   to   the   elections,   returns   and   qualifications   of   all   elective  
COMELEC  when  the  following  circumstances  are  present:   regional,  provincial  and  city  officials".    
1. First,   the   order   was   issued   without   jurisdiction   or   in     Otherwise   stated,   the   express   grant   of   power   to   the  
excess   of   jurisdiction   or   with   grave   abuse   of   discretion   COMELEC   to   resolve   election   protests   carries   with   it   the   grant   of   all  
tantamount  to  lack  or  excess  of  jurisdiction   other   powers   necessary,   proper,   or   incidental   to   the   effective   and  
2. Second,   under   the   COMELEC   Rules   of   Procedure,   the   efficient   exercise   of   the   power   expressly   granted.   Verily,   the  
subject  of  the  controversy  is  a  matter  which:   exclusive   original   jurisdiction   conferred   by   the   constitution   to   the  
  COMELEC   to   settle   said   election   protests   includes   the   authority  
a. The  COMELEC  en  banc  may  not  sit  and  consider   to   order   a   technical   examination   of   relevant   election  
b. A  Division  is  not  authorized  to  act   paraphernalia,   election   returns   and   ballots   in   order   to  
c. The  members  of  the  Division  unanimously  vote  to  refer   determine   whether   fraud   and   irregularities   attended   the  
to  the  COMELEC  en  banc   canvass  of  the  votes.  
     
Procedure:   In   election   disputes,   COMELEC   not   duty-­‐bound   to    
notify  and  direct  a  party  to  file  an  opposition  to  a  motion  filed    
by  the  other  party;  Sahalis’  right  to  due  process  not  violated   CASE:  Brillantes  v  COMELEC  
  The   COMELEC,   in   election   disputes,   is   not   duty-­‐bound   to   G.R.  No.  163193                          June  15,  2004  
notify   and   direct   a   party   therein   to   file   an   opposition   to   a   motion   SIXTO   S.   BRILLANTES,   JR.,   petitioner,   JOSE   CONCEPCION,   JR.,   JOSE   DE   VENECIA,  
filed  by  the  other  party.  It  is  incumbent  upon  the  party  concerned,  if   EDGARDO   J.   ANGARA,   DR.   JAIME   Z.   GALVEZ-­‐TAN,   FRANKLIN   M.   DRILON,   FRISCO  
SAN   JUAN,   NORBERTO   M.   GONZALES,   HONESTO   M.   GUTIERREZ,   ISLETA,   AND   JOSE  
he/she  deems  it  necessary,  to  file  an  opposition  to  a  motion  within   A.  BERNAS,  Petitioners-­‐in-­‐Intervention,  vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  respondent.    
five  days  from  receipt  of  a  copy  of  the  same  without  awaiting  for  the    
COMELEC’s  directive  to  do  so.   FACTS:  
  It  should  be  stressed  that  one  of  the  factors  that  should  
• In  2002,  COMELEC  issued  Resolution  02-­‐0170,  which  made  for  a  
be  considered  in  election  protests  is  expediency.  Proceedings  in   modernization  program  (automated  election  system,  AES)  for  the  
election   protests   are   special   and   expeditious   and   the   early   2004  elections.  It  was  composed  of  three  phases:  
resolution   of   such   cases   should   not   be   hampered   by   any     Phase  1  –  voter  registration  and  validation  system  
unnecessary   observance   of   procedural   rules.   "The   proceedings     Phase  2  –  automated  counting  and  canvassing  system    
should  not  be  encumbered  by  delays.     Phase  3  –  electronic  transmission  
  Here,   the   Sahalis   did   not   file   an   opposition   to   the   said  
• In   Infotech  v  COMELEC,  the   SC   nullified   the   contract   awarded   to  
motion   for   technical   examination   that   was   filed   by   Matba   and  
Mega  Pacific  Consortium  (which  was  Phase  2).    
Usman  on  February  24,  2012.  It  was  only  after  the  COMELEC  First  
• Nevertheless,   the   COMELEC   tried   to   implement   Phase   3   of   the  
Division  issued  its  March  5,  2012  Order  that  the  petitioners  decided  
AES   through   an   electronic   transmission   of   advanced   "unofficial"  
to   register   their   opposition   to   the   intended   technical   examination,  
results   of   the   2004   elections   for   national,   provincial   and  
albeit  in  the  form  of  a  motion  for  reconsideration  of  the  said  Order.  
municipal  positions,  also  dubbed  as  an  "unofficial  quick  count."  
 
• Sen.  Franklin  Drilon  had  doubts  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  
Due  process  in  administrative  proceedings  explained  
‘unoffical   quick   count’   if   such   quick   count   included   the   results   for  
  Due   process   does   not   necessarily   mean   or   require   a  
the   positions   of   President   and   VPres.   Recall   only   Congress   may  
hearing,  but  simply  an  opportunity  or  right  to  be  heard.  One  may  be  
canvass  the  election  returns  for  these  positions.  
heard,  not  solely  by  verbal  presentation  but  also,  and  perhaps  many  
times  more  creditably  and  predictable  than  oral  argument,  through   • Soon   after,   the   COMELEC   en   banc   met   and   resolved   to   push  
through   with   Phase   3,   since   before   the   SC   annulled   Phase   2   in  
pleadings.  In  administrative  proceedings  moreover,  technical  rules  
Infotech,  the  COMELEC  had  already  spent  300m  for  Phase  3.  
of   procedure   and   evidence   are   not   strictly   applied;   administrative  
process   cannot   be   fully   equated   with   due   process   in   its   strict   • On  April  28,  2004,  the  COMELEC  promulgated  Resolution   6712  
judicial  sense.     which  contained  the  insrtuctions  for  the  electronic  transmission  
    and   consilidated   of   advanced   results   in   the   2004   elections.   Under  
Procedure:   the   COMELEC   has   power   to   order   technical   the  resolution,  the  transmitted  results  included  local  and  national  
examinations   even   in   the   absence   of   published   rules   to   the   positions,   as   well   as   those   for   the   partylist   system.   These  
effect;  exercise  of  quasi-­‐judicial  powers   unofficial  results  were  also  to  be  broadcast    
  While  Section  1,  Rule  18  of  COMELEC  Resolution  No.  8804   • The   NAMFREL,   and   political   parties   raised   their   concerns   as   to  
does  not  explicitly  provide  for  the  rule  on  the  technical  examination   the   Resolution.   NAMFREL   claimed   that   the   Resolution  
of   election   paraphernalia,   it   does   not   mean,   however,   that   the   disregarded  RA  8173,  8436  and  7166  which  authorizes  only  the  
citizen’s  arm  (NAMFREL)  to  conduct  an  unofficial  count.  Further,  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   47  
 
the   law   states   that   election   returns   may   only   be   used   for     The   assailed   resolution   usurps,   under   the   guise  
canvassing  or  for  receiving  dispute  resolutions.   of  an  "unofficial"  tabulation  of  election  results  based  on  a  
• Another  argument  against  the  said  Resolution  is  that  there  is  no   copy   of   the   election   returns,   the   sole   and   exclusive  
basis   to   push   through   with   Phase   3   after   the   failures   of   Phase   1   authority  of  Congress  to  canvass  the  votes  for  the  election  
and  2.  The  petitioners  claim  that  the  counting  and  consolidation   of   President   and   Vice-­‐President.   (Article   VII,   Section   4   of  
of  votes  contemplated  under  Section  6  of  Rep.  Act  No.  8436  refers   the  Constitution)  
to  the  official  COMELEC  count  under  the  fully  automated  system     The   contention   of   the   COMELEC   that   its  
and  not  any  kind  of  "unofficial"  count  via  electronic  transmission   tabulation   of   votes   is   not   prohibited   by   the   Constitution  
of   advanced   results   as   now   provided   under   the   assailed   and  Rep.  Act  No.  8436  as  such  tabulation  is  "unofficial,"  is  
resolution.   puerile   and   totally   unacceptable.   If   the   COMELEC   is  
• Several   members   of   Congress   also   intervened,   claiming   that   proscribed   from   conducting   an   official   canvass   of   the  
Resolution   6712   usurped   the   constitutional   prerogative   of   votes   cast   for   the   President   and   Vice-­‐President,   the  
Congress  to  canvass  the  votes  for  Pres  and  VPres.   COMELEC   is,   with   more   reason,   prohibited   from   making  
  an  "unofficial"  canvass  of  said  votes.  
ISSUE:   WON   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   in   promulgating   2. Resolution   usurps   mandate   of   NAMFREL   to   conduct   the  
Resolution  6712.  YES   quick  count  and  disrupts  the  chain  of  custody  of  ERs  
WON   the   Court   can   take   jurisdiction   over   Res.   6712,   which   is   an   Under   RA   7166   and   RA   8436,   only   NAMFREL   –   the  
administrative  issuance.  YES   accredited  citizen’s  arm  -­‐  is  exclusively  authorized  to  use  a  
WON   the   issue   has   been   rendered   moot   and   academic   by   the   copy   of   the   election   returns   in   the   conduct   of   an  
subsequent  conduct  of  the  2004  elections?  NO.   "unofficial"   counting   of   the   votes,   whether   for   the   national  
  or   the   local   elections.   No   other   entity,   including   the  
HELD:   respondent  COMELEC  itself,  is  authorized  to  use  a  copy  of  
Issue   is   justiciable,   SC   has   jurisdiction   over   administrative   the   election   returns   for   purposes   of   conducting   an  
issuance  as  it  involves  questions  of  law/constitutionality   "unofficial"  count.  In  addition,  the   second   or   third   copy  
  The   issue   raised   in   the   present   petition   does   not   merely   of  the  election  returns,  while  required  to  be  delivered  
concern   the   wisdom   of   the   assailed   resolution   but   focuses   on   its   to   the   COMELEC   under   the   aforementioned   laws,   are  
alleged   disregard   for   applicable   statutory   and   constitutional   not   intended   for   undertaking   an   "unofficial"   count.  
provisions.  In  other  words,  that  the  petitioner  and  the  petitioners-­‐   The  aforesaid  COMELEC  copies  are  archived  and  
in-­‐intervention   are   questioning   the   legality   of   the   respondent   unsealed  only  when  needed  by  the  respondent  COMELEC  
COMELEC’s   administrative   issuance   will   not   preclude   this   Court   to   verify   election   results   in   connection   with   resolving  
from   exercising   its   power   of   judicial   review   to   determine   whether   election   disputes   that   may   be   imminent.   However,   in  
or   not   there   was   grave   abuse   of   discretion   amounting   to   lack   or   contravention   of   the   law,   Res.   6172   authorizes   Reception  
excess   of   jurisdiction   on   the   part   of   the   respondent   COMELEC   in   Officers   (RO),   to   open   the   second   or   third   copy   intended  
issuing  Resolution  No.  6712.     for   the   respondent   COMELEC   as   basis   for   the   encoding  
  Indeed,   administrative   issuances   must   not   override,   and   transmission   of   advanced   "unofficial"   precinct   results.  
supplant   or   modify   the   law,   but   must   remain   consistent   with   This   not   only   violates   the   exclusive   prerogative   of  
the   law   they   intend   to   carry   out.   When   the   grant   of   power   is   NAMFREL  to  conduct  an  "unofficial"  count,  but  also  taints  
qualified,  conditional  or  subject  to  limitations,  the  issue  of  whether   the   integrity   of   the   envelopes   containing   the   election  
the   prescribed   qualifications   or   conditions   have   been   met   or   the   returns,   as   well   as   the   returns   themselves,   by   creating   a  
limitations   respected,   is   justiciable   –   the   problem   being   one   of   gap   in   its   chain   of   custody   from   the   Board   of   Election  
legality  or  validity,  not  its  wisdom.  In  the  present  petition,  the  Court   Inspectors  to  the  COMELEC.  
must   pass   upon   the   petitioner’s   contention   that   Resolution   No.   3. Resolution   contravenes   consti   provision   that   “"no   money  
6712  does  not  have  adequate  statutory  or  constitutional  basis.   shall   be   paid   out   of   the   treasury   except   in   pursuance   of   an  
  appropriation  made  by  law."  
Certiorari  proper  as  COMELEC  acted  in  GAOD     By   its   very   terms,   the   electronic   transmission  
  There   is   grave   abuse   of   discretion   justifying   the   issuance   and   tabulation   of   the   election   results   projected   under  
of   the   writ   of   certiorari   when   there   is   a   capricious   and   whimsical   Resolution  No.  6712  is  "unofficial"  in  character,  meaning  
exercise  of  his  judgment  as  is  equivalent  to  lack  of  jurisdiction.   "not   emanating   from   or   sanctioned   or   acknowledged   by  
  An   administrative   body   or   tribunal   acts   without   the  government  or  government  body.  
jurisdiction   if   it   does   not   have   the   legal   power   to   determine   the     Any   disbursement   of   public   funds   to   implement  
matter   before   it;   there   is   excess   of   jurisdiction   where   the   this   project   is   contrary   to   the   provisions   of   the  
respondent,  being  clothed  with  the  power  to  determine  the  matter,   Constitution   and   Rep.   Act   No.   9206,   which   is   the   2003  
oversteps  its  authority  as  determined  by  law.   General  Appropriations  Act.  
  4. Resolution  has  no  basis  in  Constitution  or  law  
1. Resolution   usurps   Congress   mandate   to   canvass   Pres   &     COMELEC  is  the  sole  body  tasked  to  "enforce  and  
Vpres,  even  if  the  count  is  ‘unofficial’:     administer  all  laws  and  regulations  relative  to  the  conduct  
of   an   election,   plebiscite,   initiative,   referendum   and  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   48  
 
recall"56  and  to  ensure  "free,  orderly,  honest,  peaceful  and    
credible   elections"   is   beyond   cavil.   The   COMELEC’s     ISSUE:  WON  the  en  banc  resolved  Pandanganan’s  protest  according  
power   to   promulgate   rules   and   regulations   in   the   to  procedure.  NO  
performance  of  its  constitutional  and  statutory  duties    
must  be  carried  out,  at  all  times,  in  its  official  capacity.   HELD:  
    Rulings  +  Concepts:    
  There   is   no   constitutional   and   statutory   basis   for   a.     Two   kinds   of   jurisdiction   in   COMELEC,   and   why   it   is  
the  respondent  COMELEC  to  undertake  a  separate  and  an   important  to  distinguish  each  from  the  other.  
"unofficial"   tabulation   of   results,   whether   manually   or   Section  2  (2)  of  Article  9C  states:    
electronically.   Indeed,   by   conducting   such   "unofficial"   Exercise   exclusive   original   jurisdiction   over   all   contests  
tabulation   of   the   results   of   the   election,   the   COMELEC   relating  to  the  elections,  returns,  and  qualifications  of  all  
descends   to   the   level   of   a   private   organization,   spending   elective   regional,   provincial,   and   city   officials,   and  
public   funds   for   the   purpose.   Besides,   it   is   absurd   for   the   appellate   jurisdiction   over   all   contests   involving   elective  
COMELEC   to   conduct   two   kinds   of   electoral   counts   –   a   municipal   of   officials   decided   by   trial   courts   of   general  
slow   but   "official"   count,   and   an   alleged   quicker   but   jurisdiction,   or   involving   elective   barangay   officials  
"unofficial"   count,   the   results   of   each   may   substantially   decided  by  trial  courts  of  limited  jurisdiction.  
differ.    
  Section  2(2)  read  in  relation  to  Section  3  shows  that  however  
POLICY:   Even  though  the  COMELEC  promulgated  Resolution  6172   the   jurisdiction   of   the   COMELEC   is   involved,   either   in   the  
with   laudible   intentions,   even   the   best   intentions   must   be   carried   exercise   of   "exclusive   original   jurisdiction"   or   an   "appellate  
out  within  the  parameters  of  the  Constitution  and  the  law.   jurisdiction,"   the   COMELEC   will   act   on   the   case   in   one   whole  
  and   single   process:   to   repeat,   in   division,   and   if   impelled   by   a  
  motion  for  reconsideration,  en  banc.  
CASE:  Mendoza  v  COMELEC      
G.R.  No.  191084  March  25,  2010   b.   Procedure   when   a   case   is   brought   under   appellate  
JOSELITO   R.   MENDOZA,   Petitioner,  vs.  COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   AND   ROBERTO   jurisdiction:  
M.  PAGDANGANAN,  Respondents.  
 
  When   a   decision   of   a   trial   court   is   brought   before   the  
VERY  IMPORTANT  CASE   COMELEC   for   it   to   exercise   appellate   jurisdiction,   the   division  
  decides   the   appeal   but,   if   there   is   a   motion   for   reconsideration,  
FACTS:   the  appeal  proceeds  to  the  banc  where  a  majority  is  needed  for  
• Petitioner   Mendoza   was   proclaimed   the   winning   Governor   of   a   decision.   If   the   process   ends   without   the   required   majority   at  
Bulacan  during  the  2007  elections.   the  banc,  the  appealed  decision  stands  affirmed.  
• PR  Pandanganan  filed  an  election  protest  with  the  COMELEC  2nd     In   a   protest   placed   before   the   Commission   as   an   appeal,  
Div.,  alleging  massive  electoral  fraud  conducted  by  Mendoza.     there   has   been   a   completed   proceeding   that   has   resulted   in   a  
• Subsequently,   a   revision   of   the   ballots   from   the   contested   decision.  So  that  when  the  COMELEC,  as  an  appellate  body,  and  
precints  was  conducted.     after   the   appellate   process   is   completed,   reaches   an  
• On   Dec   21   2009,   the   COMELEC     2nd   Div     rendered   a   Resolution   inconclusive   result,   the   appeal   is   in   effect   dismissed   and  
which  annulled  and  set  aside  Mendoza’s  proclamation,  as  well  as   resultingly,  the  decision  appealed  from  is  affirmed.  
proclaiming  Pandanganan  as  the  governor-­‐elect.    
• Aggrieved,  Mendoza  filed  a  MFR  with  the  COMELEC  en  banc.     Trial   court   decision   >   Division   decides   >   If   appealed,   en   banc  
decides   >   if   majority   vote   not   acquired,   the   appealed   ruling   is  
• On  February  8,  2010,  the  en  banc  issued  a  Resolution  dismissing  
Mendoza’s  MFR  and  affirming  the  ruling  of  the  2nd  Div.  However,   UPHELD  
it  seems  that  during  the  deliberations,  there  was  no  majority  vote    
obtained.   c. Procedure  when  a  case  is  brought  under  exclusive  original  
jurisdiction:  
• 2   days   later,   Mendoza   filed   an   Urgent   Motion   to   Recall   the  
  If   what   is   brought   before   the   COMELEC   is   an   original  
Resolution  promulgated  by  the  en  bancon  the  grounds  that  it  did  
protest   invoking   the   original   jurisdiction   of   the   Commission,  
not  follow  procedure,  mainly,  the  requisite  that  the  case  must  be  
the   protest,   as   one   whole   process,   is   first   decided   by   the  
reheard  in  cases  where  no  majority  is  had.  
division,   which   process   is   continued   in   the   banc   if   there   is   a  
• Thus,   the   COMELEC   en   banc   re-­‐heard   the   case   on   February   15.  
motion  for  reconsideration  of  the  division  ruling.  If  no  majority  
During  this  rehearing,  the  en  banc  still  did  not  manage  to  obtain  a  
decision  is  reached  in  the  banc,  the  protest,  which  is  an  original  
majority  vote.  Thus,  the  en  banc  issued  an  order  to  implement  the  
action,   shall   be   dismissed.   There   is   no   first   instance   decision  
ruling  of  the  2nd  Division.  
that  can  be  deemed  affirmed.  
  Translation:  en  banc  upheld  2nd  Division  ruling    
  In   a   protest   originally   brought   before   the   COMELEC,   no  
• Mendoza   went   to   the   SC   to   pray   for   the   issuance   of   a   TRO.  
completed  process  comes  to  the  banc.  It  is  the  banc  which  will  
Mendoza   claims   that   Pandanganan’s   protest   should   have   been  
complete   the   process.   If,   at   that   completion,   no   conclusive  
DISMISSED  as  per  Section  6  of  Rule  18  of  the  COMELEC  Rules.    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   49  
 
result  in  the  form  of  a  majority  vote  is  reached,  the  COMELEC   • Asuncion   appealed   at   the   RTC   of   Dagupan   City,   which   reversed  
has  no  other  choice  except  to  dismiss  the  protest.   the  MTC  and  proclaimed  Asuncion  as  the  winning  candidate.    
  • Guieb  filed  a  MFR,  but  this  was  denied.  Asuncion  then  moved  for  
Summary:     execution.    
Case   is   brought   straight   to   Division   >   Division   decides   >   If   • Guieb  filed  with  the  MTC  an  Urgent  Motion  to  Suspend  Execution,  
appealed,   en   banc   decides   >   if   majority   vote   not   acquired,   the   but  this  was  denied  for  having  been  moot  and  academic,  as  it  was  
protest/case  should  be  DISMISSED   hand   carried   by   Asuncion   to   the   office   of   the   sheriff,   and   must  
  have  already  been  implemented  (?).  
d. The   latter   procedure   is   the   one   applicable   to   the   case   at   • In   March   1995,   the   sheriff   enforced   the   writ   and   proclaimed  
bar   since   it   was   brought   at   first   instance   to   the   2nd   Asuncion  the  Punong  Barangay.    
Division.      
The   COMELEC   therefore   erred   in   proceeding   to   execute   the   2nd   ISSUE:  WON  the  action  of  the  RTC  was  proper.  NO  
Division  decision.  At  the  failure  of  the  majrity  to  come  to  a  vote    
on  the  February  15  rehearing,  they  should  have  dismissed  the   HELD:  
election  protest  against  Mendoza.   a. The  RTC  had  no  jurisdiction  over  Asuncion’s  appeal.    
    Under  paragraph  (2),  Section  2,  subdivision  C,  Article  IX  of  
  the  Constitution,  it  is  the  COMELEC,  and  not  the  Regional  Trial  
  Courts,   that   has   exclusive   jurisdiction   over   all   contests  
involving   elective   barangay   officials   decided   by   courts   of  
JUDICIAL  POWERS   limited   jurisdiction,   which   are   the   Metropolitan   Trial   Courts,  
  Municipal  Trial  Courts  and  Municipal  Circuit  Trial  Courts  
    Asuncion   should   have   appealed   the   decision   of   the   MTC   to  
Article  IX-­‐C,  Section  2,  par.  2:   the   COMELEC;   the   MTC   should   not   have   given   due   course   to  
(2)   Exercise   exclusive   original   jurisdiction   the   appeal;   and   the   RTC   should   have   dismissed   outright   the  
over   all   contests   relating   to   the   elections,   appeal  for  want  of  jurisdiction.  
 
returns,   and   qualifications   of   all   elective  
b.   What  are  the  courts  of  limited  jurisidiction?  
regional,   provincial,   and   city   officials,   and     The  MeTCs,  MTCs,  and  MCTCs.  
appellate   jurisdiction   over   all   contests    
involving   elective   municipal   officials   c.   A  provision  of  law  conferring  jurisdiction  to  the  RTC  over  
decided   by   trial   courts   of   general   cases   involving   elective   barangay   officlals   is  
unconstitutional.    
jurisdiction,   or   involving   elective   barangay     In  Flores  vs.  Commission  on  Elections,   this  Court  struck  out  
officials   decided   by   trial   courts   of   limited   as   unconstitutional   that   portion   of   Section   9   of   R.A.   No.   6679  
jurisdiction.       vesting   upon   the   Regional   Trial   Courts   appellate   jurisdiction  
  over  such  cases.  
 
Decisions,   final   orders,   or   rulings   of   the  
 
Commission   on   election   contests   involving  
CASE:  Calucag  v  COMELEC  
elective   municipal   and   barangay   offices   G.R.  No.  123673  June  19,  1997  
shall  be  final,  executory,  and  not  appealable.     PEDRO   C.   CALUCAG,   petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   Manila;   THE  
MUNICIPAL   TRIAL   COURT,   BRANCH   04,   TUGUEGARAO,   CAGAYAN   and   CESAR  
  CARBONEL,  respondents.  
   
CASE:  Guieb  v  Fontanilla   FACTS:  
G.R.  No.  118118  August  14,  1995   • Calucag   and   PR   Carbonell   were   rivals   for   Brgy.   Capt.   in  
ALFREDO  GUIEB,  petitioner,     vs.   HON.  LUIS  M.  FONTANILLA,  in  his  capacity  as  the   Tuguegarao  during  the  1994  elections.  Calucag  won  by  one  vote.  
Presiding   Judge   of   the   RTC,   Branch   42,   Dagupan   City,   and   MANUEL   ASUNCION,  
respondents.   • Carbonell   filed   an   election   protest   with   the   MTC,   praying   for   a  
  judicial   recount   of   the   ballots,   as   well   as   the   annulment   of  
FACTS:   Calucag’s  proclamation.  
• Guieb   and   Asuncion   were   candidates   for   Punong   Barangay   in   a   • The   parties   agreed   at   a   recount,   where   Carbonell   gained   a  
barangay  in  Pangasinan  during  the  1994  barangay  elections.     majority   of   2   votes.   Thus,   the   MTC     promulgated   a   decision  
• After   the   canvass,   Guieb   was   proclaimed   the   winning   candidate.   declaring  Carbonell  as  the  winner.    
Asuncion  filed  a  timely  election  protest  with  the  MTC.   • Calucag   appealed   this   decision   with   the   RTC,   which   Carbonell  
• The   MTC   confirmed   Guieb’s   proclamation   and   dismissed   opposed   on   the   ground   of   lack   of   jurisdiction.   Thus,   the   RTC  
Asuncion’s  protest.     dismissed  the  appeal.  His  subsequent  MFR  was  also  denied.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   50  
 
• Calucag  then  appealed  at  the  COMELEC.  The  1st  Div.  disregarded   with  jurisdiction  to  hear  the  appeal,  which  appeal  must  be  filed  
the   appeal   with   the   RTC   but   still   denied   his   appeal   as   the   same   within  five  days  after  promulgation  of  the  MTC's  
was   not   perfected   due   to   the   Calucag’s   failure   to   pay   the   appeal      
fees.      
• Calucag   filed   a   MFR   with   the   en   banc,   but   this   was   also   denied    
because   it   was   filed   out   of   time.   (26   days   after   he   received   the  
MTC   decision;   mostly   due   to   Calucag’s   appeal   with   the   RTC)   POWER  TO  ISSUE  WRITS  OF  CERTIORARI,  
Calucag  can’t  catch  a  break.   PROHIBITION,  AND  MANDAMUS  
• Calucag   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   questioning   the   en   banc’s    
dismissal  of  his  appeal  based  on  prescription.  He  claimed  that  the    
filing   of   the   appeal   at   the   RTC   (even   though   erroneous)   tolled   the  
CASE:  Relampagos  v  Cumba  
prescriptive  period  for  filing  his  appeal  with  the  COMELEC.   G.R.  No.  118861  April  27,  1995  
  EMMANUEL   M.   RELAMPAGOS,   petitioner,   vs.ROSITA   C.   CUMBA   and   the  
ISSUE:   WON   Calucag’s   appeal   with   the   RTC   tolled   the   prescriptive   COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  respondents.  
period  for  appealing  the  MTC  decision.  NO    
  FACTS:  
HELD:   • Relampagos   and   Cumba   were   mayoralty   candidates   during   the  
a. Filing   of   erroneous   appeal   with   RTC   did   not   toll   period   for   1992  elections.  Cumba  was  proclaimed  winner  by  a  margin  of  22  
appealing  with  COMELEC.     votes.  
The   erroneous   filing   of   the   appeal   with   the   RTC   did   not   toll   the   • Relampagos  filed  an  election  protest  with  the  RTC.  In  1994  (!),  the  
running   of   the   prescriptive   period.   Petitioner   filed   his   notice   of   RTC  found  that  Relam  actually  won  with  a  lead  of  6  votes.    
appeal  only  on  August  12,  1994,  or  one  month  and  twenty  six   • Cumba   filed   a   notice   of   appeal   with   the   COMELEC.   Meanwhile,  
days  from  the  time  he  received  a  copy  of  the  MTC's  decision  on   Relam   filed   a   motion   for   execution   pending   appeal,   which   the  
June  16,  1994.  The  five-­‐day  period,  having  expired  without  the   trial   court   granted.   Cumba   filed   an   MFR   against   the   writ   of  
aggrieved   party   filing   the   appropriate   appeal   before   the   execution,  but  was  denied.  
COMELEC,   the   statutory   privilege   of   petitioner   to   appeal   is   • Cumba   then   filed   with   the   COMELEC   a   petition   for   certiorari   to  
deemed   waived   and   the   appealed   decision   has   become   final   annul  the  RTC’s  order  granting  the  motion  for  execution  pending  
and  executory.   appeal.    
  • The   COMELEC   granted   Cumba’s   petition,   asserting   that   it   had  
b. Perfection   of   appeal   not   a   mere   technicality   and   is   thus   a   exclusive   authority   to   hear   and   decide   petitions   for   certiorari,  
valid  ground  for  dismissal  of  appeal.   prohibition  and  mandamus  in  election  cases  as  authorized  by  law.    
  Petitioner's   contention   that   the   COMELEC   erred   in   • The  COMELEC’s  basis  for  this  assertion  was  Section  50  of  BP  697,  
disallowing   the   case   based   on   sheer   technicalities   is   likewise   which   remained   in   full   force   as   it   was   not   repealed   by   the   OEC.  
unmeritorious.  The  COMELEC  dismissed  petitioner's  appeal  for   The  COMELEC  further  explained  that  this  power  is  in  the  exercise  
lack   of   appellate   jurisdiction,   based   on   his   failure   to   perfect   his   of   its   judicial  power,  and   that   it   is   the   most   logical   body   to   issue  
appeal  on  time.  That  this  is  NOT  A  TECHNICALITY  is  correctly   the   extraordinary   writs   of   certiorari,   prohibition   and   mandamus  
pointed   out   in   the   questioned   order   citing   various   in  election  cases  where  it  has  appellate  jurisdiction.  
jurisprudence.  Granting  that  petitioner  paid  the  appeal  fees  on   • The   COMELEC   dismissed   the   trial   court’s   order   of   execution  
time,  he  chose  the  wrong  forum;  the  payment,  therefor,  having   pending   appeal   because   when   Cumba   perfected   her   appeal   with  
been  done  after  the  lapse  of  the  reglementary  period  to  appeal   the   COMELEC   (by   paying   the   fees),   the   RTC   lost   its   jurisdiction  
  over  the  case.    
c. Why  Flores  is  inapplicable   • Relampagos  filed  with  the  SC  the  present  petition  for  certiorari.  
  In  Flores   v   COMELEC,   the  petitioner’s  appeal  with  the  RTC    
of   an   MTC   decision   was   disregarded   and   was   treated   by   the   ISSUE:  WON  the  COMELEC  can  issue  writs  of  certiorari,  etc.  YES  
COMELEC  as  if  it  had  been  made  directly  from  the  MTC.  At  the    
time  Flores  was  resolved,  there  was  as  yet  no  pronouncement   HELD:  
on  the  constitutionality  of  said  Section  9  of  R.A.  No.  6679,  such   In  this  case,  the  SC  abandoned  the  rulings  in   Garcia  and  Uy  and  
that   the   Court   held   that   Flores   had   a   right   to   rely   on   its   affirmed  the  COMELEC’s  power  to  issue  such  reliefs  by  virtue  of  
presumed  validity.   BP  697  
  In   Flores,   Section   9   of   RA   6679   was   struck   down   as     The  last  paragraph  of  BP  697  states  that:  
unconstitutional.   Article   8   of   the   Civil   Code   states   that   "judicial    
decisions  applying  or  interpreting  the  laws  or  the  constitution   The   Commission   is   hereby   vested   with   exclusive   authority  
shall   form   part   of   the   legal   system   of   the   Philippines.   Said   to   hear   and   decide   petitions   for   certiorari,   prohibition   and  
pronouncement  of  the  Court,  having  formed  part  of  the  law  of   mandamus  involving  election  cases.  
the   land,   ignorance   thereof   can   no   longer   be   countenanced.    
Therefore,  the  COMELEC  is  the  proper  appellate  court  clothed   The  Court  found  that  this  provision  remained  in  full  force,  but  only  
in   cases   where   the   COMELEC   has   appellate   jurisdiction.   The  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   51  
 
COMELEC   is   vested   with   exclusive   authority   to   hear   and   decide   SC  has  concurrent  jurisdiction  with  COMELEC  in  issuing  C-­‐P-­‐M-­‐
petitions   for   certiorari,   prohibition   and   mandamus   involving   QW-­‐HC  
election  cases.   Article  VIII,  Section  5  (1)  of  the  1987  Constitution  provides  that:  
  "Sec.   5.   The   Supreme   Court   shall   have   the   following  
RTC  committed  GAOD  in  issuing  granting  Relampagos’  motion   powers:  
  Cumba’s   appeal   with   the   COMELEC   was   filed   on   July   4,   "(1)   Exercise   original   jurisdiction   over   cases   affecting  
1994.   The   COMELEC   gave   it   due   course   on   July   8.   Relampagos’   ambassadors,  other  public  ministers  and  consuls,  and  over  
motion   for   execution   pending   appeal   was   filed   on   July   12.   Thus,   the   petitions   for   certiorari,   prohibition,   mandamus,   quo  
trial   court   could   no   longer   validly   act   thereon.   It   could   have   been   warranto,  and  habeas  corpus."  
otherwise   if   the   motion   was   filed   before   the   perfection   of   the    
appeal.   By   Constitutional   fiat,   the   Commission   on   Election   (Comelec)   has  
  Accordingly,   since   the   respondent   COMELEC   has   the   appellate  jurisdiction  over  election  protest  cases  involving  elective  
jurisdiction   to   issue   the   extraordinary   writs   of   certiorari,   municipal   officials   decided   by   courts   of   general   jurisdiction,   as  
prohibition,   and   mandamus,   then   it   correctly   set   aside   the   provided  for  in  Article  IX  (C),  Section  2  of  the  1987  Constitution:  
challenged  order  granting  the  motion  for  execution  pending  appeal    
and  writ  of  execution  issued  by  the  trial  court.   "Sec.   2.   The   Commission   on   Elections   shall   exercise   the  
  following  powers  and  functions:  
Policy:   The   COMELEC   has   power   to   issue   such   special   reliefs,   but    
only  in  the  exercise  of  its  appellate  jurisdiction.   (2)   Exercise   exclusive   original   jurisdiction   over   all  
  contests   relating   to   the   elections,   returns   and  
  qualifications   of   all   elective   regional,   provincial,   and   city  
CASE:  Carlos  v  Angeles  (Reproduced  from  Set  1)   officials,   and   appellate   jurisdiction   over   all   contests  
G.R.  No.  142907                          November  29,  2000   involving   elective   municipal   officials   decided   by   trial  
JOSE  EMMANUEL  L.  CARLOS,  petitioner,    vs.  HON.  ADORACION  G.  ANGELES,  IN  HER   courts   of   general   jurisdiction,   or   involving   elective  
CAPACITY   AS   THE   ACTING   PRESIDING   JUDGE   OF   THE   REGIONAL   TRIAL   COURT   IN   barangay   officials   decided   by   trial   courts   of   limited  
CALOOCAN  CITY  (BRANCH  125)  and  ANTONIO  M.  SERAPIO,  respondents.  
jurisdiction."  
   
FACTS:  
  In   like   manner,   the   Comelec   has   original   jurisdiction   to  
• Carlos   and   Serapio   were   rivals   in   the   mayoralty   race   in   the   issue   writs   of   certiorari,   prohibition   and   mandamus   involving  
municipality  of  Valenzuela,  MNL  during  the  1998  elections.   election  cases  in  aid  of  its  appellate  jurisdiction.  
• On   May   21   1998,   the   Municipal   BOC   proclaimed   Carlos   the   duly     Consequently,  both  the  Supreme  Court  and  Comelec  have  
elected   mayor,   having   obtained   102k   votes.   Serapio   filed   an   concurrent  jurisdiction  to  issue  writs  of  certiorari,  prohibition,  and  
election  protest  contesting  the  results.   mandamus   over   decisions   of   trial   courts   of   general   jurisdiction  
• A   revision   of   the   ballots   was   conducted,   but   in   the   final   tally   (regional  trial  courts)  in  election  cases  involving  elective  municipal  
Carlos  still  had  the  plurality  of  valid  votes.   officials.   The   Court   that   takes   jurisdiction   first   shall   exercise  
• Nevertheless,   the   trial   court   set   aside   the   final   tally   of   the   votes   exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the  case.  
because   of   its   finding   of   significant   badges   of   fraud.   The   court    
held   that   the   fraud   was   attributable   to   the   protestee   who   had   If  there  is  conflict:  
control  over  the  election  paraphernalia  and  the  basic  services  in     If  filed  with  COMELEC  –  COMELEC  Rules  
the  community  such  as  the  supply  of  electricity.     If  filed  with  courts  –  Rules  of  Court  
• Notwithstanding   the   plurality   of   valid   votes,   the   trial   court   set    
aside   the   proclamation   of   Carlos   and   declared   Serapio   as   the  
 
elected  mayor  of  Valenzuela.    
CASE:  Garcia  v  de  Jesus  
• Carlos  appealed  to  the  COMELEC  on  May  4,  2000,  and  on  May  8  
G.R.  No.  88158.  March  4,  1992.*  
filed  a  special  civil  action  of  certiorari,  this  time  with  the  Supreme   DANIEL   GARCIA   and   TEODORO   O’HARA,   petitioners,   vs.   ERNESTO   DE   JESUS   and  
Court.   CECILIA  DAVID,  and  THE  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  respondents.  
Why  was  this  the  remedy  here?  No  jurisdiction  on  part  of  RTC?    
G.R.  Nos.  97108-­‐09.  March  4,  1992.*  
  Other  issue:  TRO     TOMAS  TOBON  UY,  petitioner,  vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS  and  JOSE  C.  NEYRA,  
  respondents.  
ISSUE:   WON   the   SC   has   jurisdiction   to   review   by   certiorari   the    
decision  of  the  RTC  in  an  election  protest  case  involving  an  elective   Note:  the  ruling  in  these  cases  was  later  abandoned  in  Relampagos  
municipal   official   considering   that   it   has   no   appellate   jurisdiction    
over  such  decision.  YES   FACTS  in  Garcia:  
  WON   the   trial   court   committed   GAOD   setting   aside   Carlos’   • In  1988,  Garcia  and  O’hara  were  proclaimed  Mayor  and  Vmayor  
proclamation  and  declared  Serapio  mayor?  YES   during  the  1988  elections  in  Antipolo,  Rizal.    
  • The   losing   candidates   (respondents)   instituted   an   election  
HELD:   protest   before  the  RTC,  questioning   the   ERs   in   25   precincts.   The  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   52  
 
RTC  issued  an  order  that  all  ballot  boxes  and  paraphernalia  used     In   the   Philippine   setting,   the   authority   to   issue   Writs   of  
in   the   25   precincts   be   delivered   to   it   for   examination   and   Certiorari,   Prohibition   and   Mandamus   involves   the   exercise   of  
recounting.   original   jurisdiction.   The   well-­‐settled   rule   is   that   jurisdiction   is  
• During   the   recount,   Garcia’s   counsel   moved   to   suspend   the   conferred   only   by   the   Constitution   or   by   law,   and   never   by  
recount,   as   the   irregularities   in   the   protest   do   not   relate   to   the   implication.  
appeciation   of   ballots.   Thus,   the   opening   of   boxes   would   not     Significantly,  what  the  Constitution  granted  the  COMELEC  
affect   the   election   results.   Garcia   later   filed   a   Motion   to   Dismiss   was   appellate   jurisdiction.   The   Constitution   makes   no   mention   of  
the  Opening  of  Ballot  Boxes.     any  power  given  the  COMELEC  to  exercise  original  jurisdiction  over  
• The   RTC   partially   granted   their   petition,   limiting   the   recount   Petitions   for   Certiorari,   Prohibition   and   Mandamus   unlike   in   the  
instead   to   9   precincts.   De   Jesus   and   David   filed   a   MFR   but   was   case   of   the   Supreme   Court   which   was   specifically   conferred   such  
denied   by   the   RTC.   Thus,   de   Jesus   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   authority   (Art.   VIII,   Sec.   5[1]).   The   immutable   doctrine   being   that  
and  mandamus  with  the  COMELEC.   jurisdiction  is  fixed  by  law,  the  power  to  issue  such  Writs  can  not  be  
• This   was   objected   to   by   Garcia,   claiming   that   the   COMELEC   had   implied  from  the  mere  existence  of  appellate  jurisdiction.  
no  jurisdiction  to  issue  ceriorari  and  mandamus.    
• Thereafter  the  COMELEC  issued  a  Resolution  ordering  the  RTC  to   Writs   may   be   issued   by   appellate   courts,   but   only   judicial  
open  all  25  ballot  boxes.   tribunals  
    And   although   there   may   be   authorities   in   other  
FACTS  in  Uy:   jurisdictions   which   maintain   that   such   Writs   are   inherent   in   the  
• Meanwhile   over   at   Isabela,   Uy   lost   to   Neyra   as   the   mayor   of   power   of   higher   Courts   exercising   appellate   jurisdiction,   the   same  
Gamu.   Uy   filed   an   election   protest   with   the   RTC,   who   later   refers   to   judicial   tribunals,   which   the   COMELEC   is   not.   What   this  
declared  Uy  the  winner  by  5  votes.     agency  exercises  are  administrative  and  quasi-­‐judicial  powers.  
• While   Neyra   filed   a   Notice   of   Appeal,   Uy   filed   a   Motion   for    
Execution  pending  Appeal.     Certiorari,  defined  
• Neyra  then  filed  a  Petition  for  certiorari  and  prohibition  with  the   Certiorari   “is   a   writ   from   a   superior   court   to   an   inferior   court   or  
COMELEC  to  enjoin  the  RTC  from  acting  on  Uy’s  motion.   tribunal  commanding  the  latter  to  send  up  the  record  of  a  particular  
• While   the   RTC   later   gave   due   course   to   Neyra’s   appeal,   it   also   case”   (Pimentel   v.   COMELEC,   supra).   The   function   of   a   Writ   of  
granted   Uy’s   motion.   Neyra   filed   another   petition   for   certiorari   Certiorari   is   to   keep   an   inferior   Court   within   the   bounds   of   its  
and/or   prohibition   with   the   COMELEC   to   set   aside   the   RTC’s   jurisdiction  or  to  prevent  it  from  committing  such  a  grave  abuse  of  
grant.   discretion  amounting  to  excess  of  jurisdiction.    
• The   COMELEC   took   cognizance   of   both   of   Neyra’s   petitions,   and    
annulled   the   RTC’s   granting   of   the   writ   of   execution   pending   Procedure:   COMELEC   cannot   prevent   RTCs   to   order   execution  
appeal.   pending  appeal    
• Thus,   Uy   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   with   the   SC,   claiming   that     There   is   no   express   provision   of   law,   therefore,  
the   COMELEC   committed     GAOD   when   it   arrogated   itself   the   disauthorizing  executions  pending  appeal,  and  the  COMELEC,  in  its  
power  to  issue  writs  of  certiorari,  prohibition  and  mandamus.   proce   dural   rules   alone,   should   not   be   allowed   to   divest   Regional  
  Trial   Courts   of   that   authority.   It   deprives   the   prevailing   party   of   a  
ISSUE:  WON  the  COMELEC  may  issue  such  writs.  NO   substantive   right   to   move   for   such   relief   contrary   to   the  
  constitutional   mandate   that   those   Rules   can   not   diminish   nor  
HELD:   modify   substantive   rights   (Section   6,   Article   IX-­‐A,   1987  
NOTE:   all   this   should   be   moot   and   academic   considering   the   Constitution).  
subsequent  abandonment  in  Relampagos     Nonetheless,   Section   2,   Rule   39   of   the   Rules   of   Court,  
  which   allows   Regional   Trial   Courts   to   order   executions   pending  
No  provision  in  the  Constitution  or  law  confers  such  power  to   appeal  upon  good  reasons  stated  in  a  special  order,  may  be  made  to  
the  COMELEC;  original  and  appellate  jurisdiction  distinguished   apply   by   analogy   or   suppletorily   to   election   contests   decided   by  
  Jurisdiction,   or   the   legal   power   to   hear   and   determine   a   them.   In   retrospect,   good   reasons   did,   in   fact,   exist   which   justified  
cause   or   causes   of   action,   must   exist   as   a   matter   of   law.   It   may   be   the  RTC  Order,  dated  10  January  1991,  granting  execution  pending  
classified   into   original   jurisdiction   and   appellate   jurisdiction.   appeal.   Among   others   mentioned   by   the   RTC   are   the   combined  
  Original   jurisdiction   is   the   power   of   the   Court   to   take   considerations   of   the   near   expiration   of   the   term   of   office,   public  
judicial   cognizance   of   a   case   instituted   for   judicial   action   for   the   interest,   the   pendency   of   the   election   contest   for   more   than   three  
first  time  under  conditions  provided  by  law.     (3)  years  
  Appellate   jurisdiction   is   the   authority   of   a   Court   higher     Note:  it  is  not  clear  if  this  is  principle  was  also  abandoned  
in  rank  to  re-­‐examine  the  final  order  or  judgment  of  a  lower  Court    
which  tried  the  case  now  elevated  for  judicial  review.      
  Since   the   two   jurisdictions   are   exclusive   of   each   other,    
each   must   be   expressly   conferred   by   law.   One   does   not   flow   from,    
nor  is  inferred  from,  the  other.  
 
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   53  
 
CASE:  Navarro  v  COMELEC   Original   action   for   certiorari   distinguished   from   appeal   by  
G.R.  No.  106019.  December  17,  1993.*   certiorari;  COMELEC’s  factual  findings  binding    
JOSE   “PEPING”   NAVARRO,   petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   JOSE     The  finding  that  Navarro  failed  to  make  timely  objections  
“PEMPE”  MIRANDA,  respondents.  
to  the  composition  and  the  proceedings  of  the  Board  of  Canvassers  
 
involves  a  question  of  fact,  which  is  left  to  the  determination  of  the  
FACTS:  
COMELEC.  
• Navarro   and   Miranda   were   mayoralty   candidates   in   Santiago,     The   Constitution   did   not   intend   to   place   the   COMELEC—
Isabela   during   the   1992   elections.   Miranda   was   proclaimed   explicitly  made  independent  by  the  Constitution  itself—on  a  lower  
winner  by  the  BOC.   level   than   that   of   statutory   administrative   agencies,   whose   factual  
• Navarro   filed   an   appeal   with   the   COMELEC   to   annul   Miranda’s   findings   are   generally   not   disturbed   by   the   courts   except   when  
proclamation.   there   is   no   substantial   evidence   to   support   such   findings.   Factual  
• In   this   appeal,   Navarro   primarily   questioned   the   composition   of   matters   are   not   proper   for   consideration   in   proceedings   brought  
Board   of   Canvassers,   as   it   was   populated   with   members   who   either   as   an   original   action   for   certiorari   or   as   an   appeal   by  
were  partial  to  Miranda.  Thus,  due  to  this  irregular  composition,   certiorari.  
the   BOC   allegedly   perpetuated   the   misreading   of   ballots,    
interchanging   results,   tampering   of   ERs,   and   other   frauds   which   Original  action  –  the  main  issue  is  one  of  jurisdiction,  lack  of  
led  to  Navarro’s  defeat.     jurisdiction   or   grave   abuse   of   discretion  
• The  COMELEC  dismissed  Navarro’s  petition  without  prejudice  to   amounting  to  excess  of  jurisdiction  
the   filing   of   a   regular   election   protest.   The   COMELEC   found   that    
petitioner   failed   to   make   timely   objections   to   the   alleged   illegal   Appeal   by   certiorari   -­‐   the   issues   are   limited   to   the  
acts   committed   by   the   Board   of   Canvassers,   as   well   as   to   its   consideration  of  questions  of  law  
composition  and  proceedings.    
• Navarro  then  filed  the  petition  for  ceriorari  with  the  SC,  alleging     In   the   absence   of   jurisdictional   infirmity   or   error   of   law,  
that   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   when   it   upheld   the   illgal   the   conclusion   reached   by   the   COMELEC   on   a   matter   that   falls  
composition   of   the   Board   and   their   irregular   actions   during   the   within  its  competence  is  entitled  to  utmost  respect.  
canavssing.    
 
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   when   it   dismissed    
Navarro’s  petition.  NO   CASE:  Roque  Jr.  v  COMELEC  
  G.R.  No.  188456  September  10,  2009  
H.   HARRY   L.   ROQUE,   JR.,   JOEL   R.   BUTUYAN,   ROMEL   R.   BAGARES,   ALLAN   JONES   F.   LARDIZABAL,   GILBERT   T.  
HELD:   ANDRES,  IMMACULADA  D.  GARCIA,  ERLINDA  T.  MERCADO,  FRANCISCO  A.  ALCUAZ,  MA.  AZUCENA  P.  MACEDA,  and  
ALVIN   A.   PETERS,   Petitioners,  vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   Represented   by   HON.   CHAIRMAN   JOSE   MELO,  
Navarro   is   estopped   from   questioning   the   composition   of   the   COMELEC   SPECIAL   BIDS   and   AWARDS   COMMITTEE,   represented   by   its   CHAIRMAN   HON.   FERDINAND   RAFANAN,  
DEPARTMENT   OF   BUDGET   and   MANAGEMENT,   represented   by   HON.   ROLANDO   ANDAYA,   TOTAL   INFORMATION  
BOC  as  he  did  not  make  timely  objections   MANAGEMENT  CORPORATION  and  SMARTMATIC  INTERNATIONAL  CORPORATION,  Respondents.  

  In   their   dismissal   of   Navarro’s   petition,   the   COMELEC    

PETE   QUIRINO-­‐QUADRA,   Petitioner-­‐in-­‐Intervention.  SENATE   OF   THE   PHILIPPINES,   represented   by   its   President,  
found  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  minutes  showing  that  Navarro   JUAN  PONCE  ENRILE,  M ovant-­‐Intervenor.  
 
or  his  counsels  objected  to  the  Board’s  failure  to  send  notices.  Nor  
 
was   it   shown   that   if   such   protests   were   made,   that   they   were  
PRECURSOR  FACTS:  
followed-­‐up.   Further,   there   was   nothing   in   the   minutes   showing  
• In   1997,   RA   8346   was   enacted,   which   authorizes   the   use   of   an  
Navarro’s   objection   to   the   inclusion   of   the   allegedly   partisan  
automated   election   system   (AES)   starting   from   the   1998   national  
members  of  the  BOC.  
and  local  elections.  However,  the  1998,  2001  and  2004  elections  
  Thus,   the   Court   said   that   Navarro’s   present   appeal   is   an  
were  still  done  manually.  
attempt   to   resurrect   a   right   he   had   abandoned   by   estoppel.  
• In   2007,   RA   9369   was   enacted,   reviving   the   mandate   of   the  
Navarro‘s   grounds   should   have   been     proper   grounds   for   a   pre-­‐
COMELEC  to  implement  AES.    
proclamation  controversy  but  he  did  not  pursue  it  in  a  manner  and  
in  the  period  provided  for  by  law  (Section  19,  RA  7166):   • In   2008,   the   COMELEC   successfully   managed   to   automate   the  
elections   in   the   ARMM.   This   boosted   the   COMELEC’s   confidence  
 
that  an  automated  election  was  possible  nationwide.    
Section   19.   Consented   Composition   or   Proceedings   of   the  
Board:   Period   to   Appeal:   Decision   by   the   Commission.   -­‐   • Subsequently,   RA   9525   was   enacted,   which   appropriated   11.3B  
Parties   adversely   affected   by   a   ruling   of   the   board   of   pesos  as  the  budget  for  the  2010  elections.    
canvassers   on   questions   affecting   the   composition   or    
proceedings   of   the   board   may   appeal   the   matter   to   the   • In   2009,   the   COMELEC   invited   bidders   to   submit   proposals   for  
Commission   within   three   (3)   days   from   a   ruling   thereon.   the   2010   Elections   Automation   Project.   Under   the   Request   for  
The  Commission  shall  summarily  decided  the  case  within   Proposal   (RFP),   manufacturers   and   suppliers   may   form  
five  (5)  days  from  the  filing  thereof.   themselves   into   a   joint  venture,  which   is   defined   as  a  group  of  two  
  or   more   manufacturers,   suppliers   and/or   distributors   that   intend  
  to   be   jointly   and   severally   responsible   or   liable   for   a   particular  
contract.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   54  
 
• Among  the  submitted  bids  was  the  joint  venture  (JV)  of  TIM  and   which,   at   the   end   of   the   day,   will   be   conducting   the   election  
Smartmatic.   TIM   is   a   PHL   corporation,   while   Smartmatic   was   thru  its  personnel  and  whoever  it  deputizes.  
organized  under  the  laws  of  Barbados.    
• The  COMELEC  Special  Bids  and  Awards  Committee  declared  that   Issue  #2:  3  foot  long  ballot  a  petty  concern  
TIM-­‐Smartmatic   as   the   winning   bidder   (as   their   bid   proposal     Surely,   the   Comelec   can   put   up   such   infrastructure   as   to  
contained  both  a  continuity  plan  &    a  contingency  plan).  Later,  it   insure   that   the   voter   can   write   his   preference   in   relative   privacy.  
also  declared  that  the  demo  of  the  PCOS  machines  submitted  by   And  as  demonstrated  during  the  oral  arguments,  the  voter  himself  
TIM-­‐S  passed  all  tests  with  a  100%  rating.   will   personally   feed   the   ballot   into   the   machine.   A   voter,   if   so  
• Thus,   a   joint   venture   corporation   (JVC)   was   created   between   TIM   minded   to   preserve   the   secrecy   of   his   ballot,   will   always   devise   a  
and   Smartmatic.   This   JVC   entered   into   a   contract   with   the   way  to  do  so.  By  the  same  token,  one  with  least  regard  for  secrecy  
COMELEC  for  the  lease  of  goods  and  services  for  7billion  pesos.   will  likewise  have  a  way  to  make  his  vote  known.  
• In   July   2009,   the   petitioners   assailed   the   validity   of   the   contract    
entered  into  by  the  COMELEC  and  the  JVC.     Issue  #3:  ‘Pilot  testing’  not  mandated,  mooted  by  enactment  of  
  RA  9525  
Grounds  of  the  petitioners:     The   underscored   proviso   of   Sec.   6   of   RA   8436   is   not,  
• The  petitioners  claimed  that  the  automation  contract  constituted   however,   an   authority   for   the   proposition   that   the   pilot   testing   of  
an   abdication/abandonment   by   the   COMELEC   of   its   election-­‐ the  PCOS  in  the  2007  national  elections  in  the  areas  thus  specified  is  
related  mandate  in  favor  of  a  foreign  corporation.     an   absolute   must   for   the   machines’   use   in   the   2010   national/local  
• The  length  of  the  ballot  (3ft  long)  to  be  used  with  the  PCOS  would   elections.  
not   comply   with   Art.   V,   Section   2   of   the   Constitition   which     On   the   other   hand,   the   law   states   that   in   succeeding  
prescribes  the  secrecy  of  voting.     regular   national   or   local   elections,   the   AES   shall   be   implemented."  
• That   the   COMELEC   needed   to   conduct   a   ‘pilot-­‐testing’   prior   to   Taken   in   its   proper   context,   the   last   part   is   indicative   of   the  
implementing  the  Automation  Project  under  RA  8346.  They  claim   legislative   intent   for   the   May   2010   electoral   exercise   to   be   fully  
that  the  AES  machines  should  have  been  used  in  at  least  2  highly-­‐ automated,  regardless  of  whether  or  not  pilot  testing  was  run  in  the  
urbanized   cities   in   Luz,   Vi   and   Min   during   the   2007   elections.   2007  polls.  
This   did   not   happen,   thus   the   COMELEC   should   be   precluded     To  argue  that  pilot  testing  is  a  condition  precedent  to  
from  proceeding  with  the  2010  automated  elections.   a   full   automation   in   2010   would   doubtless   undermine   the  
• The  PCOS  Machines  in  reality,  failed  to  comply  with  the  minimum   purpose   of   RA   9369.   For,   as   aptly   observed   during   the   oral  
system  capabilities  prescribed  in  RA  8346.   arguments,   if   there   was   no   political   exercise   in   May   2007,   the  
country   would   theoretically   be   barred   forever   from   having   full  
• That  the  JVC  violated  the  Anti-­‐Dummy  law  
automation.  
 
  At   any   event,   any   lingering   doubt   should   be   put   to   rest  
ISSUE:  WON  the  contract  entered  into  between  COMELEC  and  TIM-­‐
with   the   enactment   in   March   2009   of   RA   9525   in   which   Congress  
S  should  be  annulled.  NO  
appropriated   PhP   11.301   billion   to   automate   the   2010   elections.  
 
The   enactment   of   RA   9525   is   a   compelling   indication   that   it  
HELD:  
was   never   Congress’   intent   to   make   the   pilot   testing   of   a  
Issue   1:   COMELEC   did   not   abdicate   duty   as   TIM-­‐S   would   only  
particular   automated   election   system   in   the   2007   elections   a  
provide   hardware   +   software,   and   assistance;   COMELEC  
condition   precedent   to   its   use   or   award   of   the   2010   Automation  
personnel  will  still  conduct  elections  
Project.  
  In  the  contract,  the  functions  of  SMARTMATIC  was  laid  out  
 
in   plain   terms   as   such:   SMARTMATIC,   as   the   joint   venture  
Issue   #4:   presumption   of   regularity   in   the   conduct   of   testing  
partner   with   the   greater   track   record   in   automated   elections,  
the  PCOS    
shall   be   in   charge   of   the   technical   aspects   of   the   counting   and  
canvassing   software   and   hardware,   including   transmission,     From   the   records,   the   Court   is   fairly   satisfied   that   the  
configuration,   and   system   integration.   SMARTMATIC   shall   also   be   Comelec  has  adopted  a  rigid  technical  evaluation  mechanism,  a  set  
primarily  responsible  for  preventing  and  troubleshooting  technical   of  26-­‐item/check  list  criteria  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  above  
problems  that  may  arise  during  the  elections   minimum  systems  capabilities.    
  The  Court  found  that  such  provisio  was  not  equivalent  to  a     Given   the   foregoing   and   absent   empirical   evidence   to   the  
cession  of  control  of  the  electoral  process  to  Smartmatic.   contrary,   the   Court,   presuming   regularity   in   the   performance   of  
  Thus,   as   to   the   automation   contract,   the   role   of   regular   duties,   takes   the   demo-­‐testing   thus   conducted   by   SBAC-­‐
Smartmatic   TIM   Corporation   is   basically   to   supply   the   goods   TWG  as  a  reflection  of  the  capability  of  the  PCOS  machines.  
necessary  for  the  automation  project,  such  as  but  not  limited  to  the    
PCOS   machines,   PCs,   electronic   transmission   devices   and   related   Issue   #5:   no   violation   of   Antid-­‐dummy   Law   as   foreign  
corporations  may  be  tapped  by  COMELEC  
equipment,  both  hardware  and  software,  and  the  technical  services  
  The   invokation   of   Anti-­‐Dummy   Law   was   invoked   ‘as   an  
pertaining  to  their  operation.  As  lessees  of  the  goods  and  the  back-­‐
afterthought.   ’   The   RFP   required   the   JV   bidder   to   at   least   be   60%  
up   equipment,   the   corporation   and   its   operators   would   provide  
Filipino.   On   the   other   hand,   the   winning   bidder,   TIM-­‐Smartmatic  
assistance  with  respect  to  the  machines  to  be  used  by  the  Comelec  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   55  
 
joint  venture,  has  Smartmatic,  a  foreign  corporation,  owning  40%  of   become   final   and   executory   after   thirty   (30)   days  
the  equity   from  its  promulgation.  
  The   Anti-­‐Dummy   Law   has   been   enacted   to   limit   the   b) In   Special   Actions   and   Special   Cases   a   decision   or  
enjoyment   of   certain   economic   activities   to   Filipino   citizens   or   resolutions   of   the   Commission   en   banc   shall  
corporations.  For  liability  for  violation  of  the  law  to  attach,  it   must   become  final  and  executory  after  five  (5)  days  from  
be   established   that   there   is   a   law   limiting   or   reserving   the   its  promulgation  unless  restrained  by  the  Supreme  
enjoyment   or   exercise   of   a   right,   franchise,   privilege,   or   Court.  
business   to   citizens   of   the   Philippines   or   to   corporations   or   c) Unless   a   motion   for   reconsideration   is   seasonably  
associations   at   least   60   per   centum   of   the   capital   of   which   is   owned   filed,   a   decision   or   resolution   of   a   Division   shall  
by  such  citizens.  In  the  case  at  bench,  the  Court  is  not  aware  of  any   become   final   and   executory   after   the   lapse   of   five  
constitutional   or   statutory   provision   classifying   as   a   nationalized   (5)   days   in   Special   actions   and   Special   cases   and  
activity   the   lease   or   provision   of   goods   and   technical   services   for   after   fifteen   (15)   days   in   all   other   actions   or  
the  automation  of  an  election.     proceedings,  following  its  promulgation.  
  In   fact,   Sec.   8   of   RA   8436,   as   amended,   vests   the    
Comelec   with   specific   authority   to   acquire   AES   from   foreign   Note:   in   election   protests   before   the   regular   courts,   MFRs  
sources.   are  not  allowed.  Appeal  should  be  at  COMELEC  
   
 >   Thus,   the   Court   found   that   there   was   no   GAOD   on   the   part   of    
COMELEC  in  tentering  into  the  contract  with  TIM-­‐S.     CASE:  Ambil  Jr.  v  COMELEC    
  G.R.  No.  143398                              October  25,  2000  
Parting  words  from  the  SC:  COMELEC  must  be  given  leeway   RUPERTO   A.   AMBIL,   JR.,   petitioner,   vs.   THE   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   (FIRST  
DIVISION,  FORMERLY  SECOND  DIVISION)  and  JOSE  T.  RAMIREZ,  respondents.  
  The   Comelec   is   an   independent   constitutional   body   with   a  
 
distinct   and   pivotal   role   in   our   scheme   of   government.   In   the  
FACTS:  
discharge   of   its   awesome   functions   as   overseer   of   fair   elections,  
administrator   and   lead   implementor   of   laws   relative   to   the   conduct   • During   the   1998   elections,   Ambil   Jr.   was   proclaimed   as   the  
of   elections,   it   should   not   be   stymied   with   restrictions   that   would   Governor   of   Eastern   Samar   over   PR   Ramirez.   Ramirez   filed   an  
perhaps   be   justified   in   the   case   of   an   organization   of   lesser   election  protest  with  the  COMELEC,  and  ‘was  raffled  to  the  1st  Div.  
responsibility.   • Commissioner   Guiani   proposed   a   resolution   to   the   case   which  
  It   should   be   afforded   ample   elbow   room   and   enough   was   favorable   to   Ramirez.     Commissioner   Desamito   dissented,  
wherewithal  in  devising  means  and  initiatives  that  would  enable  it   while   Comm.   Tangangco   did   not   indicate   her   vote.   (hereafter  
to   accomplish   the   great   objective   for   which   it   was   created––to   referred  as  Guiani  Resolution)    
promote  free,  orderly,  honest  and  peaceful  elections.   • In   the   meantime,   Guiani   retired   and   was   replaced   by   Comm.  
  Thus,   in   the   past,   the   Court   has   steered   away   from   Javier.    
interfering   with   the   Comelec’s   exercise   of   its   power   which,   by   • On   February   24,   2000   Ambil   and   Ramirez   received   the   Guiani  
law  and  by  the  nature  of  its  office  properly  pertain  to  it.  Absent   a   Resolution.     4   days   later,   the   COMELEC   1st   Div.   declared   the  
clear   showing   of   grave   abuse   of   discretion   on   Comelec’s   part,   Guiani   Resolution   as   a   ‘useless   scrap   of   paper’   and   should   be  
as   here,   the   Court   should   refrain   from   utilizing   the   corrective   ignored  by  both  parties  as  there  was  still  no  proper  promulgation  
hand   of   certiorari   to   review,   let   alone   nullify,   the   acts   of   that   of  the  said  Resolution..    
body.   • However,  on  March  31,  2000,  the  1st  Div.  issued  an  order  setting  
  the  promulgatio.  Ambil  opposed  this,  challenging  the  Guiani  Res’  
validity.  
 
  • Commissioners  Tangangco  and  Javier  recommended  to  presiding  
Relevant   rule   regarding   promulgation   in   election   offense   Commissioner     Desamito   that   they   promulgate   the   Guiani  
cases:     Resolution  anyway.  They  said  that  what  is  controlling  is  the  date  
  the   ponente   signed   the   decision.   If   Ambil   wants   to   challenge   it,  
Rule  18  –  Decisions  by  the  COMELEC   the  Commissioners  said  that  he  can  always  do  so  through  an  MFR  
Section   5.   Promulgation.   -­‐   The  promulgation  of  a  decision   with  the  en  banc.    
or  resolution  of  the  Commission  or  a  Division  shall  be  made   • Based   on   this   recommendation,   the   1st   Div.   issued   an   order  
on  a  date  previously  fixed,  of  which  notice  shall  be  served  in   (dated   June   15)   and   set   a   date   for   the   promulgation   of   the  
advance   upon   the   parties   or   their   attorneys   personally   or   by   Resolution  for  June  20.  
registered  mail  or  by  telegram.   • Fearing  that  the  COMELEC  would  promulgate  the  adverse  Guiani  
  Resolution,   Ambil   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   with   the   SC,  
Section  13.  Finality  of  Decisions  or  Resolutions.  –     seeking   to   nullify   the   June   15   order   of   the   1st   Div.     He   filed   the  
a) In   ordinary   actions,   special   proceedings,   certiorari  petition  a  day  before  the  scheduled  promulgation.  
provisional   remedies   and   special   reliefs   a   decision    
or   resolution   of   the   Commission   en   banc   shall   ISSUE:  Was  this  procedure  proper?  NO  
WON  Ambil’s  action  was  premature.  YES  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   56  
 
  the  administrative  machinery  can  still  be  resorted  to  by  giving  the  
HELD:   administrative   officer   concerned   every   opportunity   to   decide   on   a  
Order   was   made   by   Division,   not   en   banc   thus   not   cognizable   matter   that   comes   within   his   jurisdiction,   then   such   remedy  
by  the  SC   should  be  exhausted  first  before  the  court’s  judicial  power  can  
  As   mentioned   in   other   cases,   the   power   of   the   Supreme   be   sought.   The   premature   invocation   of   court’s   intervention   is  
Court   to   review   decisions   of   the   Comelec   as   prescribed   in   the   fatal  to  one’s  cause  of  action.  
Constitution   (Sec   7,   IX-­‐C)   refers   to   final   orders,   rulings   and      
decisions   of   the   COMELEC   rendered   in   the   exercise   of   its   General  rule:  A  motion  for  reconsideration  then  is  a  pre-­‐requisite  to  
adjudicatory  or  quasi-­‐judicial  powers."  This  decision  must  be  a  final   the  viability  of  a  special  civil  action  for  certiorari  
decision  or  resolution  of  the  Comelec  en  banc,  not  of  a  division,    
certainly   not   an   interlocutory   order   of   a   division.   The   Supreme   Exceptions:    
Court   has   no   power   to   review   via   certiorari,   an   interlocutory   1. when  the  question  is  purely  legal  
order  or  even  a  final  resolution  of  a  Division  of  the  Commission   2. where  judicial  intervention  is  urgent  
on  Elections.   3. where  its  application  may  cause  great  and  irreparable  
  damage    
Effects  of  promulgation,  Guiani  Resolution  void   4. where  the  controverted  acts  violate  due  process  
  The   case   at   bar   is   an   election   protest   involving   the   5. failure  of  a  igh  government  official  from  whom  relief  
position   of   Governor,   Eastern   Samar.   It   is   within   the   original   is  sought  to  act  on  the  matter  
jurisdiction  of  the  Commission  on  Elections  in  division.  Admittedly,    
petitioner   did   not   ask   for   a   reconsideration   of   the   division’s   Doctrine   of   exhaustion   of   administrative   remedies   explained,  
resolution  or  final  decision.  In  fact,  there  was  really  no  resolution   exceptions    
or  decision  to  speak  of  because  there  was  yet  no  promulgation,     The   availment   of   administrative   remedy   entails   lesser  
which   was   still   scheduled   on   June   20,   2000   at   2:00   o’clock   in   the   expenses  and  provides  for  a  speedier  disposition  of  controversies.  It  
afternoon.   Petitioner   went   directly   to   the   Supreme   Court   from   an   is   no   less   true   to   state   that   the   courts   of   justice   for   reasons   of  
order   of   "promulgation   of   the   Resolution   of   this   case"   by   the   First   comity   and   convenience   will   shy   away   from   a   dispute   until   the  
Division  of  the  Comelec.   system   of   administrative   redress   has   been   completed   and   complied  
  A   final   decision   or   resolution   becomes   binding   only   with   so   as   to   give   the     administrative   agency   concerned   every  
after  it  is  promulgated  and  not  before.  Accordingly,  one  who  is  no   opportunity  to  correct  its  error  and  to  dispose  of  the  case.  
longer  a  member  of  the  Commission  at  the  time  the  final  decision  or    
resolution  is  promulgated  cannot  validly  take  part  in  that  resolution     Exceptions:  where  doctrine  may  be  disregarded:  
or   decision.  Much   more   could   he   be   the   ponente   of   the   resolution   or   1. when  there  is  a  violation  of  due  process    
decision.  The  resolution  or  decision  of  the  Division  must  be  signed   2. when  the  issue  involved  is  purely  a  legal  question  
by  a  majority  of  its  members  and  duly  promulgated.   3. when   the   administrative   action   is   patently   illegal  
  Commissioner   Guiani   might   have   signed   a   draft   ponencia   amounting  to  lack  or  excess  of  jurisdiction  
prior   to   his   retirement   from   office,   but   when   he   vacated   his   office   4. when   there   is   estoppel   on   the   part   of   the  
without   the   final   decision   or   resolution   having   been   promulgated,   administrative  agency  concerned  
his   vote   was   automatically   invalidated.  Before   that   resolution   or   5. when  there  is  irreparable  injury  
decision   is   so   signed   and   promulgated,   there   is   no   valid   6. when   the   respondent   is   a   department   secretary  
resolution  or  decision  to  speak  of.   whose  acts  as  an  alter  ego  of  the  president  bears  the  
  It   is   jurisprudentially   recognized   that   at   any   time   before   implied  and  assumed  approval  of  the  latter  
promulgation   of   a   decision   or   resolution,   the   ponente   may   change   7. when   to   require   exhaustion   of   administrative  
his   mind.   Moreover,   in   this   case,   before   a   final   decision   or   remedies  would  be  unreasonable  
resolution   could   be   promulgated,   the   ponente   retired   and   a   new   8. when  it  would  amount  to  a  nullification  of  a  claim  
commissioner   appointed.   And   the   incoming   commissioner   has   9. when   the   subject   matter   is   a   private   land   in   land   case  
decided  to  take  part  in  the  resolution  of  the  case.  It  is  presumed  that   proceedings  
he   had   taken   the   position   of   his   predecessor   because   he   co-­‐signed   10. when   the   rule   does   not   provide   a   plain,   speedy  
the  request  for  the  promulgation  of  the  Guiani  resolution.   andadequate  remedy,  and    
  11. when  there  are  circumstances  indicating  the  urgency  
Ambil’s   action   premature,   should   have   exhausted   of  judicial  intervention.  
administrative  rememdies  first    
  Consequently,  the  filing  of  the  instant  petition  before  this    
Court   was   premature.   Ambil   failed   to   exhaust   adequate  
administrative  remedies  available  before  the  COMELEC.  
  In  a  long  line  of  cases,  this  Court  has  held  consistently  that  
"before  a  party  is  allowed  to  seek  the  intervention  of  the  court,  it  is  
a   pre-­‐condition   that   he   should   have   availed   of   all   the   means   of  
administrative   processes   afforded   him.   Hence,   if   a   remedy   within  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   57  
 
CASE:  Cagas  v  COMELEC     The  proper  remedy  is  for  Cagas   to   wait   for   the   COMELEC  
G.R.  No.  194139  January  24,  2012   First  Division  to  first  decide  the  protest  on  its  merits,  and  if  the  
DOUGLAS   R.   CAGAS,   Petitioner,  vs.  THE   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   AND   CLAUDE   result   should   aggrieve   him,   to   appeal   the   denial   of   his   special  
P.  BAUTISTA,  Respondents.  
affirmative   defenses   to   the   COMELEC   en   banc   along   with   the  
 
other  errors  committed  by  the  Division  upon  the  merits.  
FACTS:  
 
• In   the   2010   elections   in   Davao   del   Sur,   Douglas   Cagas   was   Even   if   a   protest   may   be   couched   in   general   terms,   the  
proclaimed  the  governor  as  against  Claude  Bautista.   COMELEC  may  order  an  opening  of  ballot  boxes  
• Bautista  filed  an  election  protest  with  the  COMELEC  1st  Div.  In  the     The  Court  has  upheld  the  COMELEC’s  determination  of  the  
EPC,  Bautista  alleged  fraud,  anomalies,  irregularities,  vote-­‐buying   sufficiency   of   allegations   contained   in   election   protests,  
and  violations  of  election  laws,  rules  and  resolutions,  and  prayed   conformably   with   its   imperative   duty   to   ascertain   in   an   election  
for  the  opening  of  the  ballot  boxes.   protest,   by   all   means   within   its   command,   who   was   the   candidate  
• In   his   affirmative   defense,   Cagas   calimed   that   Bautista   did   not   elected  by  the  electorate.  
specify   the   acts   and   omissions   complained   of,   as   required   in     The   rule   in   this   jurisdiction   is   clear   and   jurisprudence   is  
COMELEC  Resolution  8804.   even   clearer.   In   a   string   of   categorical   pronouncements,   we   have  
COMELEC   Res.   8804   introduced   the   requirement   for   the   consistently  ruled  that  when  there  is  an  allegation  in  an  election  
"detailed   specification"   to   prevent   "shotgun   fishing   protest   that   would   require   the   perusal,   examination   or  
expeditions  by  losing  candidates   counting  of  ballots  as  evidence,  it  is  the  ministerial  duty  of  the  
• The   1st   Division   issued   an   order   upholding   Bautista’s   petition,   trial   court   to   order   the   opening   of   the   ballot   boxes   and   the  
finding  that  it  had  complied  with  the  detailed  acts  and  omissions.   examination  and  counting  of  ballots  deposited  therein.  
• Cagas  moved  to  consider,  praying  that  the  matter  be  elevated  to      
the  COMELEC  en  banc.    
 
• Bautista   claimed   that   since   the   1st   Division   were   merely  
interlocutory   ,   they   could   not   be   elevated   to   the   COMELEC   en   CASE:    Laarni  Cayetano  v  COMELEC  
G.R.  No.  193846                              April  12,  2011  
banc.    Meanwhile,  the  1st  Division  denied  Cagas’  MFR,  stating  that   MARIA   LAARNI   L.   CAYETANO,  Petitioner,    vs.  THE   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and  
the  MFR  failed  to  show  that  the  order  was  contrary  to  law.   DANTE  O.  TINGA,  Respondents.  
• Cagas   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   with   the   SC,   assailing   both    
orders  of  the  1st  Division.   FACTS:  
  • In  the  2010  elections,  Laarni  Cayetano  was  proclaimed  the  Mayor  
ISSUE:   WON  the  en  banc  can  review  by  certiorari  an  interlocutory   of   Taguig   over   rival   Dante   Tinga.Tinga   filed   an   election   protest  
order  issued  by  a  Division  NO   with  the  COMELEC.    
  • Cayetano   invoked   her   affirmative   defense   of   insufficiency   in   form  
HELD:   and   content   of   the   Election   Protest   and   prayed   for   its   dismissal.  
Settled   rule:   interlocutory   orders   not   reviewable,   only   final   Cayetano  also  filed  a  counter-­‐protest  against  Tinga.  
orders  decided  under  quasi-­‐judicial  powers   • The   COMELEC   thereafter   issued   the   Preliminary  Conference  Order  
  Section   7,   Article   IX   of   the   1987   Constitution   confers   on   (PCO)   finding   Tinga’s   protest   and   Cayetano’s   counter-­‐protest   to  
the   Court   the   power   to   review   any   decision,   order   or   ruling   of   the   be   both   sufficient   in   form   and   substance.   Cayetano’s   affirmative  
COMELEC.   However,   this   power   is   limited   to   a   final   decision   or   defenses  were  effectively  denied.  
resolution   of   the   COMELEC   en   banc,   and   does   not   extend   to   an   • Cayetano   filed   a   MFR   of   the   PCO   relative   to   the   denial   of   her  
interlocutory   order   issued   by   a   Division   of   the   COMELEC.   defenses.  The  COMELEC  denied  this  MFR.  
  Otherwise  stated,  the  Court  has  no  power  to  review  on   • Cayetano  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  claiming  that  the  COMELEC  
certiorari   an   interlocutory   order   or   even   a   final   resolution   committed  GAOD  in  denying  her  affirmative  defenses.  
issued  by  a  Division  of  the  COMELEC.    
  ISSUE:  WON  Cayetano’s  action  is  proper.  NO  
Same   ruling:   ony   en   banc   decisions;   MFR   required   before    
elevation  to  en  banc   HELD:  
  In  like  manner,  a  decision,  order  or  resolution  of  a  division   Same  old  ruling;  interlocutory  orders  not  reviewable  blah  blah  
of   the   Comelec   must   be   reviewed   by   the   Comelec   en   banc   via   a     Interlocutory   orders   of   a   COMELEC   Division   are   not  
motion  for  reconsideration  before  the  final  en  banc  decision  may  be   appealable,   nor   can   they   be   proper   subject   of   a   petition   for  
brought  to  the  Supreme  Court  on  certiorari.  The  pre-­‐requisite  filing   certiorari.  To  rule  otherwise  would  not  only  delay  the  disposition  of  
of  a  motion  for  reconsideration  is  mandatory.   cases   but   would   also   unnecessarily   clog   the   Court   docket   and  
  unduly   burden   the   Court.   This   does   not   mean   that   the   aggrieved  
Cagas’  remedy:   party  is  without  recourse  if  a  COMELEC  Division  denies  the  motion  
  The   Court   has   no   jurisdiction   to   take   cognizance   of   the   for  reconsideration.  The  aggrieved  party  can  still  assign  as  error  the  
petition   for   certiorari   assailing   the   denial   by   the   COMELEC   First   interlocutory  order  if  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings  he  decides  to  
Division  of  the  special  affirmative  defenses  of  the  petitioner.     appeal  the  main  case  to  the  COMELEC  En  Banc  
 

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   58  
 
General  rule  of  procedure  as  to  orders   The   COMELEC’s   appellate   jurisdiction   now   includes   acts   and  
  The   general   rule   is   that   a   decision   or   an   order   of   a   omissions  by  the  municipal  courts  
COMELEC  Division  cannot  be  elevated  directly  to  this  Court  through     AM  7-­‐4-­‐15SC  (which  was  Bulilis’  basis  for  his  question  of  
a   special   civil   action   for   certiorari.   Furthermore,   a   motion   to   jurisdiction)  was  later  amended  by  AM  7-­‐7-­‐12-­‐SC,  which  states  that:    
reconsider   a   decision,   resolution,   order,   or   ruling   of   a   COMELEC   In   election   cases   involving   an   act   or   an   omission   of   a  
Division   shall   be   elevated   to   the   COMELEC   En   Banc.   However,   a   municipal  or  a  regional  trial  court,   the   petition   shall   be  
motion   to   reconsider   an   interlocutory   order   of   a   COMELEC   Division   filed  exclusively  with  the  Commission  on  Elections,  in  aid  
shall   be   resolved   by   the   division   which   issued   the   interlocutory   of  its  appellate  jurisdiction.  
order,  except  when  all  the  members  of  the  division  decide  to  refer   Taking   cognizance   of   petitions   for   certiorari   re:   interlocutory  
the  matter  to  the  COMELEC  En  Banc.   orders  is  part  of  ‘appellate  jurisdiction’;  Galang  doctrine  
     
  Galang   doctrine:   a   petition   for   certiorari   questioning   an  
  interlocutory  order  of  a  trial  court  in  an  electoral  protest  is  within  
CASE:    Bulilis  v  Nuez   the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  COMELEC.    
G.R.  No.195953                              August  9,  2011    
CERIACO   BULILIS,   Petitioner,vs.   VICTORINO   NUEZ,   Hon.   PRESIDING   JUDGE,   6th     Interpreting   the   phrase   "in   aid   of   its   appellate  
MCTC,   Ubay,   Bohol,   Hon.   Presiding   Judge,   RTC,   Branch   52,   Talibon,   jurisdiction,"   the   Court   held   in   J.M.   Tuason   &   Co.,   Inc.   v.   Jaramillo,   et  
Bohol,Respondents.  
al.   that   if   a   case   may   be   appealed   to   a   particular   court   or  
 
judicial   tribunal   or   body,   then   said   court   or   judicial   tribunal   or  
FACTS:  
body   has   jurisdiction   to   issue   the   extraordinary   writ   of  
• In   the   2010   elections,   Bulilis   was   proclaimed   punong   barangay   certiorari,  in  aid  of  its  appellate  jurisdiction.  
over   Nuez.   Nuez   filed   an   EPC   for   judicial  recount  and  annulment     A  court  may  issue  a  writ  of  certiorari  in  aid  of  its  appellate  
of  proclamation  with  the  MCTC  of  Bohol.     jurisdiction   if   said   court   has   jurisdiction   to   review,   by   appeal   or  
• Bulilis  moved  for  the  dismissal  of  Nuez’  complaint  on  the  ground   writ  of  error,  the  final  orders  or  decisions  of  the  lower  court.  
that   it   did   not   impleade   the   Chairman   and   members   of   the   BEI     Under   Section   8   Rule   14   of   the   COMELEC   Rules,   the  
who  were  allegedly  indispensable  parties.     COMELEC  has  jurisdiction  to  take  cognizance  of  an  appeal  from  the  
• The   MCTC   issued   a   notice   of   hearing   for   the   Nov   9   2010   decision   of   the   regional   trial   court   in   election   contests   involving  
preliminary   conference.     Bulilis   claims   that   he   did   not   know   elective  municipal  officials.  Thus,  it  is  also  the  COMELEC  which  has  
about  the  meeting  only  until  Nov.  8,  2010.  During  the  hearing,  the   jurisdiction   to   issue   a   writ   of   certiorari   in   aid   of   its   appellate  
MCTC  also  allowed  Nuez’  counsel  to  present  evidence  ex  parte.   jurisdiction.  
• Bulilis  filed  a  MFR  on  the  ground  of  lack  of  proper  notice  as  to  the      
preliminary  conference.  The  MCTC  dismissed  the  MFR.   Galang  doctrine  applicable  to  barangay  election  cases  
• Bulilis   then   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   with   the   RTC.   The   RTC     Under   Rule   14,   Section   8   of   A.M.   No.   07-­‐4-­‐15-­‐SC,   decisions  
dismissed  the  petition  on  the  ground  that  it  is  the  COMELEC  that   of   municipal   trial   courts   in   election   contests   involving   barangay  
has  appellate  jurisdiction  over  petitions  for  certiorari  in  election   officials   are   appealed   to   the   COMELEC.   Following   the   Galang  
cases   involving   municipal   and   barangay   officials.   Bulilis   filed   an   doctrine,  it  is  the  COMELEC  which  has  jurisdiction  over  petitions  for  
MFR  over  this  dismissal  but  it  was  also  denied.   certiorari   involving   acts   of   the   municipal   trial   courts   in   such  
• Bulilis  then  filed  with  the  SC    a  petition  for  certiorari    questioning   election  contests.  
the   actions   of   the   MCTC   and   the   RTC.   Buliis   claims   that   the    
COMELEC’s   appellate   jurisdiction   was   only   limited   to   ‘decided    
barangay   election   cases.’   Bulilis’   basis   for   this   is   Section   12   of   AM    
7-­‐4-­‐15SC:  
CASE:    Loong  v  COMELEC  
SEC.   12.   Jurisdiction   of   the   Commission   on   Elections   in  
G.R.  Nos.  107814-­‐15  May  16,  1996  
certiorari   cases.   -­‐   The   Commission   on   Elections   has   the   GOV.   TUPAY   T.   LOONG,   BARIK   SAMPANG,   KARTINI   MALDISA,   YASSER   HASSAN,  
authority   to   issue   the   extraordinary   writs   of   certiorari,   and   HADJA   SAPINA   RADJAIE,   petitioners,     vs.THE   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS;  
prohibition   and   mandamus   only   in   aid   of   its   appellate   PROVINCIAL   BOARD   OF   CANVASSERS   OF   SULU;   MUNICIPAL   BOARD   OF  
CANVASSERS  OF  TALIPAO  &  ABDUSAKUR  TAN,  respondents.  
jurisdiction   over   decisions   of   the   courts   in   election   cases  
 
involving  elective  municipal  and  barangay  officials.  
FACTS:  
• He   also   claims   that   the   petition   for   certiorari   he   filed   with   the  
• This   case   is   a   consolidation   of   4   cases   relating   to   the   1995  
RTC   was   not   an   election   cases,   but   one   imputing   GAOD   on   the  
elections   in   Sulu,   where   Loong   and   PR   Tan   were   gubernatioral  
part  of  the  MCTC  judge  in  his  issuance  of  an  interlocutory  order.  
candidates.  
 
Tan’s  pre-­‐proclamation  case  
ISSUE:  WON  Bulilis’  petition  for  certiorari  is  proper.  NO  
• During   the   canvassing,   the   COMELEC,   upon   recommendation   of  
WON   the   RTC   has   appelllate   jurisdiction   over   interlocutory   orders  
the   provincial   Board   of   Canvassers   (PBOC),   ordered   a   recanvass  
of  MTCs  in  election  cases.  NO  
of  the  ERs  in  2  out  of  18  municipalities:  Parang  and  Talipao.    Tan  
 
objected   to   the   inclusion   of   the   ER   from   Parang   but   the  
HELD:  
reconsituted  MBC  merely  noted  his  objections.  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   59  
 
• The   PBC   denied   Tan’s   petition   to   exclude   the   Parang   ER.   The   whether   or   not   the   elections   had   indeed   been   free,   honest   and  
recanvassed   ERs   show   that   Loong     et   al   won   the   elections.   Tan   clean.   Needless   to   say,   a   pre-­‐proclamation   controversy   is   not   the  
questioned   the   act   of   the   PBOC   in   an   appeal   to   the   COMELEC,   same  as  an  action  for  annulment  of  election  results  or  declaration  of  
which  dismissed  such  appeal.   failure  of  elections.  
        In   the   instant   case,   Tan   and   Loong   filed,   not   pre-­‐
Tan  and  Loong’s  prayer  for  special  elections   proclamation   cases,   but   actions   for   annulment   of   election   results   or  
• It   seems   that   earlier,   on   June   9,   Tan   filed   a   petition   to   set   declaration   of   failure   of   elections   over   which   the   COMELEC   has  
aside/annul  the  elections  in  Parang.  According  to  Tan,  there  was   statutory  jurisdiction.  
a  failure  of  election  in  Parang  due  to  massive  fraud.        
• Based  on  Tan’s  petition,  the  COMELEC  ordered  the  delivery  of  list   ! Thus,   the   SC   held   that   the   conduct   of   technical  
of  voters  and  book  of  voters  for  all  precincts.     examinations   on   the   Parang   ER   was   valid,   and  
• Anticipating   that   the   COMELEC   would   use   the   documents   to   ordered   the   COMELEC   to   conduct   a   similar  
conduct  a  technical  examination  by  comparing  the  signatures  and   examination  as  prayed  by  Loong  
thumbmarks   to   the   list   of   voters   and   registration   forms,   Loong   et    
al  reminded  the  COMELEC  that  such  a  technical  examination  was   COMELEC   erred   in   not   calling   for   special   elections   after  
prohibited  according  to  the  ruling  in  Dianalan  v  COMELEC.  In  the   annulling  Parang  election  
meantime,  Loong  et  al  prayed  for  the  same  technical  examination     The   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   when   it   disregarded   the  
in  5  municipalities  where  they  allege  Tan  cheated.  However,  the   statutory  mandate  under  RA  7166  and  did  away  with  the  holding  of  
COMELEC  went  ahead  and  conducted  the  technical  examination.   special   elections   in   Parang,   Sulu.   The   Court   noted   the   dissent   of   a  
• Loong  also  filed  with  the  COMELEC  to  declare  failure  of  elections   commissioner:  
in   the   said   5   municipalities.   The   COMELEC   en   banc   dismissed   the     With   the   annulment   of   the   results   of   the   election   in   the  
petition.   Municipality  of  Parang,  no   proclamation   of   the   winners   for  
• On   the   basis   of   the   technical   examination   results,   the   COMELEC   the   contested   positions   of   Governor   and   Vice-­‐Governor  
en  banc  issued  a  resolution  where  they  declared  the  elections  in   can  be  made  unless  a  special  election  is  held.  
Parang   null   and   void   (but   did   not   order   a   special   election)   and     Any   proclamation   made   will   be   null   and   void   because   it  
held  in  abeyance  the  proclamation  of  the  winning  candidates.  The   would  be  based  on  an  incomplete  canvass.  The  only  exception  
COMELEC   did   not   order   the   conduct   of   a   special   election   because   is   if   the   election   returns   from   the   elections   of   Parang   will   not  
they   preferred   using   ‘reasonable,   practicable   and   equitable’   affect   the   results   of   the   provincial   election.   Based   on   the  
solutions  to  end  the  controversy.   number  of  registered  voters,  however,  the  exclusion  of  Parang  
• In  another  resolution,  the  COMELEC  en  banc  dismissed    Loong’s   will  affect  the  results  of  the  provincial  election.    
prayer  for  technical  examination/annullment  of  elections  in  the  5    
municipalities   even   though   they   found   that   the   same   badges   of   Grounds  for  pre-­‐proclamations  
fraud  as  seen  in  the  Parang  were  found  in  the  election   The   scope   of   a   pre-­‐proc   controversy   is   limited   to   the   issues   under  
  Section  243  of  the  OEC:  
ISSUE:   WON  the  COMELEC  can  conduct  a  technical  examination  in   1. there   is   a   clear   showing   or   proof   that   the   election  
pre-­‐proclamation  cases.  NO   returns   canvassed   are   incomplete   or   contain   material  
WON   the   COMELEC   can   conduct   technical   examinations   in   actions   defects  
for  annulment  of  elections/DFOE.  YES   2. there   is   a   clear   showing   or   proof   that   the   election  
WON   the   COMELEC   erred   in   not   calling   for   a   special   election   after   returns   canvassed   appear   to   have   been   tampered  
annulling  the  elections  in  Parang.  YES   with,  falsified  or  prepared  under  duress  
  3. there   is   a   clear   showing   or   proof   that   the   election  
HELD:   returns  canvassed contain  discrepancies  in  the  votes  
Technical   examinations   filed   for   by   Loong   and   Tan   valid   as   credited   to   any   candidate,   the   difference   of   which  
they   were   filed   not   in   pre-­‐proc   actions,   but   in   actions   for   affects  the  result  of  the  election  
annulment  of  elections/failure  of  election    
  While,   however,   the   COMELEC   is   restricted,   in   pre-­‐ The   rule   is   technical   examinations   are   not   allowed   in   pre-­‐
proclamation   cases,   to   an   examination   of   the   election   returns   on   proclamation  cases  
their  face  and  is  without  jurisdiction  to  go  beyond  or  behind  them     In   the   controlling   case   of   Dianalan  v  COMELEC,  the   Court  
and  investigate  election  irregularities,  the  COMELEC  is  duty  bound   said   that   the   prevailing   doctrine   in   this   jurisdiction,   therefore,   is  
to   investigate   allegations   of   fraud,   terrorism,   violence   and   that   as   long   as   the   returns   appear   to   be   authentic   and   duly  
other   analogous   causes   in   actions   for   annulment   of   election   accomplished   on   their   face,   the   Board   of   Canvassers   cannot   look  
results  or  for  declaration  of  failure  of  elections,  as  the  Omnibus   beyond  or  behind  them  to  verify  allegations  of  irregularities  in  the  
Election  Code  denominates  the  same.     casting  or  the  counting  of  the  votes.    
  Thus,   the   COMELEC,   in   the   case   of   actions   for   annulment     Corollarily,   technical   examination   of   voting  
of  election  results  or  declaration  of  failure  of  elections,  may  conduct   paraphernalia   involving   analysis   and   comparison   of   voters'  
technical   examination   of   election   documents   and   compare   and   signatures   and   thumbprints   thereon   is   prohibited   in   pre-­‐
analyze   voters'   signatures   and   fingerprints   in   order   to   determine   proclamation   cases   which   are   mandated   by   law   to   be  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   60  
 
expeditiously   resolved   without   involving   evidence   aliunde   and   withdrawn   any   time   by   the   Commission   whenever   in   its  
examination   of   voluminous   documents   which   take   up   much   time   judgment   such   revocation   or   withdrawal   is   necessary   to  
and   cause   delay   in   defeat   of   the   public   policy   underlying   the   protect  the  integrity  of  the  Commission,  promote  the  common  
summary  nature  of  pre-­‐proclamation  controversies.   good,   or   when   it   believes   that   successful   prosecution   of   the  
  case  can  be  done  by  the  Commission.  
Reasons   why   technical   examinations   are   prohibited   in   pre-­‐  
proc   Section   3.   Initiation  of  Complaint.  -­‐   Initiation   of   complaint   for  
    election   offenses   may   be   done   motu   proprio   by   the  
1. To   determine   winners   ASAP   -­‐The   policy   consideration   Commission,  or  upon  written  complaint  by  any  citizen  of  the  
underlying   the   prohibition   is   the   policy   to   determine   as   quickly   Philippines,   candidate,   registered   political   party,   coalition   of  
as  possible  the  result  of  the  election  on  the  basis  of  canvass.   political  parties  or  organizations  under  the  partylist  system  or  
  To  expand  the  issues  beyond  those  enumerated  under  sec.   any  accredited  citizens  arms  of  the  Commission.  
243   and   allow   a   recount/reappreciation   of   votes   in   every    
instance   where   a   claim   of   misdeclaration   of   stray   votes   is   made   Section   5.   Referral   for   Preliminary   Investigation.   -­‐   if   the  
would  open  the  floodgates  to  such  claims  and   paralyze   canvass   complaint   is   initiated   motu   proprio   by   the   Commission,   or   is  
and   proclamation   proceedings,   given   the   propensity   of   the   filed  with  the  Commission  by  any  aggrieved  party,  it   shall   be  
loser  to  demand  a  recount.   referred   to   the   Law   Department   for   investigation.   Upon  
  direction   of   the   Chairman   of   the   Commission,   the   preliminary  
2. ERs   prima   facie   considered   valid   -­‐   The   complete   election   investigation   may   be   delegated   to   any   lawyer   of   said  
returns  whose  authenticity  is  not  in  question,  must  be  prima  facie   Department,   or   to   any   of   the   Regional   Election   Directors   or  
considered   valid   for   the   purpose   of   canvassing   the   same   and   Provincial   Election   Supervisors,   or   any   lawyer   of   the  
proclamation  of  the  winning  candidates.   Commission.  
     
   
  UNDER  THE  OMNIBUS  ELECTION  CODE  re:  election  offenses  
 
  Section  265.  Prosecution.   -­‐   The   Commission   shall,   through   its  
SET  8  –  INVESTIGATION   duly   authorized   legal   officers,   have   the   exclusive   power   to  
conduct   preliminary   investigation   of   all   election   offenses  
  punishable   under   this   Code,   and   to   prosecute   the   same.   The  
Article  IX-­‐C,  Section  2(6):  
Commission   may   avail   of   the   assistance   of   other   prosecuting  
  The   Commission   on   Elections   shall   exercise   the  
arms  of  the  government:  Provided,  however,  That  in  the  event  
following  powers  and  functions:  
that   the   Commission   fails   to   act   on   any   complaint   within   four  
xxx  
months  from  his  filing,  the  complainant  may  file  the  complaint  
6.   File,   upon   a   verified   complaint,   or   on   its   own   initiative,  
with   the   office   of   the   fiscal   or   with   the   Ministry   of   Justice   for  
petitions   in   court   for   inclusion   or   exclusion   of   voters;  
proper  investigation  and  prosecution,  if  warranted.  
investigate   and,   where   appropriate,   prosecute   cases   of  
Note:   COMELEC’s   power   is   no   longer   exclusive   as   per   RA  
violations   of   election   laws,   including   acts   or   omissions  
9369  
constituting  election  frauds,  offenses,  and  malpractices.    
 
 
Section   267.   Prescription.   -­‐   Election   offenses   shall   prescribe  
UNDER  RULE  34  –  Prosecution  of  Election  Offenses  
after   five   years   from   the   date   of   their   commission.   If   the  
 
discovery   of   the   offense   be   made   in   an   election   contest  
Section   1.   Authority   of   the   Commission   to   Prosecute   Election  
proceedings,  the  period  of  prescription  shall  commence  on  the  
Offenses.  -­‐  The  Commission  shall  have  the  exclusive   power   to  
date   on   which   the   judgment   in   such   proceedings   becomes   final  
conduct   preliminary   investigation   of   all   election   offenses  
and  executory.  
punishable  under  the  election  laws  and  to  prosecute  the  same,  
 
except  as  may  otherwise  be  provided  by  law.  
Section   268.   Jurisdiction  of  courts.  -­‐  The   regional   trial   court  
 
shall   have   the   exclusive   original   jurisdiction   to   try   and  
Section   2.   Continuing   Delegation   of   Authority   to   Other  
decide  any  criminal  action  or  proceedings  for  violation  of  
Prosecution   Arms   of   the   Government.   -­‐   The   Chief   State  
this   Code,   except   those   relating   to   the   offense   of   failure   to  
Prosecutor,   all   Provincial   and   City   Fiscals,   and/or   their  
register  or  failure  to  vote  which  shall  be  under  the  jurisdiction  
respective   assistants   are   hereby   given   continuing  
of   the   metropolitan   or   municipal   trial   courts.   From   the  
authority,   as   deputies   of   the   Commission,   to   conduct   decision   of   the   courts,   appeal   will   lie   as   in   other   criminal  
preliminary  investigation  of  complaints  involving  election   cases.  
offenses   under   the   election   laws   which   may   be   filed   directly    
with   them,   or   which   may   be   indorsed   to   them   by   the  
 
Commission   or   its   duly   authorized   representatives   and   to  
prosecute   the   same.   Such   authority   may   be   revoked   or  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   61  
 
Section   269.   Preferential  disposition  of  election  offenses.  -­‐  The   HELD:  
investigation   and   prosecution   of   cases   involving   violations   of   RTC  7691  did  not  divest  the  RTCs  of  jurisdiction  over  election  
the  election  laws  shall  be  given  preference  and  priority  by  the   offenses;    
Commission   on   Elections   and   prosecuting   officials.   Their     Section   32   of   BP   129   (which   states   the   jurisdiction   of  
investigation   shall   be   commenced   without   delay,   and   shall   be   MTCs)  begins  with  a  disclaimer:  “Except  in  cases  falling  within  the  
resolved   by   the   investigating   officer   within   five   days   from   its   exclusive   original   jurisdiction   of   Regional   Trial   Court   and   of   the  
submission   for   resolution.   The   courts   shall   likewise   give   Sandiganbayan…”  By  virtue  of  this  exception,  the  exclusive  original  
preference   to   election   offenses   over   all   other   cases,   except   jurisdiction   of   Metropolitan   Trial   Courts,   Municipal   Trial   Courts,  
petitions   for   writ   of   habeas   corpus.   Their   trial   shall   likewise   be   and   Municipal   Circuit   Trial   Courts   does   not   cover   those   criminal  
commenced   without   delay,   and   shall   be   conducted   cases   which   by   specific   provisions   of   law   fall   within   the   exclusive  
continuously   until   terminated,   and   the   case   shall   be   decided   original   jurisdiction   of   Regional   Trial   Courts   and   of   the  
within  thirty  days  from  its  submission  for  decision.   Sandiganbayan,  regardless  of  the  penalty  prescribed  therefor.  
    Otherwise   stated,   even   if   those   excepted   cases   are  
UNDER  RA  9369   punishable  by  imprisonment  of  not  exceeding  six  (6)  years  (i.e.,  
SEC.   43.   Section   265   of   Batas   Pambansa   Blg.   881   is   hereby   prision  correccional,  arresto  mayor,   or   arresto  menor),   jurisdiction  
amended  to  read  as  follow:   thereon   is   retained   by   the   Regional   Trial   Courts   or   the  
"SEC.  265.  Prosecution.  -­‐  The  Commission  shall,  through  its   Sandiganbayan,  as  the  case  may  be.  
duly   authorized   legal   officers,   have   the   power,   concurrent     Pursuant   to   Section   268   of   the   Omnibus   Election   Code,  
with   the   other   prosecuting   arms   of   the   government,   to   election  offenses  also  fall  within  the  exception.  
conduct   preliminary   investigation   of   all   election   offenses   RA  7691  did  not  repeal  BP  129  as  it  is  not  a  special  law  
punishable  under  this  Code,  and  prosecute  the  same"       Jurisdiction   is   conferred   by   the   Constitution   or   by  
  Congress.  Congress  may  thus  provide  by  law  that  a  certain  class  of  
  cases   should   be   exclusively   heard   and   determined   by   one   court.  
CASE:  COMELEC  v  Noynay   Such   law   would   be   a   special   law   and   must   be   construed   as   an  
G.R.  No.  132365  July  9,  1998   exception   to   the   general   law   on   jurisdiction   of   courts   (The   Judiciary  
COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   petitioner,   vs.   HON.   TOMAS   B.   NOYNAY,   Acting   Reorganization  Act).  
Presiding   Judge,   Regional   Trial   Court,   Branch   23,   Allen,   Northern   Samar,   and  
DIOSDADA  F.  AMOR,  ESBEL  CHUA,  and  RUBEN  MAGLUYOAN,  respondents.  
  R.A.   No.   7691   can   by   no   means   be   considered   as   a  
  special   law   on   jurisdiction;   it   is   merely   an   amendatory   law  
FACTS:   intended   to   amend   specific   sections   of   the   Judiciary  
• In   1996,   the   COMELEC   resolved   to   file   an   information   for   Reorganization   Act   of   1980.   Hence,   R.A.   No.   7691   does   nut   have  
violation   of   Section   261   (i)   against   PRs   Amor,   Chua   and   the   effect   of   repealing   laws   vesting   upon   Regional   Trial   Courts   or  
Magluyoan  who  are  public  school  employees.     the   Sandiganbayan   exclusive   original   jurisdiction   to   hear   and  
Note:  261  (i)  is  an  election  offense  (‘Intervention  of  public   decide   the   cases   therein   specified.   That   Congress   never   intended  
officers   and   employees’)   punishing   said   employees   for   that   R.A.   No.   7691   should   repeal   such   special   provisions   is  
intervening   in   any   election   campaign   or   engaging   in   any   indubitably   evident   from   the   fact   that   it   did   not   touch   at   all   the  
partisan  political  activity   opening   sentence   of   Section   32   of   B.P.   Blg.   129   providing   for   the  
• 9   informations   were   filed   with   the   RTC   of   Northern   Samar.   exception.  
However,   judge   Noynay   ordered   the   records   of   the   cases   to   be    
withdrawn   and   directed   the   COMELEC   Law   Department   to   file   ! the  SC  ordered  the  RTC  to  try  and  decide  the  cases  
 
the  cases  with  the  MTC.  
• According   to   Noynay,   the   RTC   had   no   jurisdiction   since   the    
maximum   imposable   penalty   in   the   cases   do   not   exceed   6yrs   CASE:    People  v  Inting  
imprisonment.     G.R.  No.  88919  July  25,  1990  
PEOPLE   OF   THE   PHILIPPINES,   petitioner,   vs.   HONORABLE   ENRIQUE   B.   INTING,  
Under   Art.   264,   election   offenses   are   punishable   by   PRESIDING  JUDGE,  REGIONAL  TRIAL  COURT,  BRANCH  38,  DUMAGUETE  CITY,  AND  
imprisonment  of  not  less  than  1yr  but  not  exceeding  6yrs,   OIC  MAYOR  DOMINADOR  S.  REGALADO,  JR.,  respondents.  
not   subject   to   probation   +   disqualification   to   hold   public    
office   FACTS:  
  • In   1988,   nursing   attendant   Editha   Barba   filed   a   letter   of  
In  RA  7691,  Section  32  of  BP  129  was  amended,  granting   complaint   against   Dominador   Regalado   (Mayor   of   Tanjay)   for  
the   MTCs   exclusive   original   jurisdiction   over   offenses   transferring   her   to   a   remote   barangay   without   obtaining  
punishable  with  imprisonment  not  exceeding  6yrs   COMELEC’s  permission  as  required  by  law.    
• The   COMELEC   filed   two   MFRs,   which   the   RTC   denied.   The   • Acting   on   the   complaint,   COMELEC   directed   Atty.   Gerardo  
COMELEC  then  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  with  the  SC.     Lituanas,  Provincial  Election  Supervisor  of  Dumaguete  City:    
  (1) to  conduct  the  preliminary  investigation  of  the  case;  
ISSUE:   WON   the   RTCs   have   jurisdiction   over   election   offenses,   (2) to  prepare  and  file  the  necessary  information  in  court;    
notwithstanding  RA  7691.  YES   (3) to   handle   the   prosecution   if   the   evidence   submitted  
  shows  a  prima  facie  case  and    
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   62  
 
(4) to   issue   a   resolution   of   prosecution   or   dismissal   as   the   1. The   determination   of   probable   cause   is   a   function   of   the  
case  may  be.   Judge.   It   is   not   for   the   Provincial   Fiscal   or   Prosecutor   nor   for  
    the   Election   Supervisor   to   ascertain.   Only   the   Judge   and   the  
Note:  Resolution  1752  was  mentioned  here  where  Regional   Judge  alone  makes  this  determination.  
and   Provincial   Election   Directors   were   authorized   to   2. The   preliminary   inquiry   made   by   a   Prosecutor   does   not  
conduct   PI,   file   informations   and   to   prosecute   election   bind   the   Judge.   It   merely   assists   him   to   make   the  
offenses   determination   of   probable   cause.  The  Judge  does  not  have  to  
  follow   what   the   Prosecutor   presents   to   him.   By   itself,   the  
• Finding   a   prima   facie   case,   Atty.   Lituanas   filed   a   criminal   case   Prosecutor's   certification   of   probable   cause   is   ineffectual.   It   is  
with   the   RTC.   The   information   was   not   signed   by   the   Provincial   the  report,  the  affidavits,  the  transcripts  of  stenographic  notes  
fiscal.   (if   any),   and   all   other   supporting   documents   behind   the  
• While   the   RTC   issued   a   warrant   of   arrest   against   Regalado,   it   Prosecutor's   certification   which   are   material   in   assisting   the  
later   set   the   order   of   arrest   aside   on   the   ground   that   Atty.   Judge  to  make  his  determination.  
Lituanas  is  not  authorized  to  determine  probable  cause  pursuant   3. Judges   and   Prosecutors   alike   should   distinguish   the  
to  Section  2,  Article  III  of  the  1987  Constitution.   preliminary  inquiry  which  determines  probable  cause  for  
• The   court   stated   that   it   "will   give   due   course   to   the   information   the   issuance   of   a   warrant   of   arrest   from   the   preliminary  
filed   in   this   case   if   the   same   has   the   written   approval   of   the   investigation   proper   which   ascertains   whether   the   offender  
Provincial  Fiscal   after   which   the   prosecution   of   the   case   shall   be   should  be  held  for  trial  or  released.    
under  the  supervision  and  control  of  the  latter.       The   determination   of   probable   cause   for   the   warrant   of  
• The   RTC   later   gave   Lituanas   15   days   to   file   a   Prov.   Fiscal-­‐ arrest  is  made  by  the  Judge.  
approved   information.   Lituanas   failed   to   do   so.   Thus,   the   RTC       The   preliminary   investigation   proper   -­‐   whether   or   not  
quashed  the  information;  the  MFR  filed  was  denied.   there  is  reasonable  ground  to  believe  that  the  accused  is  guilty  
• Lituanas  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  with  the  SC.   of  the  offense  charged  and,  therefore,  whether  or  not  he  should  
  be  subjected  to  the  expense,  rigors  and  embarrassment  of  trial  
ISSUE:   WON  an  information  filed  by  COMELEC  officers  require  the   is  the  function  of  the  Prosecutor.  
approval   of   the   Provincial   prosecutor   before   it   can   be   taken    
cognizance  of  by  a  Judge  to  determine  probable  cause.  NO    
  Note:  probable  cause  for  the  issuance  of  arrest  warrant  (?)   CASE:    COMELEC  v  Silva  
  G.R.  No.  129417  February  10,  1998  
COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   petitioner,     vs.   HON.   LORENZO   R.   SILVA,   JR.,   as  
HELD:   Presiding   Judge,   RTC,   Branches   2   and   3,   Balanga,   Bataan,   HON.   BENJAMIN   T.  
Prosecution   of   election   offense   an   exclusive   power   of   the   VIANZON,  as  Presiding  Judge,  Branch  1,  of  the  same  Court,  ERASTO  TANCIONGCO,  
COMELEC,   Prov.   Prosecutor   does   not   participate   as   a   general   and  NORMA  CASTILLO,  respondents.  
rule    
  The  1987  Constitution  mandates  the  COMELEC  not  only  to   FACTS:  
investigate  but  also  to  prosecute  cases  of  violation  of  election  laws.   • In   1997,   12   informations   for   violation   of   Sec.   27   of   RA   6646   were  
This   means   that   the   COMELEC   is   empowered   to   conduct   filed   with   the   RTC   against   PRs   Tanciongco,   Castillo   and   Uy.   The  
preliminary   investigations   in   cases   involving   election   offenses   for   three   PBOC   members   allegedly   tampered   with   the   ERs   to   boost  
the  purpose  of  helping  the  Judge  determine  probable  cause  and  for   Sen.   Candidate   Enrile’s   votes.   The   cases   were   raffled   to   two  
filing   an   information   in   court. As   long   as   the   offense   is   an   election   branches  of  the  RTC  of  Bataan.  
offense,   jurisdiction   over   the   same   rests   exclusively   with   the   • Later,  the  RTC  dismissed  the  cases  against  the  PRs.  The  COMELEC  
COMELEC,   in   view   of   its   all-­‐embracing   power   over   the   conduct   of   filed  a  notice  of  appeal  so  it  could  appeal  the  decision  to  the  CA.  
elections.   • During   this   stage,   Chief   State   Prosecutor   Zuño   was   asked   to  
  Hence,   the   Provincial   Fiscal,   as   such,   assumes   no   role   in   comment  on  the  Notice  of  Appeal.  Zuno  stated  that  he  cannot  give  
the   prosecution   of   election   offenses.   If   the   Fiscal   or   Prosecutor   his   conformity   to   the   Notice   of   Appeal   as   he   has   stated   that   he  
files  an  information  charging  an  election  offense  or  prosecutes   would  abide  by  the  findings  of  the  RTC.  Thus,  on  this  basis,  both  
a  violation  of  election  law,  it  is  because  he  has  been  deputized   branches  of  the  RTC  denied  the  Notice  of  Appeal.  
by  the  COMELEC.   He   does   not   do   so   under   the   sole   authority   of   his   • In   other   words,   the   RTC held   the   view   that   the   Chief   State  
office.   Prosecutor's  decision  not  to  appeal  the  dismissal  of  the  cases  was  
  binding  on  them.  
Article   3,   Sec   2   explained;   Judge   does   not   need   ‘approval’   of   • The   COMELEC   filed   a   petition   for   ceritorari  and   mandamus  with  
Prov.  Prosecutor   the   SC   seeking   the   nullification   of   the   orders   of   the   two   judges,  
  The   Court   explained   the   features   of   the   constitutional   denying  due  course  to  the  Notices  of  Appeal  of  the  COMELEC.  
mandate  that  "  ...  no  search  warrant  or  warrant  of  arrest  shall  issue   • The   judges   moved   to   dismiss   the   COMELEC’s   petition.   They   claim  
except   upon   probable   cause   to   be   determined   personally   by   the   that   it   should   have   been   brought   in   the   name   of   the   People   and  
judge  ...”   filed  by  the  SolGen.  
   

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   63  
 
ISSUE:   Who   has   the   authority   to   decide   WON   to   appeal   a   lower   Petitions  made  by  the  COMELEC  need  not  be  filed  by  the  SolGen  
court   decision   in   a   election   offense   case?   COMELEC,   not   the     Considering   the   authority   of   the   COMELEC   over   the  
prosecutor.   prosecution   of   election   offenses,   its   decision   to   bring   this   instant  
  petition   for   certiorari   and   mandamus   is   conclusive   on   the   Solicitor  
HELD:   General.   It   would   simply   be   a   matter   of   referring   this   case   to   the  
The   authority   to   decide   WON   to   appeal   a   dismissal   belongs   to   Solicitor  General  so  that,  if  he  agrees,  he  may  take  over  the  conduct  
the  COMELEC   of  this  case.  Otherwise,  the  COMELEC  could  just  continue  handling  
  Art.  IX-­‐C,  §  2(6)  of  the  Constitution  expressly  vests  in  it  the   this  case  as  it  has  actually  done.  
power   and   function   to   "investigate   and,   where   appropriate,     Hence,  the  omission  of  the  COMELEC  to  refer  this  petition  
prosecute   cases   of   violations   of   election   laws,   including   acts   or   to   the   Office   of   the   Solicitor   General   for   representation   should   be  
omissions  constituting  election  frauds,  offenses,  and  malpractices.   disregarded.  To  make  the  filing  of  this  case  depend  on  his  decision  
  Indeed,  even  before  the  present  Constitution,  the  Omnibus   would   be   to   place   him   in   the   same   position   in   which   respondent  
Election   Code   and   other   laws   already   gave   the   COMELEC   the   judges   placed   Chief   State   Prosecutor   Zuño.   That   would   further  
exclusive  power  to  conduct  preliminary  investigation  of  all  election   negate  the  constitutional  function  of  the  COMELEC.  
offenses  and  to  prosecute  them  in  court.    The   purpose   is   to   place    
in   the   hands   of   an   independent   prosecutor   the   investigation   >  The  SC  ordered  the  judges  to  give  due  course  to  the  appeals  of  the  
and  prosecution  of  election  offenses.   COMELEC  
   
Prosecutors  in  election  cases  function  as  deputies;  Court  erred    
in  relying  on  Prosecutor’s  opinion   CASE:    KILOSBAYAN  v  COMELEC  
  Prosecutors  designated  by  the  COMELEC  to  prosecute  the   G.R.  No.  128054  October  16,  1997  
cases   act   as   its   deputies.   They   derive   their   authority   from   the   KILOSBAYAN,   INC.,   FERNANDO   A.   SANTIAGO,   QUINTIN   S.   DOROMAL,   EMILIO   C.  
CAPULONG   JR.,   RAFAEL   G.   FERNANDO,   petitioners,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON  
COMELEC  and  not  from  their  offices.    Consequently,  it  was  beyond   ELECTIONS,  SALVADOR  ENRIQUEZ,  FRANKLIN  DRILON,  CESAR  SARINO,  LEONORA  
the  power  of  Chief  State  Prosecutor  Zuño  to  oppose  the  appeal   V.   DE   JESUS,   TIBURCIO   RELUCIO,   RONALDO   V.   PUNO,   BENITO   R.   CATINDIG,  
of   the   COMELEC.   For   that   matter,   it   was   beyond   his   power,   as   MANUEL  CALUPITAN  III,  VICENTE  CARLOS,  FRANCISCO  CANCIO,  JIMMY  DURANTE,  
COMELEC-­‐designated   prosecutor,   to   leave   to   the   trial   courts   the   MELVYN  MENDOZA,  respondents.  
determination   of   whether   there   was   probable   cause   for   the   filing   of    
the   cases   and,   if   it   found   none,   whether   the   cases   should   be   FACTS:  
dismissed.     • In   1993,   the   COMELEC   received   two   letters   from   KILOSBAYAN  
  Those  cases  were  filed  by  the  COMELEC  after  appropriate   which   claimed   that   Secretary   of   Budget   Enriquez   reportedly  
preliminary   investigation.   If   the   Chief   State   Prosecutor   thought   disbursed   70m   to   Ronaldo   Puno   shortly   before   the   1992  
there   was   no   probable   cause   for   proceeding   against   private   elections.  
respondents,   he   should   have   discussed   the   matter   with   the   • KILOSBAYAN   also   claimed   that   330m   was   diverted   from   the  
COMELEC   and   awaited   its   instruction.   If   he   disagreed   with   the   Countrywide   Development   Fund   to   the   DILG.   The   DILG   also  
COMELEC's   findings,   he   should   have   sought   permission   to   reportedly  disbursed  this  amount  shortly  before  the  elections.    
withdraw  from  the  cases.  But  he  could  not  leave  the  determination   • As   evidence,   KILOS   presented   published   writings   by   Teodoro  
of   probable   cause   to   the   courts   and   agree   in   advance   to   the   Benigno   which   identified   Ronaldo   Puno’s   involvement   in  
dismissal  of  the  cases  should  the  courts  find  no  probable  cause  for   electioneering.   They   also   presented   transcripts   during   an   inqiry  
proceeding  with  the  trial  of  the  accused.     by   the   Commission   on   Appointments   where   certain   officers  
  It  was,  therefore,  grave  abuse  of  discretion  on  the  part  of   admitted  to  the  disbursement  of  funds.  
the   respondent   judges   to   rely   on   the   manifestation   of   Chief   State   • KILOS   requested   the   COMELEC   that   ‘these   offenses   and  
Prosecutor   Zuño   as   basis   for   denying   due   course   to   the   notices   of   malpractices   be   investigated   promptly,   thoroughly,   impartially,  
appeal  filed  by  the  COMELEC.     without   fear   or   favor,   so   that   public   confidence   in   the   integrity  
  and  purity  of  the  electoral  process  may  be  immediately  restored  
Petitions   made   by   the   COMELEC   need   not   be   in   the   name   of   the   for  the  sake  of  our  newly-­‐regained  democracy.”  
People   • The  COMELEC  en  banc  met  and  ordered  the  Law  Department  to  
  Under  the  Rules  of  Court,  the  proper  party  who  can  file   issue  the  proper  subpoenas  and  to  proceed  with  the  investigation  
a   petition   for   certiorari,   prohibition   or   mandamus   is   the   of   the   cases.   Individuals   invovled   in   the   cases   were   subpoena’d  
person   "aggrieved"   by   the   action   of   a   tribunal,   board   or   official   and  submitted  their  answers,  etc.    
because   such   action   was   taken   without   or   in   excess   of   jurisdiction   • However,  after  due  course,  the  COMELEC  en  banc  dismissed  the  
or  with  grave  abuse  of  discretion  or  in  willful  neglect  of  duty.   charges   all   on   the   ground   of   insufficiency   of   evidence   to   establish  
  This  is  not  the  first  time  the  COMELEC  has  come  to  the  SC   probable  cause.  
in   its   own   name   in   regard   to   an   action   taken   against   it   in   cases   filed   • KILOSBAYAN,   without   providing   additional   evidence   insisted  
by  it  in  the  lower  courts.   that  the  COMELEC  prosecute  upon  any,  even  meager,  information  
  In   this   case,   the   COMELEC   had   to   bring   this   suit   to   seek   of  alleged  commission  of  election  offenses.    
vindication  of  its  authority.  Naturally,  the  petition  has  to  be  brought  
in  its  name  as  the  "aggrieved"  party.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   64  
 
• KILOSBAYAN’s   MFR   of   the   dismisaal   was   denied,   where   the   CASE:    Faelnar  v  People  
COMELEC   stated   that   the   burden   of   proof   of   culpability   is     with   G.R.  Nos.  140850-­‐51.  May  4,  2000.*  
KILOSBAYAN.   EUGENIO   “JING-­‐JING”   FAELNAR,   petitioner,   vs.   PEOPLE   OF   THE  
• KILOSBAYAN   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   with   the   SC,   stating   PHILIPPINES,   HON.   RAMON   CODILLA,   in   his   capacity   as   Presiding   Judge   of  
that  COMELEC  committed  GAOD  in  refusing/neglecting  to  gather   the   RTC,   Branch   19,   Cebu   City,   and   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,  
respondents.  
more  evidence  against  the  respondents.  
   
FACTS:  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC’s   duty   to   prosecute   election   offenses  
includes  the  gathering  of  evidence,  etc.  NO   • Eugenio   ‘Jing-­‐jing’   Faelnar   was   a   Brgy   Chairman   candidate   in  
  Cebu   City   during   the   1997   barangay   elections.   From   April   9-­‐30,  
HELD:   he  held  a  ‘JING  JING  FAELNAR’s  CUP’  (basketball  tournament).    
COMELEC  mandate  to  ‘to  investigate  and  prosecute’  explained;   • He     (along   with   Gillamac   Appliances)   was   charged   with  
more  on  conducting  PI   electioneering   as   during   the   tournament   his   name   was   very  
  Insofar   as   the   prosecution   of   election   offenses   is   prominent  in  the  publicity  for  the  Liga;  he  gave  away  appliances  
concerned,  therefore,  the  Comelec  is  the  “public  prosecutor  with  the   in   a   raffle   etc.   As   his   defense,   Faelnar   claimed   that   the  
exclusive  authority  to  conduct  the  preliminary  investigation  and  the   tournament  was  a  purely  sporting  event  sponsored  by  Gillamac.    
prosecution   of   election   offenses   punishable   under   the   [Omnibus   • The  complaint  was  investigated  (conducted  PI)  by  election  officer  
Election]  Code  before  the  competent  court.”     Atty   Edwin   Cadungog,   who   recommended   the   dismissal   of   the  
  This  constitutional  and  statutory  mandate  for  the  Comelec   case.     On   the   other   hand,   the   COMELEC   Law   Department  
to   investigate   and   prosecute   cases   of   violation   of   election   laws   recommended  the  filing  of  a  case.  
translates,   in   effect,   to   the   exclusive   power   to   conduct   • The  COMELEC   en   banc   dismissed  the  case.  PR  Antonio  Luy  filed  
preliminary  investigations  in  cases  involving  election  offenses   a  MFR  and   the   en   banc   granted   it,   ordering   through    a  Resolution  
for   the   twin   purpose   of   filing   an   information   in   court   and   that   informations   be   charged   against   Faelnar.   Both   were  
helping  the  Judge  determine,  in  the  course  of  preliminary  inquiry,   eventually  charged  for  the  offense  with  the  RTC.  
whether  or  not  a  warrant  of  arrest  should  be  issued.   • Faelnar   claimed   that   the   Resolution   wherein   the   COMELEC   en  
  banc   dismissed   the   case   was   immediately   executory;   and   that   the  
Not  the  COMELEC’s  task  to  physically  search  and  gather  proof;   MFR   filed   by   Luy   was   a   prohibited   pleading,   and   thus   the  
complainant  still  has  burden  of  proof   COMELEC  erred  in  taking  cognizance  of  it.  
  The   contention   of   petitioner   Kilosbayan—that   it   is   the   • The   RTC   dismissed   his   motion   to   quash   (and   subsequent   MFR).  
Comelec   that   is   duty-­‐bound   to   search   for   evidence   to   prove   its   Faelnar   appealed   with   the   SC   a   petition   for   certiorari  seeking   to  
letter-­‐complaint—is  downright  erroneous.     annul  the  en  banc’s  Resolution.  
  The   task   of   the   Comelec   as   investigator   and   • Faelnar  further  claimed  that    
prosecutor,   acting   upon   any   election   offense   complaint,   is   not    
the   physical   searching   and   gathering   of   proof   in   support   of   a   ISSUE:  WON  Faelnar’s  appeal  with  the  SC  is  proper.  NO  
complaint   for   an   alleged   commission   of   an   election   offense.  A   WON  Luy’s  MFR  was  a  prohibited  pleading.  NO  
complainant,   who   in   effect   accuses   another   person   of   having   WON   the   en   banc’s   earlier   dismissal   of   the   case   was   final   and  
committed   an   act   constituting   an   election   offense,   has   the   burden,   executory.  NO  
as  it  is  his  responsibility,  to  follow  through  his  accusation  and  prove    
his   complaint.   If   the   complainant   fails   to   proffer   the   necessary   HELD:  
evidence   to   show   probable   cause,   notwithstanding   the   lack   of   A   motion   for   reconsideration   for   the   resolution   of   the  
denial   or   any   evidence   in   controversion,   of   the   accusation,   the   COMELEC   is   allowed   under   Rule   34,   Section   10   of   the   COMELEC  
complaint  must  be  dismissed,  since  any  person  accused  of  a  crime  is   Rules  of  Procedure.  
presumed  innocent  and  does  not  at  all  have  to  make  a  response  or     There  is  no  question  that  what  is  involved  is  a  resolution  
reaction  to  the  charges  against  him.   of  the  COMELEC  en  banc  in  an  election  offense.  Hence,  a  motion  for  
  reconsideration   of   such   resolution   is   allowed   under   the   Rules   of  
KILOSBAYAN’s  evidence  is  hearsay     Procedure  of  the  COMELEC.  
  No  matter  how  believable  a  story  may  be,  no  matter  how    
possible   it   could   really   have   been   that   an   organization   was   a   Faelnar’s  appeal  filed  out  of  time  
financial  conduit  for  criminal  elements  working  for  the  interests  of     A   judgment   or   final   order   or   resolution   of   the   Commission  
a   particular   candidate   in   the   1992   elections,   criminal   charges   on  Elections  may  be  brought  by  the  aggrieved  party  to  the  Supreme  
cannot   ever   be   sanctioned   by   mere   possibilities   or   coffee-­‐shop   Court  on  certiorari  under  Rule  65,  except  as  hereinafter  provided.  
rumors.   Although   only   a   low   quantum   and   quality   of   evidence   is     Sec.   3   of   said   Rule   provides   that   such   petition   shall   be  
needed  to  support  a  finding  of  probable  cause,  the  same  cannot  be   filed  within  30  days  from  notice  of  the  resolution  sought  to  be  
justified  upon  hearsay  evidence  that  is  never  given  any  evidentiary   reviewed.  No  such  petition  was  ever  filed.  The  present  petition  to  
or  probative  value  in  this  jurisdiction.   set   aside   the   orders   of   the   trial   court   denying   its   motion   to   quash  
  and   motion   for   reconsideration   was   filed   only   on   November   12,  
1999,   more   than   a   year   after   Resolution   No.   98-­‐2194   was  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   65  
 
promulgated   on   October   29,   1998.   Consequently,  the  resolution  is   Section   5.  Referral  for  Preliminary  Investigation.  -­‐   if  
now  final  and  binding  upon  the  parties.   the   complaint   is   initiated   motu   proprio   by   the  
  Commission,  or  is  filed  with  the  Commission  by  any  
En   Banc’s   Resolution   dismissing   the   case   against   him   was   not  
aggrieved   party,   it   shall   be   referred   to   the   Law  
final   and   executory;   Since   the   PI   was   conducted   by   COMELEC,   a  
MFR  is  allowed.    
Department   for   investigation.   Upon   direction   of  
  If  the  preliminary  investigation  of  a  complaint  for  election   the   Chairman   of   the   Commission,   the   preliminary  
offense  is  conducted  by  the  COMELEC  itself,  its  investigating  officer   investigation   may   be   delegated   to   any   lawyer   of   said  
prepares   a   report   upon   which   the   Commission’s   Law   Department   Department,   or   to   any   of   the   Regional   Election  
makes   its   recommendation   to   the   COMELEC   en   banc   on   whether   Directors   or   Provincial   Election   Supervisors,   or   any  
there   is   probable   cause   to   prosecute.   It   is   thus   the   COMELEC   en   lawyer  of  the  Commission.  
banc   which   determines   the   existence   of   probable   cause.    
Consequently,  an  appeal  to  the  Commission  is  unavailing.      
  Under   the   present   Rules   of   Procedure   of   the   COMELEC,   CASE:    Tiu  Laurel  v  RTC  
however,   a   motion   for   reconsideration   of   such   resolution   is   G.R.  No.  131778                      January  28,  2000  
allowed.   This   effectively   allows   for   a   review   of   the   original   HERMAN   TIU   LAUREL,   petitioner,   vs.   THE   HONORABLE   PRESIDING   JUDGE,  
REGIONAL   TRIAL   COURT   OF   MANILA,   BRANCH   10,   and   the   COMMISSION   ON  
resolution,   in   the   same   manner   that   the   COMELEC,   on   appeal   or   ELECTIONS,  respondents.  
motu   proprio,   may   review   the   resolution   of   the   State   Prosecutor,   or    
Provincial  or  City  Fiscal.   FACTS:  
  • In  1995,  Bernardo  Pardo  (the  Chairman  of  the    COMELEC)  sent  a  
Procedure  different  when  the  conduct  of  PI  is  delegated   verified   letter-­‐complaint   to   the   Law   Department.     This   letter-­‐
  In  cases  where  the  State  Prosecutor,  or  Provincial  or  City   complaint   stated   that   Herman   Tiu   Laurel   falsified   his   Certificate  
Fiscal   exercises   the   delegated   power   to   conduct   preliminary   of   Candidacy   (where   he   claimed   to   be   a   natural-­‐born   citizen)  
investigation  of  election  offense  cases,  after  the  investigating  officer   contrary  to  the  RPC  and  the  OEC.    
submits  his  recommendation,  said  officers  already  resolve  the  issue   • After   conducting   the   investigation,   the   Law   Dept   reommended  
of   probable   cause.   From   such   resolution,   appeal   to   the   COMELEC   the   filing   of   a   case   against   Laurel.   The   COMELEC   en   banc   later  
lies.   As   the   exercise   by   the   Commission   of   its   review   powers   would,   resolved  to  file    formal  charges.  
at   this   point,   already   constitute   a   second   look   on   the   issue   of   • Thus,   an   information   for   vioaltion   of   Sec.   74   in   relation   to   Sec.  
probable   cause,   the   COMELEC’s   ruling   on   the   appeal   would   be   262  of  the  OEC  was  filed  with   the   RTC.   The  information  was  filed  
immediately  final  and  executory.   by  Atty.  Balbuena  (Director  of  the  Law  Dept).  
  • Laurel   filed   a   Motion   to   Quash,   alleging   that   Atty.   Balbuena   had  
Process  if  delegated:   no   jurisdiction   and   authority   to   file   the   information.   The   RTC  
Prosecutor  conducts  PI  >  Prosecutor   submits  resolution  (PI  is   denied  to  quash.  
already   determined   at   this   stage)   >   appeal   to   COMELEC   >   • Laurel   appealed   to   the   CA.   The   CA   upheld   the   propriety   of   the  
COMELEC  finding  will  be  final  and  executory  >  certiorari   proceedings  against  Laurel.  The  CA  also  denied  Laurel’s  MFR.    
  • In  this  petition  for  certiorari   with  the  SC,  Laurel  claimed  that  the  
  On   the   other   hand,   if   the   preliminary   investigation   of   a   complaint  was  void  as  it  was  not  initiated  in  accordance  with  the  
complaint  for  election  offense  is  conducted  by  the  COMELEC  itself,   law   and   rules.   He   claimed   that   the   the   complaint   filed   by   Pardo  
its   investigating   officer   prepares   a   report   upon   which   the   was   not   in   the   nature   of   a   motu   proprio   complaint   filed   by   the  
Commission’s   Law   Department   makes   its   recommendation   to   the   COMELEC  since  Pardo,  by  himself  alone,  was  not  the  COMELEC.    
COMELEC  en  banc  on  whether  there  is  probable  cause  to  prosecute.  
• Laurel   also   argues   that   a   Resolution   by   the   COMELEC   en   banc  
It  is  thus  the  COMELEC  en  banc  which  determines  the  existence  of  
was   necessary   before   a   complaint   may   be   referred   to   the   Law  
probable   cause.   Consequently,   an   appeal   to   the   Commission   is  
department.   Thus,   Pardo   as   a   private   citizen   did   not   have   the  
unavailing.  Under  the  present  Rules  of  Procedure  of  the  COMELEC,  
authority  to  directly  file  the  complaint  with  the  Law  Dept.  Laurel  
however,   a   motion   for   reconsideration   of   such   resolution   is  
claims   that   even   though   the   COMELEC   en   banc   issued   a  
allowed.   This   effectively   allows   for   a   review   of   the   original  
resolution   to   file   formal   charges   against   him,   the   same   does   not  
resolution,   in   the   same   manner   that   the   COMELEC,   on   appeal   or  
cure  the  preceding  irregularities.  
motu   proprio,   may   review   the   resolution   of   the   State   Prosecutor,   or  
• Finally,   Laurel   claims   that   he   cannot   expect   the   COMELEC   to   be  
Provincial  or  City  Fiscal.  
fair   in   adjudicating   the   case,   as   it   was   initiated   by   the   Chairman  
 
himself.  Laurel  prays  that  the  entirety  of  COMELEC  should  inhibit  
Process  if  conducted  by  COMELEC:    
itself  from  the  case.  lol  
Investigating   officer   prepares   report   >   Law   Dept   makes   a  
 
recommendation  on  finding  of  PI  to  en  banc  >  PC  is  determined  
ISSUE:   WON   the   complaint   against   Laurel   was   properly   initiated.  
by   en   banc   (first   instance   where   PC   is   determined)   >   may   be  
YES  
subject  of  MFR  >  certiorari  
 
 
 
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   66  
 
HELD:   COMELEC  cannot  inhibit  itself  
Two  ways  a  complaint  is  initiated  with  the  COMELEC:       There   may   be   evidence   that   the   relations   between  
(1) it   may   be   filed   by   the   COMELEC   motu   propio.   Motu   petitioner   and   Chairman   Pardo   are   not   exactly   cordial.  
propio   complaints   may   be   signed   by   the   Chairman   of   However,   this   should   not   detract   from   the   validity   of   the  
the  COMELEC  and  need  not  be  verified.       preliminary  investigation  and  corresponding  Information  filed  
(2) it   may   be   filed   via   written   complaint   by   any   citizen   of   against   the  petitioner,  for  two  (2)  important  reasons:  First,  the  
the   Philippines,   candidate,   registered   political   party,   records   will   readily   support   the   conclusion   that   there   is  
coalition   of   political   parties   or   organizations   under   the   sufficient   evidentiary   basis   to   at   least   find   probable   cause   to  
party-­‐list   system   or   any   accredited   citizen   arms   of   the   indict   the   petitioner   for   violation   of   the   Omnibus   Election  
commission.   But   those   complaints   filed   by   parties   other   Code;  and  second,  it  also  appears  from  the  records  that,  apart  
than   the   COMELEC   must   be   verified   and   supported   by   from  directing  the  Law  Department  to  launch  an  investigation,  
affidavits  and  other  evidence.     Chairman  Pardo  had  no  other  participation  in  the  proceedings  
    which  led  to  the  filing  of  the  Information.  
  But   in   both   cases,   the     complaint   shall   be   referred   to   the     The   entire   COMELEC   cannot   possibly   be   restrained  
COMELEC   Law   Department   for   investigation.   Upon   direction   of   from   investigating   the   complaint   filed   against   Laurel,   as  
the  Chairman,  the  preliminary  investigation  may  be  delegated   the   latter   would   like   the   courts   to   do.   The   COMELEC   is  
to   any   lawyer   of   the   Department,   any   Regional   Election   mandated   by   no   less   than   the   Constitution   to   investigate   and  
Director   or   Provincial   Election   Supervisor,   or   any   COMELEC   prosecute,   when   necessary,   violations   of   election   laws.   This  
lawyer.   power  is  lodged  exclusively  with  the  COMELEC.  For  the  entire  
  Commission   to   inhibit   itself   from   investigating   the   complaint  
What  is  the  nature  of  Pardo’s  complaint?  Complaint  by  private   against   petitioner   would   be   nothing   short   of   an   abandonment  
citizen   of   its   mandate   under   the   Constitution   and   the   Omnibus  
The   Court   found   that   Pardo’s   complaint   was   filed   in   his   Election  Code.  This  we  cannot  allow.    
personal  capacity.  This  is  obvious  from  the  opening  sentence  of    
the  complaint,  which  starts  with  "I  hereby  charge.  .  ."  It  is  also    
manifest   in   the   verification   of   the   complaint   in   which   Pardo    
stated   that   he   is   the   complainant   therein.   The   fact   that   the   CASE:    BANAT  Partylist  v  COMELEC  
complaint  was  verified  is  another  indication  that  it  was  filed  by   G.R.  No.  177508                              August  7,  2009  
a  private  citizen,  for  only  such  complaints  require  verification.   BARANGAY   ASSOCIATION   FOR   NATIONAL   ADVANCEMENT   AND   TRANSPARENCY  
  (BANAT)   PARTY-­‐LIST,   represented   by   SALVADOR   B.   BRITANICO,   Petitioner,     vs.  
COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  Respondent.  
No   such   requirement   that   only   the   en   banc   may   refer   a  
 
complaint   to   the   Law   Dept,   private   citizen   may   file   directly  
FACTS:  
with  Law  Dept.  
• In   January   2007   (less   than   4   months   before   the   2007   local  
  The   Court   was   bewildered   by   this   allegation   because   this  
elections),   RA   9369   was   signed   into   law.   It   took   effect   on  
does  not  appear  in  the  Rules  at  all.  What  Section  5  states  only  is  
February  2007.  
that   it   is   the   Law   Department,   not   another   office,   of   the  
• One  week  before  the  elections,  BANAT  (accredited  multi-­‐sectoral  
COMELEC   which   may   conduct   an   investigation   into   the  
organization)   filed     a   petition   for   prohibition,   seeking   to   enjoin  
allegations   in   the   complaint.   There   is   no   specific  
COMELEC   from   implementing   the   statutes   as   several   of   its  
requirement  as  to  how  referral  to  the  department  shall  be  
amendments  were  allegedly  unconstitutional.  
made.    
  Thus,   the   Court   found   that   a   private   citizen   may   file   a   • One  of  the  assailed  provisions  was  Section  43,  which  removed  the  
complaint   directly   with   the   Law   Department,   as   Section   5   does   word   ‘exclusive’   to   describe   the   COMELEC’s   powers   to   conduct  
not  distinguish.   PI.  
  • BANAT  alleges  that  Section  43  is  unconstitutional  because  it  gives  
Sec.   5   refers   to   two   situations,   one   of   which   is   where   a   the  other  prosecuting  arms  of  the  government  concurrent  power  
complaint   filed   by   a   party   other   than   the   COMELEC   is   with  the  COMELEC  to  investigate  and  prosecute  election  offenses.  
addressed   to   the   Commission   itself.   Since   it   is   not   the   entire   They   claim   that   under   Section   265   of   the   OEC,   this   power   was  
Commission   that   conducts   the   preliminary   investigation,   the   exclusive  to  the  COMELEC.  
complaint   must   necessarily   be   referred   to   its   Law   Department.    
Under   the   rules,   this   department   is   tasked   with   conducting   ISSUE:  WON  Section  43  of  RA  9369  is  constitutional.  YES  
preliminary   investigations   of   complaints   filed   before   the    
COMELEC.     HELD:  
  Where,   as   in   this   case,   the   complaint   was   directly   filed   COMELEC’s   ‘exclusive’   power   was   granted   not   by   the  
with  the  Law  Department  under  Section  4  of  Rule  34,  obviously   Constitution  but  by  a  statute,  which  means  it  may  be  amended  
there   is   no   need   to   refer   such   complaint   to   the   same   Law   by  the  Legislature  
Department.     Section   2(6),   Article   IX-­‐C   of   the   Constitution   vests   in   the  
  COMELEC   the   power   to   "investigate   and,   where   appropriate,  
prosecute   cases   of   violations   of   election   laws,   including   acts   or  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   67  
 
omissions  constituting  election  frauds,  offenses,  and  malpractices."   FACTS:  
This   was   an   important   innovation   introduced   by   the   Constitution   • In  2011,  the  COMELEC  and  the  DOJ  issued  Joint  Order  001-­‐2011  
because  this  provision  was  not  in  the  1935  or  1973  Constitutions.   which   created   the   Joint   Panel   (which   consisted   of   a   Joint  
  The   phrase   "[w]here   appropriate"   leaves   to   the   Committee   and   a   Fact-­‐finding   Team)   to   investigate   election   fraud  
legislature   the   power   to   determine   the   kind   of   election   cases  during  the  04/07  elections.    
offenses   that   the   COMELEC   shall   prosecute   exclusively   or   Fact   Finding   Team   –   task   with   gathering   real,   documentary,  
concurrently  with  other  prosecuting  arms  of  the  government.   and   testimonial   evidence   which   can   be   utilized   in   the  
  preliminary   investigation   to   be   conducted   by   the   Joint  
  It   is   clear   that   the   grant   of   the   "exclusive   power"   to   Committee.  (FFT)  
investigate   and   prosecute   election   offenses   to   the   COMELEC   was   Joint   Committee   -­‐   mandated   to   conduct   the   necessary  
not   by   virtue   of   the   Constitution   but   by   BP   881,   a   legislative   preliminary  investigation  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence  gathered  
enactment.  If  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  were   and  the  charges  recommended  by  the  Fact-­‐Finding  Team.  (JC)  
to   give   the   COMELEC   the   "exclusive   power"   to   investigate   and   • Pursuant  to  the  Joint  Order,  the  Joint  Committee  promulgated  its  
prosecute   election   offenses,   the   framers   would   have   expressly   so   Rules  of  Procedure.    
stated  in  the  Constitution.  They  did  not.   • In  October  of  2011,  the  FFT  recommended  that  Benjamin  Abalos  
  and   GMA   be   subjected   to   PI   for   electoral   sabotage   in   North   and  
Assistance   by   other   prosecutorial   arms   are   actually   beneficial   So.   Cotabato,   Maguindanao.   Further   investigation   was   also  
to  COMELEC   recommended  against  Mike  Arroyo.  
  In   People   v.   Basilla,   we   acknowledged   that   without   the   • Later,   Sen.   Pimentel   filed   a   complaint-­‐affidavit   the   petitioners  
assistance  of  provincial  and  city  fiscals  and  their  assistants  and  staff   for  electoral  sabotage.    The  JC  issued  subpoenas  against  them.  
members,   and   of   the   state   prosecutors   of   the   Department   of   Justice,   • Mike  Arroyo  filed  petitions  for  certiorari  and  prohibition  with  the  
the   prompt   and   fair   investigation   and   prosecution   of   election   SC  assailing  the  creation  of  the  Joint  Panel.  
offenses  committed  before  or  in  the  course  of  nationwide  elections   • Meanwhile,   GMA   filed   an   Omnibus   Motion   ad   Cautelam   with   the  
would  simply  not  be  possible.     JC,  asking  Pimentel  to  furnish  her  with  the  evidence  used  as  basis  
  In   COMELEC   v.   Español,   we   also   stated   that   enfeebled   by   for  the  charge.  She  further  asked  that  she  be  allowed  to  submit  a  
lack  of  funds  and  the  magnitude  of  its  workload,  the  COMELEC  did   couter-­‐affidavit   within   10   days   of   examining   Pimentel’s   evidence.  
not   have   a   sufficient   number   of   legal   officers   to   conduct   such   This  motion  was  denied  by  the  JC.  GMA  filed  a  MFR.  
investigation   and   to   prosecute   such   cases.   The   prompt   • The   JC   later   promulgated   a   Joint  Resolution  that   was   indorsed  to  
investigation,   prosecution,   and   disposition   of   election   offenses   the   COMELEC.   Thus,   the   COMELEC   en   banc   promulgated   a  
constitute   an   indispensable   part   of   the   task   of   securing   free,   Resolution  resolving   to   file   an   information   for   electoral   sabotage  
orderly,  honest,  peaceful,  and  credible  elections.   against   GMA   and   Abalos.   It   resolved   to   dismiss   the   charges  
  Thus,  given  the  plenary  power  of  the  legislature  to  amend   against   Mike   Arroyo   for   insufficient   evidence.   (COMELEC   en  
or  repeal  laws,  if  Congress  passes  a  law  amending  Section  265  of  BP   banc  found  probable  cause)  
881,  such  law  does  not  violate  the  Constitution.   • An   information   was   filed   against   GMA,   Andal   Ampatuan   and  
   
others.  A  warrant  of  arrest  against  GMA  was  also  served  the  same  
 
day.  
 
• GMA  filed  with  the  RTC  an  Urgent  Omnibus  Motion  Ad  Cautelam  
CASE:    Arroyo  v  DOJ   with   leave   to   allow   the   Joint   Committee   to   resolve   the   motion   for  
G.R.  No.  199082                              July  23,  2013  
JOSE  MIGUEL  T.  ARROYO,  Petitioner,    vs.  DEPARTMENT  OF  JUSTICE;  COMMISSION   reconsideration   filed   by   GMA,   to   defer   issuance   of   a   warrant   of  
ON   ELECTIONS;   HON.   LEILA   DE   LIMA,   in   her   capacity   as   Secretary   of   the   arrest   and   a   hold   departure   order,   and   to   proceed   to   judicial  
Department   of   Justice;   HON.   SIXTO   BRILLANTES,   JR.,   in   his   capacity   as   determination  of  probable  cause.  
Chairperson   of   the   Commission   on   Elections;   and   the   JOINT   DOJ-­‐COMELEC  
PRELIMINARY   INVESTIGATION   COMMITTEE   and   FACT-­‐FINDING   TEAM,  
• The   RTC   dismissed   GMA’s   petitions.   While   it   held   that   the   JC’s  
Respondents.   Rules   were   ineffective  due   to   lack   of   publication,   it   held   that   the  
  JC’s  conduct  of  PI  was  valid.    
G.R.  No.  199085  
• Thus,  the  parties  appealed  to  the  SC.  Arroyo  claims  that  the  DOJ  
BENJAMIN   S.   ABALOS,   SR.,   Petitioner,     vs.   HON.   LEILA   DE   LIMA,   in   capacity   as  
Secretary  of  Justice;  HON.  SIXTO  S.  BRILLANTES,  JR.,  in  his  capacity  as  COMELEC   may  only  conduct  PI  when  it  is  so  deputized  by  the  COMELEC  (no  
Chairperson;   RENE   V.   SARMIENTO,   LUCENITO   N.   TAGLE,   ARMANDO   V.   VELASCO,   concurrent  jurisdiction).  They  claim  that  the  creation  of  the  Joint  
ELIAS  R.  YUSOPH,  CHRISTIAN  ROBERT  S.  LIM  AND  AUGUSTO  C.  LAGMAN,  in  their   Panel   undermined   the   independence   of   the   COMELEC.    
capacity   as   COMELEC   COMMISSIONERS;   CLARO   A.   ARELLANO,   GEORGE   C.   DEE,  
JACINTO  G.  ANG,  ROMEO  B.  FORTES  AND  MICHAEL  D.  VILLARET,  in  their  capacity  
Furthermore,   Arroyo   claims   that   under   COMELEC   Resolution  
as   CHAIRPERSON   AND   MEMBERS,   RESPECTIVELY,   OF   THE   JOINT   DOJ-­‐COMELEC   3467,  the  COMELEC  has  to  supervise  the  conduct  of  PI.    
PRELIMINARY   INVESTIGATION   COMMITTEE   ON   THE   2004   AND   2007   ELECTION   • The   DOJ   in   its   defense,   claims   that   the   JP   and   JC   did   not  
FRAUD,  Respondents.  
 
undermine  COMELEC  as  it  was  still  the  COMELEC  that  ultimately  
G.R.  No.  199118   determines  probable  cause.  
GLORIA   MACAPAGAL-­‐ARROYO,   Petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,    
represented   by   Chairperson   Sixto   S.   Brillantes,   Jr.,   DEPARTMENT   OF   JUSTICE,   ISSUE:   WON   the   creation   of   the   Joint   Panel/Committee   is  
represented   by   Secretary   Leila   M.   De   Lima,   JOINT   DOJ-­‐COMELEC   PRELIMINARY  
INVESTIGATION   COMMITTEE,   SENATOR   AQUILINO   M.   PIMENTEL   III,   and   DOJ-­‐ constitutional.  YES  
COMELEC  FACT  FINDING  TEAM,  Respondents.    
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   68  
 
HELD:   agency   that   first   takes   cognizance   of   the   complaint   shall   exercise  
The  investigative  power  of  COMELEC  is  not  exclusive  to  it:     jurisdiction  to  the  exclusion  of  the  others.  
  As  held  in  BANAT  v  COMELEC,    Section  43  of  9369  (which    
removed   the   word   ‘exclusive’   to   describe   the   COMELEC’s   PI  proper  as  only  one  body  conducted  it  
prosecutorial   power)   was   valid.   While   recognizing   the   Comelec’s     The   Comelec   and   the   DOJ   themselves   agreed   that   they  
exclusive   power   to   investigate   and   prosecute   cases   under   Batas   would   exercise   their   concurrent   jurisdiction   jointly.   Although   the  
Pambansa   Bilang   881   or   the   Omnibus   Election   Code,   the   Court   preliminary   investigation   was   conducted   on   the   basis   of   two  
pointed  out  that  the  framers  of  the  1987  Constitution  did  not  have   complaints   –   the   initial   report   of   the   Fact-­‐Finding   Team   and  
such  intention.  This  exclusivity  is  thus  a  legislative  enactment  that   the  complaint  of  Senator  Pimentel  –  both  complaints  were  filed  
can   very   well   be   amended   by   Section   43   of   RA   9369.   Therefore,   with   the   Joint   Committee.   Consequently,   the   complaints   were  
under   the   present   law,   the   Comelec   and   other   prosecuting   filed  with  and  the  preliminary  investigation  was  conducted  by  
arms   of   the   government,   such   as   the   DOJ,   now   exercise   only   one   investigative   body.  Thus,  we  find  no  reason  to  disallow  
concurrent  jurisdiction  in  the  investigation  and  prosecution  of   the   exercise   of   concurrent   jurisdiction   jointly   by   those   given   such  
election  offenses.   authority.   This   is   especially   true   in   this   case   given   the   magnitude   of  
  the   crimes   allegedly   committed   by   petitioners.   The   joint  
Creation  of  JC  valid  as  it  was  during  the  effectivity  of  RA  9369   preliminary   investigation   also   serves   to   maximize   the   resources  
  The   assailed   Joint   Order   were   issued   during   the   effectivity   and   manpower   of   both   the   Comelec   and   the   DOJ   for   the   prompt  
of   Section   43   of   RA   9369,   giving   the   Comelec   and   other   prosecuting   disposition  of  the  cases.  
arms   of   the   government   the   concurrent   jurisdiction   to   investigate    
and   prosecute   election   offenses.   In   Comelec   Resolution   No.   3467,    
the   Comelec   maintained   the   continuing   deputation   of   prosecutors   POWER  TO  DEPUTIZE  
and   the   Comelec   Law   Department   was   tasked   to   supervise   the  
 
investigatory  and  prosecutory  functions  of  the  task  force  pursuant  
Article  IX-­‐C,  Section  2(4):  
to   the   mandate   of   the   Omnibus   Election   Code.   However,   with   the  
  The   Commission   on   Elections   shall   exercise   the  
amendment,   the   Comelec   likewise   changed   the   tenor   of   the   later  
following  powers  and  functions:  
resolutions   to   reflect   the   new   mandate   of   the   Comelec   and   other  
Xxx  
prosecuting   arms   of   the   government   now   exercising   concurrent  
 
jurisdiction.  
4. Deputize,   with   the   concurrence   of   the   President,   law  
  Considering,  therefore,  that  the  later  resolutions,  including  
enforcement   agencies   and   instrumentalities   of   the  
Joint  Order  No.  001-­‐2011,  were  issued  pursuant  to  Section  43  of  RA  
Government,   including   the   Armed   Forces   of   the  
9369   amending   Section   265   of   BP   881   which   was   declared  
Philippines,   for   the   exclusive   purpose   of   ensuring  
"constitutional"   in   Banat,   there   is   no   reason   for   us   to   declare  
free,  orderly,  honest,  peaceful,  and  credible  elections.    
otherwise.   To   maintain   the   previous   role   of   other   prosecuting   arms  
 
of  the  government  as  mere  deputies  despite  the  amendment  would  
Xxx  
mean   challenging   Section   43   of   RA   9369   anew   which   has   already  
 
been  settled  in  Banat.  
8.           Recommend   to   the   President   the   removal   of   any  
 
officer  or  employee  it  has  deputized  or  the  imposition  
Note:   Arroyo  cannot  invoke  resolution  3467  as  it  was  promulgated  
of   any   other   disciplinary   action,   for   violation   or  
during  the  effectivity  of  COMELEC’s  exclusive  powers  under  Section  
disregard  of,  or  disobedience  to  its  directive,  order,  or  
265  of  the  OEC.  
decision.  
 
 
Concurrent  jurisdiction  explained  
 
  The  creation  of  a  Joint  Committee  is  not  repugnant  to  the  
UNDER  THE  OMNIBUS  ELECTION  CODE  
concept  of  "concurrent  jurisdiction"  authorized  by  the  amendatory  
 
law.    
Section  52,  Article  VII,  of  the  Omnibus  Election  Code:  
  The   doctrine   of   concurrent   jurisdiction   means   equal  
 
jurisdiction   to   deal   with   the   same   subject   matter.   Contrary   to   the  
Sec.   52.   Powers   and   functions   of   the   Commission   on  
contention   of   the   petitioners,   there   is   no   prohibition   on  
Elections.   —   In   addition   to   the   powers   and   functions  
simultaneous  exercise  of  power  between  two  coordinate  bodies.    
conferred   upon   it   by   the   Constitution,   the   Commission  
  What   is   prohibited   is   the   situation   where   one   files   a  
shall   have   exclusive   charge   of   the   enforcement   and  
complaint  against  a  respondent  initially  with  one  office  (such  as  the  
administration   of   all   laws   relative   to   the   conduct   of  
Comelec)   for   preliminary   investigation   which   was   immediately  
elections   for   the   purpose   of   insuring   free,   orderly   and  
acted  upon  by  said  office  and  the  re-­‐filing  of  substantially  the  same  
honest  elections,  and  shall:  
complaint   with   another   office   (such   as   the   DOJ).   The   subsequent  
 
assumption  of  jurisdiction  by  the  second  office  over  the  cases  filed  
a. Exercise   direct   and   immediate   supervision   and  
will   not   be   allowed.   Indeed,   it   is   a   settled   rule   that   the   body   or  
control   over   national   and   local   officials   or  
employees,   including   members   of   any   national   or  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   69  
 
local  law  enforcement  agency  and  instrumentality  of   local   law   enforcement   agency   and   instrumentality   of   the  
the   government   required   by   law   to   perform   duties   government,   required   by   law   to   perform   duties   relative   to   the  
relative   to   the   conduct   of   elections.   In   addition,   it   conduct   of   elections.   In   order   to   help   ensure   that   such   duly  
may  authorize  CMP  Cadets  eighteen  years  of  age  and   deputized   officials   and   employees   of   government   carry   out   their  
above   to   act   as   its   deputies   for   the   purpose   of   respective   assigned   tasks,   the   law   has   also   provided   that   upon   the  
enforcing  its  orders.   COMELEC's   recommendation,   the   corresponding   proper   authority  
  (the  Secretary  of  the  Department  of  Justice  in  the  case  at  bar)  shall  
  The   Commission   may   relieve   any   officer   or   take  appropriate  action,  either  to  suspend  or  remove  from  office  the  
employee   referred   to   in   the   preceding   paragraph   officer  or  employee  who  may,  after  due  process,  be  found  guilty  of  
from   the   performance   of   his   duties   relating   to   violation   of   election   laws   or   failure   to   comply   with   instructions,  
electoral  processes  who  violates  the  election  law  or   orders,  decision  or  rulings  of  the  COMELEC.  
fails   to   comply   with   its   instructions,   orders,     The   COMELEC   should   conduct   the   administrative  
decisions   or   rulings,   and   appoint   his   substitute.   inquiry,     as   it   is   in   the   best   position   to   assess   how   its   deputized  
Upon   recommendation   of   the   Commission,   the   officials   and   employees   perform   or   have   performed   in   their  
corresponding  proper  authority  shall  suspend  or   duties.  To  say  that  the  COMELEC  is  without  jurisdiction  to  look  into  
remove   from   office   any   or   all   of   such   officers   or   charges   of   election   offenses   committed   by   officials   and   employees  
employees  who  may,  after  due  process,  be  found   of   government   outside   the   regular   employ   of   the   COMELEC   would  
guilty  of  such  violation  or  failure.   be   to   unduly   deny   to   it   the   proper   and   sound   exercise   of   such  
  recommendatory   power   and,   perhaps   more   than   that,   even   a  
  possible   denial   of   due   process   to   the   official   or   employee  
CASE:    Tan  v  COMELEC   concerned.  
G.R.  No.  112093  October  4,  1994    
ANTONIO   V.A.   TAN,   petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   RUSTICO   T.  
ILAGAN,   Regional   Election   Director,   Commission   on   Elections,   Region   XI,   Davao  
COMELEC  administrative  remedies  merely  recommendatory  
City,  and  SENFORIANO  B.  ALTERADO,  respondents.     Observe,   nevertheless,   that   the   COMELEC   merely   may  
  issue   a   recommendation   for   disciplinary   action   but   that   it   is   the  
FACTS:   executive   department   to   which   the   charged   official   or   employee  
• Antonio  Tan  was  the  incumbent  City  Prosecutor  of  Davao  City.  In   belongs   which   has   the   ultimate   authority   to   impose   the   disciplinary  
1992,   he   was   designated   by   the   COMELEC   to   be   the   Vice-­‐ penalty.  The  law  then  does  not  detract  from,  but  is  congruent  with,  
chairman  of  the  City  BOC  for  the  1992  elections.     the   general   administrative   authority   of   the   department   of  
• On   the   basis   of   the   CBOC’s   canvass,   Manuel   Garcia   was   government  concerned  over  its  own  personnel.  
proclaimed  the  Representative  of  the  2nd  District.  Loser  Alterado    
filed   several   cases   in   various   forums   (which   were   later   dismissed   Dismissals   of   Alterado’s   complaints     in   other   forums   do   not  
by  the  HRET  and  the  Ombudsman).       automatically  exonerate  the  CBOC  
• This   includedan   Administrative   case   filed   with   the   COMELEC     The   proceedings   filed   by   Alterado   with   the   Ombudsman  
against  the  CBOC,  including  Tan,  for  misconduct,  neglect  of  duty,   and   the   the   inquiry   into   the   administrative   charges   by   the  
gross  incompetence  and  acts  inimical  to  service.   COMELEC,  on  the  other  hand,  are  entirely  independent  proceedings.  
• Tan  moved  to  dismiss  the  complaint,  claiming  that  the  COMELEC   Neither   would   the   results   in   one   conclude   the   other.   Thus,   an  
had   no   jurisdiction   over   him.   Tan   avers   that   he   is   within   the   absolution   from   a   criminal   charge   is   not   a   bar   to   an  
administrative  jurisdiction  of  the  Department  of  Justice.     administrative  prosecution.  
• Tan   claims   that   while   he   is   a   deputy   of   the   COMELEC,   the     So,   also,   the   dismissal   by   the   COMELEC   of   Alterado’s  
COMELEC’s   power   over   him   does   not   include   administrative   complaint   on   the   ground   that   the   case   constituted   an   electoral  
disciplinary   jurisdiction.   To   allow   COMELEC   such   jurisdiction,   protest  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  HRET  and  not  of  the  COMELEC  
Tan  claims,  is  encroachment.     (affirmed   by   this   Court   in   G.R.   No.   106452)   does   not   necessarily  
  foreclosure   the   matter   of   possible   liability,   if   warranted,   of   those  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   has   administrative   jurisdiction   over   who  might  have  improperly  acted  in  the  canvass  of  votes.  
Tan.  YES    
   
HELD:    
 
Charge   against   Tan   in   relation   to   his   duties   as   election  
canvasser,  thus  under  COMELEC’s  jurisdiction  
  It   should   be   stressed   that   the   administrative   case   against  
petitioner,   taken   cognizance   of   by,   and   still   pending   with,   the  
COMELEC,  is  in  relation  to  the  performance  of  his  duties  as  an  
election  canvasser  and  not  as  a  city  prosecutor.    
  The  COMELEC's  mandate  includes  its  authority  to  exercise  
direct   and   immediate   supervision   and   control   over   national   and  
local   officials   or   employees,   including   members   of   any   national   or  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   70  
 
SET  9  –  FAILURE  OF  ELECTIONS     1. Verified  petition  by  any  interested  party  after  due  notice  
and  hearing  
   
UNDER  THE  OMNIBUS  ELECTION  CODE   C. Scenarios  when  failure  to  elect  may  arise  
   
Section   5   Postponement  of  election.  -­‐  When  for  any  serious  cause   1. When   the   election   in   any   polling   place   has   not   been   held   –  
such   as   violence,   terrorism,   loss   or   destruction   of   election   BEFORE  VOTING  
paraphernalia   or   records,   force   majeure,   and   other   analogous   2. When   the   election   has   been   suspended   before   closing   –  
causes   of   such   a   nature   that   the   holding   of   a   free,   orderly   and   VOTING  HAS  BEGUN  BUT  DID  NOT  FINISH  
honest   election   should   become   impossible   in   any   political   3. After   the   voting   and   during   the   preparation   and  
subdivision,   the   Commission,   motu   proprio   or   upon   a   verified   transmission  of  ERs  /  canvass  –  VOTING  HAS  FINISHED  
petition   by   any   interested   party,   and   after   due   notice   and   hearing,    
whereby  all  interested  parties  are  afforded  equal  opportunity  to  be   Section  7  Call  of  special  election.  -­‐    
heard,  shall  postpone  the  election  therein  to  a  date  which  should  be   (1) In   case   a   vacancy   arises   in   the   Batasang   Pambansa  
reasonably  close  to  the  date  of  the  election  not  held,  suspended  or   eighteen   months   or   more   before   a   regular   election,   the  
which   resulted   in   a   failure   to   elect   but   not   later   than   thirty   days   Commission   shall   call   a   special   election   to   be   held   within  
after   the   cessation   of   the   cause   for   such   postponement   or   sixty  days  after  the  vacancy  occurs  to  elect  the  Member  to  
suspension  of  the  election  or  failure  to  elect.   serve  the  unexpired  term.  
  (2) In   case   of   the   dissolution   of   the   Batasang   Pambansa,   the  
A. Causes:     President   shall   call   an   election   which   shall   not   be   held  
 Violence   Force  majeure   earlier   than   forty-­‐five   nor   later   than   sixty   days   from   the  
 Terrorism   Other  analogous  causes   date  of  such  dissolution.  
 Loss/destruction  of  election        
paraphernalia/records   The   Commission   shall   send   sufficient   copies   of   its   resolution   for   the  
  holding   of   the   election   to   its   provincial   election   supervisors   and  
B. Postponement,  how  initiated:   election  registrars  for  dissemination,  who  shall  post  copies  thereof  
1. Motu  proprio   in   at   least   three   conspicuous   places   preferably   where   public  
2. Upon  verified  motion  by  any  interested  party   meetings  are  held  in  each  city  or  municipality  affected.  
   
C. Date  of  postponement   UNDER  RA  7166    
1. Should  be  reasonably  close  to  the  date  of  election  not    
held   Section   4.   Postponement,   Failure   of   Election   and   Special  
2. But  not  later  than  30  days  after  cessation  of  cause   Elections.   -­‐   The   postponement,   declaration   of   failure   of  
  election   and   the   calling   of   special   elections   as   provided   in  
Section   6   Failure   of   election.   -­‐   If,   on   account   of   force   majeure,   Sections   5,   6   and   7   of   the   Omnibus   Election   Code   shall   be  
violence,   terrorism,   fraud,   or   other   analogous   causes   the   election   in   decided   by   the   Commission   sitting   en   banc   by   a   majority  
any   polling   place   has   not   been   held   on   the   date   fixed,   or   had   been   vote  of  its  members.  The  causes  for  the  declaration  of  a  failure  
suspended  before  the  hour  fixed  by  law  for  the  closing  of  the  voting,   of  election  may  occur  before  or  after  the  casting  of  votes  or  on  
or  after  the  voting  and  during  the  preparation  and  the  transmission   the  day  of  the  election.    
of   the   election   returns   or   in   the   custody   or   canvass   thereof,   such    
election   results   in   a   failure   to   elect,   and   in   any   of   such   cases   the   In  case  a  permanent  vacancy  shall  occur  in  the  Senate  or  House  
failure   or   suspension   of   election   would   affect   the   result   of   the   of  Representatives  at  least  one  (1)  year  before  the  expiration  of  
election,   the   Commission   shall,   on   the   basis   of   a   verified   petition   by   the  term,  the  Commission  shall  call  and  hold  a  special  election  to  
any   interested   party   and   after   due   notice   and   hearing,   call   for   the   fill  the  vacancy  not  earlier  than  sixty  (60)  days  nor  longer  than  
holding   or   continuation   of   the   election   not   held,   suspended   or   ninety  (90)  days  after  the  occurrence  of  the  vacancy.  However,  
which   resulted   in   a   failure   to   elect   on   a   date   reasonably   close   to   the   in   case   of   such   vacancy   in   the   Senate,   the   special   election   shall  
date   of   the   election   not   held,   suspended   or   which   resulted   in   a   be  held  simultaneously  with  the  succeeding  regular  election.  
failure   to   elect   but   not   later   than   thirty   days   after   the   cessation   of    
the   cause   of   such   postponement   or   suspension   of   the   election   or    
failure  to  elect.   When   may   the   COMELEC   act   on   a   verified   petition   seeking   to  
  declare  FOE?    
A. Causes:     When  two  requisites  concur:  
 Force  majeure   Fraud   1. No   voting   has   taken   place   in   the   precincts   concerned   on  
 Violence   Other  analogous  causes   the   date   fixed   by   law   or,   even   if   there   was   voting,   the  
  election  nevertheless  resulted  in  a  failure  to  elect  
B. DFOE,  how  initiated:   2. the  votes  not  cast  would  affect  the  result  of  the  election  
      (Typoco  v  COMELEC)  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   71  
 
  CASE:  CANICOSA  V  COMELEC  
PROCEDURE  UNDER  RULE  26   G.R.  No.  120318.  December  5,  1997.*  
RICARDO   “BOY”   CANICOSA,  petitioner,  vs.  COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   MUNICIPAL   BOARD   OF  
  CANVASSERS  OF  CALAMBA,  LAGUNA  and  SEVERINO  LAJARA,  respondents.  
Section   3.   Motu   Proprio   Postponement.   -­‐   When   the   Commission    
acts  motu  proprio,  notices  of  hearing  must  be  sent  to  all  interested   FACTS:  
parties  by  the  fastest  means  available.   • Canicosa   and   Lajara   were   mayoralty   candidates   in   Calamba,  
  Laguna   during   the   1995   elections   where   Lajara   was   proclaimed  
Section   4.   When  Based  Upon  a  Verified  Petition.  -­‐  Unless  a  shorter   by  the  MBOC.    
period   is   deemed   necessary   by   circumstances,   within   twenty-­‐four   • Canicosa  filed  an  election  protest  with   the   COMELEC   a  petition  to  
(24)   hours   from   the   filing   of   the   petition,   the   Clerk   of   Court   declare  a  failure  of  election.    
concerned   shall   forthwith   serve   notices   to   all   interested   parties,   • Canicosa’s  allegations:    
indicating   therein   the   date   of   hearing,   through   the   fastest   means   1. the  names  of  the  registered  voters  did  not  appear  in  the  list  of  
available.   voters  in  their  precincts;  
  2.  more   than   one-­‐half   of   the   legitimate   registered   voters   were  
Section   5.   Time   to   File   Opposition.   -­‐   Unless   a   shorter   period   is   not  able  to  vote  with  strangers  voting  in  their  stead;    
deemed  necessary  by  the  circumstances,  within  two  (2)  days  from   3. he  was  credited  with  less  votes  than  he  actually  received;    
receipt   of   the   notice   of   hearing,   any   interested   party   may   file   an   4. control   data   of   the   election   returns   was   not   filed   up   in   some  
opposition  with  the  Law  Department  of  the  Commission.   precincts;    
  5. ballot   boxes   brought   to   the   Office   of   the   Municipal   Treasurer  
Section  6.  Summary   Proceeding.   -­‐   The   hearing   of   the   case   shall   be   were   unsecured,   i.e.,   without   padlocks   nor   self-­‐locking   metal  
summary  in  nature.     seals;  and,    
  6. there  was  delay  in  the  delivery  of  election  returns  
Section  7.  Delegation   of   Reception   of   Evidence.  -­‐   The   Commission   • The  COMELEC  en  banc  dismissed  the  petition  on  the  ground  that  
may  designate  any  of  its  officials  who  are  members  of  the  Philippine   the  allegations  did  not  justify  a  declaration  of  FOE.    
Bar  to  hear  the  case  and  to  receive  evidence.   • On  appeal,  Canicosa  claimed  that  his  petition  should  have  passed  
  through  a  Division  first  before  being  brought  to  the  en  banc  on  a  
Section   8.   Determination   of   Cessation   of   Cause.   -­‐   The   MFR.  He  claims  the  en  banc  erred  in  ruling  on  his  petition.  
determination  of  the  cessation  of  the  cause  of  the  postponement  or    
suspension   of   election   or   failure   of   election   falls   within   the   ISSUE:  WON  a  declaration  of  FOE  is  proper.  NO  
exclusive  prerogative  of  the  Commission.    
KEY  CONCEPTS:   HELD:  
1. The   declaration   of   FOE   is   primarily   an   exercise   of   the   Canicosa’s   allegations   do   not   fall   under   the   enumeration   of  
COMELEC’s  administrative  function.  (Canicosa  v  COMELEC)   causes  to  justify  a  declaration  of  FOE  
2. A   petition   to   DFOE   may   not   be   treated   as   a   pre-­‐proclamation     According   to   Section   6   of   BP   881,   there   are   only   three  
case,  nor  as  an  election  protest.  (Sison  v  COMELEC,  Banaga  Jr   instances   where   a   FOE   may   be   declared.   None   of   the   grounds  
v  COMELEC,  Borja  v  COMELEC)   invoked   by   Canicosa   falls   under   any   of   those   enumerated.   For   a  
3. A   trial   court   ruling   to   the   effect   that   no   valid   votes   were   cast   is   declaration  of  FOE,  two  requisities  must  concur:  
tantamount   to   declaring   a   FOE;   and   is   without   jurisdiction   as   1. no   voting   has   taken   place   in   the   precincts   on   the   date  
only   the   COMELEC   en   banc   may   declare   a   FOE.   (Angeles   v   fixed  by  law,  or  even  if  there  was  voting,  the  election  
COMELEC)   nevertheless  resulted  in  failure  to  elect;  and,    
4. When  the  petition  to  declare  FOE  is  on  its  face  insufficient,  the   2. the   votes   that   were   not   cast   would   affect   the   result   of  
proper  procedure  is  to  dismiss  it  and  ventilate  the  issues  in  an   the  election.  
election  protest  (Pasandalan  v  COMELEC)    
5. An  election  must  be  held  at  the  place,  date  and  time  prescribed   a. absence  of  name  of  voters   –   Since   Canicosa   failed   to   resort   to   any  
by  law.  Likewise,  its  suspension  or  postponement  must  comply   of   the   legal   remedies,   the   permanent   list   of   voters   as   finally  
with   legal   requirements.   Otherwise,   it   is   irregular   and   void.   corrected   before   the   election   remains   conclusive   on   the  
(Basher  v  COMELEC)   question   as   to   who   had   the   right   to   vote   in   that   election,  
6. The   meaning   of   ‘failure   of   elections’   is   literal,   in   that   ‘no   one   although   not   in   subsequent   elections.     The   filing   of   FOE   is   not  
was  elected.’  (Borja  v  COMELEC)   the  proper  remedy  to  address  this.  
    proper  remedies:  
  – petition  for  inclusion  of  registered  voters  with  the  MTCs  
– verified  complaint  seeking  to  annul  the  book  of  voters  
b. half   not   able   to   vote   –   Under   the   law,     precinct   watchers   are  
empowered  to  challenge  illegal  voters.  Canicosa  was  allowed  to  
appoint   watchers   for   every   precinct.   Again,   a   declaration   of   FOE  
is  improper  on  this  ground.  
c. dagdag-­‐bawas  –    
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   72  
 
  proper  remedies:   includes  the  authority  to  initiate  motu  proprio  or  by  itself  such  steps  
-­‐ should   have   been   raised   n   the   first   instance   before   the   or  actions  as  may  be  required  pursuant  to  law.  
board   of   election   inspectors   or   board   of   canvassers   by     Regarding   Canicosa’s   allegations   of   dagdag-­‐bawas,   the  
the  watchers.     Court  has  already  ruled  that  questions  pertaining   to   proceedings  
-­‐ a   petition   for   correction   of   election   returns   must   of   MBOC   may   be   raised   directly   to   the   en   banc  (Castromayor  v  
immediately   be   filed   with   COMELEC   by   all   or   a   majority   COMELEC).     And   according   to   R27   S7   of   the   COMELEC   Rules,   any  
of   the   members   of   the   board   of   election   inspectors   or   party  dissatisfied  with  the  ruling  of  the  BOCs  has  the  right  to  appeal  
any  candidate  affected  by  the  error  or  mistake   directly  to  the  en  banc.  
d. control  data      
e. unsecured  ballot  boxes  –  bare  allegation    
f. ER  delivery  delay  –   bare   allegation,   late   devliery   does   not   mean    
that  there  was  failure  to  elect   CASE:  SISON  V  COMELEC  
  G.R.  No.  134096.  March  3,  1999.*  
JOSEPH  PETER  S.  SISON,  petitioner,  vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  respondent.  
Requirement   that   Division   should   hear   first   before   en   banc    
only   applies   in   the   exercise   of   its   Quasi-­‐J   powers.   Canicosa’s   FACTS:  
grounds  required  the  COMELEC’s  administrative  powers   • Sison   was   a   candidate   for   Vice-­‐Mayor   of   QC   during   the   1998  
  Canicosa’s   grounds   all   clearly   require   the   exercise   by   the   elections.  
COMELEC  of  its  administrative  functions.  Section  2,  Art.  IX-­‐C,  of  the  
• During   the   canvassing   and   prior   to   proclamation   of   the   winning  
1987   Constitution   grants   extensive   administrative   powers   to   the  
candidates,   Sison   filed   a   petition   with   the   COMELEC   to   suspend  
COMELEC  with  regard  to  the  enforcement  and  administration  of  all  
the  canvassing  and  declare  a  FOE  on  the  ground  of  massive  fraud.  
laws  and  regulations  relative  to  the  conduct  of  elections.  
• Sison’s   specific   allegations   were   concerned   mostly   with  
  Quite   obviously,   it   is   only   in   the   exercise   of   its  
irregularities  with  the  election  returns  and  ballot  boxes:  
adjudicatory   or   quasi-­‐judicial   powers   that   the   COMELEC   is  
-­‐ ERs  with  no  inner  seals,  missing,  or  tampered  
mandated  to  hear  and  decide  cases  first  by  Division  and  then,  upon  
-­‐ BOI  brought  ERs  home  
motion  for  reconsideration,  by  the  COMELEC  en   banc.  This  is  when  
-­‐ Suspicious  people  bringing  in  ERs  
it   is   jurisdictional.   In   the   instant   case,   as   aforestated,   the   issues  
-­‐ Dubious  custody  of  the  ballot  boxes  
presented   demand   only   the   exercise   by   the   COMELEC   of   its  
-­‐ In   Brgy.   New   Era,   no   voting   took   place   but   instead  
administrative  functions.  
manufactured  
  Other   COMELEC   actions   decided   to   be   administrative   in  
• The   COMELEC   dismissed   his   petition   as  a  pre-­‐proclamation  case  
nature:  
(grounds   recited   not   among   pre-­‐proc   issues   in   Sec   17   of   RA  
1. correction  of  manifest  mistake  in  the  tally  
7166).  Meanwhile,  the  winning  candidates  were  proclaimed.  
2. issues  concerning  voter  registration  
3. determination  WON  an  election  was  held   • Sison   filed   a   petition   for   ceriorari   with   the   SC,   claiming   that   the  
4. determining  WON  returns  are  falsified   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   in   dismissing   his   petition   as   a   pre-­‐
  (these  are  also  Canicosa’s  grounds)   proc   case   when   it   was   a   petition   to   declare   FOE.   Also,   he   claims  
  that   he   was   not   given   the   right   to   a   hearing   anf   to   present  
  The  above  actions  do  not  involve  the  right  to  vote  and  are   evidence.  
properly  within  the  administrative  jurisdiction  of  COMELEC.  These   • Sison  COMELEC  Omnibus  Resolution  3049.  
may   be   acted   upon   directly   by   the   COMELEC   en   banc   without   Note:   OR   3049   automatically   terminated   certain   cases  
having  to  pass  through  any  of  its  divisions.   within   the   COMELEC.   Section   16   terminated   pre-­‐proc  
  controversies  where  the  term  of  office  has  already  begun.  
COMELEC   en   banc   may   take   cognizance   of   dagdag-­‐ Sison  claims  that  as  his  petition  was  one  for  FOE,  his  case  
bawas/clerical   error   cases   as   these   are   committed   by   BOCs   should  not  be  terminated  under  the  exception  in  par4.  
which  are  under  direct  control  and  supervision  of  COMELEC    
  The  COMELEC  exercises  direct  and  immediate  supervision   ISSUE:  WON  a  declaration  of  FOE  is  proper.  NO  
and  control  over  national  and  local  officials  or  employees,  including   What  is  the  nature  of  Sison’s  petition?  Pre-­‐proc  
members   of   any   national   or   local   law   enforcement   agency   and    
instrumentality   of   the   government   required   by   law   to   perform   HELD:  
duties   relative   to   the   conduct   of   elections.   Its   power   of   direct   A   pre-­‐proclamation   controversy   may   not   be   considered   as   a  
supervision  and  control  includes  the  power  to  review,  modify  or  set   petition  for  declaration  of  FOE  
aside   any   act   of   such   national   and   local   officials.   It   exercises     At   the   start,   Sison’s   petition   was   anchored   on   the   OEC  
immediate  supervision  and  control  over  the  members  of  the  boards   provision   regarding   FOE,   but   later   built   it   up   as   a   pre-­‐proclamatin  
of   election   inspectors   and   canvassers.   Its   statutory   power   of   controversy.     In   this   situation   (where   there   doubt   on   the   true  
supervision   and   control   includes   the   power   to   revise,   reverse   nature   of   a   pleading),   what   conjointly   determine   the   nature   of   a  
or   set   aside   the   action   of   the   boards,   as   well   as   to   do   what   the   pleading   are   the   allegations   therein   made   in   good   faith,   the   stage   of  
boards   should   have   done,   even   if   questions   relative   thereto   have   the  proceeding  at  which  it  is  filed,  and  the  primary  objective  of  the  
not   been   elevated   to   it   by   an   aggrieved   party,   for   such   power   party  filing  the  same.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   73  
 
  In  Matalam  v  COMELEC,  the  Court  has  already  ruled  that  a     This   is   but   in   keeping   with   the   policy   of   the   law   that  cases  
pre-­‐proclamation  controversy  is  not  the  same  as  an  action  for   of  this  nature  should  be  summarily  decided  and  the  will  of  the  
annulment   of   election   results   or   declaration   of   failure   of   electorate   as   reflected   on   the   election   returns   be   determined  
elections,  founded  as  they  are  on  different  grounds.   as   speedily   as   possible.  What  exactly  those  records  and  evidence  
  are   upon   which   the   COMELEC   based   its   resolution   and   how   they  
Declaration   of   FOE   or   pre-­‐proc,   Sison’s   petition   must   fail;   have   been   appreciated   in   respect   of   their   sufficiency,   are   beyond  
proper  remedy:  election  protest   this   Court’s   scrutiny.   But   we   have   reason   to   believe,   owing   to   the  
  The   Court   examined   Sison’s   petition   with   the   COMELEC   presumption   of   regularity   of   performance   of   official   duty   and   the  
but   found   nothing   therein   that   could   support   an   action   for   precept   that   factual   findings   of   the   COMELEC   based   on   its  
declaration   of   failure   of   elections.   Sison   never   alleged   at   all   that   assessments   and   duly   supported   by   gathered   evidence,   are  
elections   were   either   not   held   or   suspended.   Furthermore,   conclusive   upon   the   court,   that   the   COMELEC   did   arrive   at   its  
petitioner’s   claim   of   failure   to   elect   stood   as   a   bare   conclusion   conclusion  with  due  regard  to  the  available  evidence  before  it.  
bereft   of   any   substantive   support   to   describe   just   exactly   how   the    
failure  to  elect  came  about.    
  With   respect   to   pre-­‐proclamation   controversy,   it   is   well   to   CASE:  CARLOS  V  ANGELES  
note  that  the  scope  of  pre-­‐proclamation  controversy  is  only  limited   G.R.  No.  142907.  November  29,  2000.*  
to   the   issues   enumerated   under   Section   243   of   the   Omnibus   JOSE  EMMANUEL  L.  CARLOS,   petitioner,   vs.   HON.  ADORACION  G.  ANGELES,  IN  HER  
CAPACITY   AS   THE   ACTING   PRESIDING   JUDGE   OF   THE   REGIONAL   TRIAL   COURT   IN  
Election   Code,   and   the   enumeration   therein   is   restrictive   and   CALOOCAN  CITY  (BRANCH  125)  and  ANTONIO  M.  SERAPIO,  respondents.  
exclusive.   The   reason   underlying   the   delimitation   both   of    
substantive  ground  and  procedure  is  the  policy  of  the  election  law   FACTS:  
that  pre-­‐proclamation  controversies  should  be  summarily  decided,   • Carlos   and   Serapio   were   rivals   in   the   mayoralty   race   in   the  
consistent  with  the  law’s  desire  that  the  canvass  and  proclamation   municipality  of  Valenzuela,  MNL  during  the  1998  elections.  
be   delayed   as   little   as   possible.   That   is   why   such   questions   which   • On   May   21   1998,   the   Municipal   BOC   proclaimed   Carlos   the   duly  
require   more   deliberate   and   necessarily   longer   consideration,   are   elected   mayor,   having   obtained   102k   votes.   Serapio   filed   an  
left  for  examination  in  the  corresponding  election  protest.   election  protest  contesting  the  results.  
  In   situations   where   the   winning   candidates   were   • A   revision   of   the   ballots   was   conducted,   but   in   the   final   tally  
already   proclaimed,   the   proper   remedy   then   would   be   a   Carlos  still  had  the  plurality  of  valid  votes.  
regular  election  protest  or  a  petition  for  quo  warranto.  
• Nevertheless,   the   trial   court   set   aside   the   final   tally   of   the   votes  
 
because   of   its   finding   of   significant   badges   of   fraud.   The   court  
The   exception   in   Omnibus   Resolution   3049   does   not   apply   to  
held   that   the   fraud   was   attributable   to   Carlos   who   had   control  
Sison’s  petition  
over   the   election   paraphernalia   and   the   basic   services   in   the  
Section   16   of   the   aforecited   omnibus   resolution   refers   to   the  
community  such  as  the  supply  of  electricity.  
termination   of   pre-­‐proclamation   cases   when   the   term   of   the   office  
• Even  though  Carlos  had  the  plurality  of  valid  votes,  the  trial  court  
involved  has  already  begun,  which  is  precisely  what  obtains  here.  
set  aside  the  proclamation  of  Carlos  and  declared  Serapio  as  the  
However,   Sison   claims   his   petition   is   one   of   those   cases   which  
elected  mayor  of  Valenzuela.    
should  have  remained  active  pursuant  to  paragraph  4  thereof.  That  
 
exception,   however,   operates   only   when   what   is   involved   is   not   a  
ISSUE:  Was  this  action  by  the  trial  court  proper?  NO  
pre-­‐proclamation  controversy  such  as  petitions  for  disqualification,  
 
failure  of  elections  or  analogous  cases.  But  as  earlier  declared,  his  
HELD:  
petition,   though   assuming   to   seek   a   declaration   of   failure   of  
Trial  court’s  setting  aside  of  Carlos’  proclamation  even  though  
elections,   is   actually   a   case   of   preproclamation   controversy  
he   had   plurality   of   valid   votes   is   tantamount   to   declaration   of  
and,  hence,  not  falling  within  the  ambit  of  the  exception.  
failure  of  election  
 
  Assuming  for  the  nonce  that  the  trial  court  was  correct  in  
Sison’s  right  to  due  process  not  violated  when  he  was  not  given  
holding  that  the  final  tally  of  valid  votes  as  per  revision  report  may  
the  chance  to  present  evidence  
be  set  aside  because  of  the  “significant  badges  of  fraud,”  the   same  
  Sison  invokes  Section  242  of  the  OEC.  The   phrase   “after  
would   be   tantamount   to   a   ruling   that   there   were   no   valid   votes  
due   notice”   refers   only   to   a   situation   where   the   COMELEC  
cast   at   all   for   the   candidates,   and,   thus,   no   winner   could   be  
decides   and,   in   fact,   takes   steps   to   either   partially   or   totally  
declared  in  the  election  protest  case.  In  short,  the  trial  court  alleged  
suspend  or  annul  the  proclamation  of  any  candidate-­‐elect.  
that  there  was  failure  of  election.  
  Second,   presentation   of   evidence   before   the   COMELEC   is  
  Thus,  the  trial  court  in  its  decision  actually  pronounced  a  
not   at   all   indispensable   in   order   to   satisfy   the   demands   of   due  
failure   of   election   by   disregarding   and   setting   aside   the   results   of  
process.   Under   the   amendment   introduced   by   R.A.   No.   7166,  
the   election.   Nonetheless,   as   herein-­‐above   stated,   the   trial   court  
particularly  Section  18  thereof,  all  that  is  required  now  is  that  the  
erred   to   the   extent   of   ousting   itself   of   jurisdiction   because   the  
COMELEC   shall   dispose   of   pre-­‐proclamation   controversies   “on  
grounds   for   failure   of   election   were   not   significant   and   even   non-­‐
the   basis   of   the   records   and   evidence   elevated   to   it   by   the  
existent.  
board  of  canvassers.”    
 
 
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   74  
 
Proper  remedy:  election  protest;  not  annulment  of  election   election   period,   Comelec   has   control   over   such   utilities   as  
  In   such   case,   the   proper   remedy   is   an   action   before   the   electric  and  even  telephone  service.    
Commission  on  Elections  en  banc  to  declare  a  failure  of  election  or     What   is   important,   however,   is   that   the   voters   of  
to   annul   the   election.   However,   this   case   was   an   election   protest   Valenzuela  were  able  to  cast  their  votes  freely  and  fairly.  And  in  
case   involving   an   elective   municipal   position   which,   under   Section   the   election   protest   case,   the   trial   court   was   able   to   recount   and  
251   of   the   Election   Code,   falls   within   the   exclusive   original   determine  the  valid  votes  cast.  
jurisdiction  of  the  appropriate  regional  trial  court.      
  Nonetheless,   the   annulment   of   an   election   on   the   ground    
of   fraud,   irregularities   and   violations   of   election   laws   may   be   raised   CASE:  PASANDALAN  V  COMELEC  
as  an  incident  to  an  election  contest.  Such  grounds  for  annulment  of   G.R.  No.  150312.  July  18,  2002.*  
BAGO   P.   PASANDALAN,   petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   BAI   SALAMONA   L.  
an  election  may  be  invoked  in  an   election  protest  case.  However,  an   ASUM,  respondents.  
election   must   not   be   nullified   and   the   votes   disenfranchised    
whenever  it  is  possible  to  determine  a  winner  on  the  basis  of  valid   FACTS:  
votes  cast,  and  discard  the  illegally  cast  ballots.  In  this  case,  Carlos   • Pasandalan   and   Asum   were   municipal   mayor   candidates   during  
admittedly   received   17,007   valid   voters   more   than   the   Serapio,   and   the  2001  Lanao  elections.  
therefore  the  nullification  of  the  election  would  not  lie.  The  power   • Prior   to   proclamation,   Pasandalan   filed   a   verified   petition  with  
to  nullify  an  election  must  be  exercised  with  the  greatest  care   the   COMELEC   seeking   to   nullify   the   elections   in   the   several  
with   a   view   not   to   disenfranchise   the   voters,   and   only   under   barangays  alleging:  
circumstances   that   clearly   call   for   such   drastic   remedial   1. voters   were   forced   to   flee   when   CAFGUs   indiscrinately  
measure.   fired  their  firearms  (violence)  
  2. failure  of  BEIs  to  sign  the  ballots  
Trial  court  has  no  jurisdiction  to  declare  FOE.     3. Asum’s   supporters   filled   up   official   ballots   with   Asum’s  
  The   trial   court   has   no   jurisdiction   to   declare   a   failure   of   name  during  a  fistfight  (fraud)  
election.   It   is   the   COMELEC   sitting   en   banc   that   is   vested   with   • Pasandalan   requested   a   technical   examination   of   the   ballots   to  
exclusive  jurisdiction  to  declare  a  failure  of  election.   show  that  only  a  few  people  actullay  voted.  However  his  petition  
    was   denied     (none   of   Pasandalan’s   grounds   fell   in   any   of   the  
Power   of   trial   court   limited   to   annulment   of   election   and   instances  to  declare  FOE).    
calling  of  special  elections   • The   COMELEC   claimed   that   these   grounds   of   violence,   fraud,  
  Assuming  that  the  trial  court  has  jurisdiction  to  declare  a   terrorism   were   issued   that   were   better   ventilated   in   an   election  
failure   of   election,   the   extent   of   that   power   is   limited   to   the   protest.  The  COMELEC  further  claimed  that  the  authenticity  and  
annulment   of   the   election   and   the   calling   of   special   elections.   The   integrity  of  the  election  returns  were  left  undisturbed  throughout  
result  is  a  failure  of  election  for  that  particular  office.  In  such  case,   the   preparation,   transmission,   custody   and   canvass   of   the  
the   court   can   not   declare   a   winner.   A   permanent   vacancy   is   thus   returns.  
created.   In   such   eventuality,   the   duly   elected   vice-­‐mayor   shall    
succeed  as  provided  by  law.   ISSUE:   WON  the  COMELEC  was  correct  in  dismissing  Pasandalan’s  
  Thus,  it  was  improper  for  the  trial  court  to  declare  Serapio   petition.  YES  
the   winner   on   this   ground;   and   without   the   plurality   of   votes    
needed.   This   violated   Carlos’   right   to   due   process   of   law,   who   was   HELD:  
not   heard   on   the   issue   of   failure   of   election,   an   issue   that   was   not   Three  instances  where  FOE  may  be  declared  reiterated  
raised  by  Serapio.   What  is  common  in  these  three  instances  is  the  resulting  failure  to  
  elect.   In   the   first   instance,   no   election   is   held   while   in   the   second,  
On  the  allegation  that  the  badges  of  fraud  were  ‘attributable’  to   the   election   is   suspended.   In   the   third   instance,   circumstances  
Carlos  (may  be  related  to  topic  on  franchises)   attending   the   preparation,   transmission,   custody   or   canvas   of   the  
  There  was  no  evidence  on  record  that  Carlos  had  a  hand  in   election  returns  cause  a  failure  to  elect.  The   term   failure   to   elect  
any  of  the  irregularities  that  protestant  averred.  It  is  wrong  for  the   means  nobody  emerged  as  a  winner.  
trial  court  to  state  that  the  protestee  had  control  over  the  “election    
paraphernalia“  or  over  electric  services.     On  violence  and  terrorism  
  The   Commission   on   Elections   has   control   over   election   The  election  was  held  in  the  16  protested  precincts  as  scheduled.  At  
paraphernalia,   through   its   officials   and   deputies.   The   Comelec   can   no   point   was   the   election   in   any   of   the   precincts   suspended.   Nor  
deputize   with   the   concurrence   of   the   President,   law   enforcement   was   there   a   failure   to   elect   because   of   force   majeure,   violence,  
agencies   and   instrumentalities   of   the   government,   including   the   terrorism,  fraud  or  other  analogous  causes  during  the  preparation,  
Armed   Forces   of   the   Philippines,   for   the   exclusive   purpose   of   transmission,   custody   and   canvass   of   the   election   returns.   The  
ensuring   free,   orderly,   honest,   peaceful,   and   credible   elections.43   alleged   terrorism   was   not   of   such   scale   and   prevalence   to  
  On  the  other  hand,  electric  utility  services  in  Metro  Manila,   prevent   the   holding   of   the   election   or   to   cause   its   suspension.  
including   Valenzuela   are   under   the   control   of   its   franchise   holder,   In   fact,   the   casting   and   counting   of   votes,   the   preparation,  
particularly  the  Manila  Electric  Company,  a  public  service  company,   transmission   and   canvassing   of   election   returns   and   the  
certainly   not   owned   or   controlled   by   Carlos.   In   fact,   during   proclamation  of  the  winning  candidate  took  place  in  due  course.  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   75  
 
  Pasandalan’s   allegations   of   terrorism   and   fraud   are   not    
sufficient  to  warrant  a  nullification  of  the  election  in  the  absence  of    
any   of   the   three   instances   justifying   a   declaration   of   failure   of   CASE:  TYPOCO  V  COMELEC  
election.   Terrorism   may   not   be   invoked   to   declare   a   failure   of   G.R.  No.  136191.  November  29,  1999.*  
election  and  to  disenfranchise  the  greater  number  of  the  electorate   JESUS   O.   TYPOCO,   JR.,   petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   (COMELEC)   EN  
BANC,  and  JESUS  EMMANUEL  PIMENTEL,  respondents.  
through  the  misdeeds  of  only  a  few.  
 
 
FACTS:  
On  fraud  
• Typoco   and   Pimentel   were   gubernatorial   candidates   in   CamNor  
To   warrant   a   declaration   of   failure   of   election   on   the   ground   of  
during  the  1998  elections.    
fraud,   the   fraud   must   prevent   or   suspend   the   holding   of   an  
• A   few   days   after   the   elections,   Typoco   (and   congressional  
election,  or  mar  fatally  the  preparation,  transmission,  custody  
candidate   Oco)   filed   a   joint   appeal   with   the   COMELEC.   They  
and   canvass   of   the   election   returns.   The   conditions   for   the  
questioned   the   decision   of   the   PBOC   to   include   the   canvass   of   the  
declaration  of  failure  of  election  are  stringent.  Otherwise,  elections  
municipality  of  Labo.    They  claimed  that  a  substantial  number  of  
will  never  end  for  losers  will  always  cry  fraud  and  terrorism.  
election  returns  were  prepared  by  one  person.  As  evidence,  they  
 
presented   a   report   by   a   Licensed   Examiner   of   Questioned  
Procedure:   mere   affidavits   not   enough   to   support   petition   for  
Document.   The   COMELEC   2nd   Div   dimissed   this   joint   appeal.  
FOE  
Typoco  filed  a  MFR.  
Pasandalan   even   failed   to   substantiate   his   allegations   of   terrorism  
>   apparently   a   technical   examination   was   conducted   sometime  
and   irregularities.   His   evidence   consisted   only   of   affidavits.   Mere  
after  
affidavits  are  insufficient,   more   so   in   this   case   since   the   affidavits  
were   all   executed   by   Pasandalan’s   own   poll   watchers.   Factual   • Meanwhile,   Typoco   and   Oco   filed   a   separate   petition   for  
findings  of  the  Comelec  are  binding  on  this  Court.   Annulment  of  Election/ERs  and/or  Declaration  of  FOE  in  several  
  A  thorough  examination  of  the  affidavits  reveals  that  they   precincts.   This   petition   alleged   that   based   on   the   technical  
suffer  from  both  extrinsic  and  intrinsic  invalidity.  The  form  and  the   exaination,  305  of  the  returns  were  found  to  have  been  prepared  
contents  of  the  affidavits  were  pre-­‐typed,  and  all  the  affiants  had  to   in  groups  by  one  person.  
do   was   to   fill-­‐up   the   blank   spaces   for   their   names   and   precinct   • The   COMELEC   en   banc   issued   an   order   to   examine   the  
assignments.   This   clearly   shows   that   some   other   person   prepared   questioned   returns.   Indeed,   the   COMELEC   ERSD   Voters  
the   affidavits   and   it   is   doubtful   whether   the   affiants   understood   the   Identification   Division   found   that   278   of   the   returns   were  
contents  thereof  before  they  signed  them.   prepared  by  one  person.  
  Moreover,   the   affidavits   contain   inconsistent   statements   • The  en  banc  then  dismissed  both  Typoco’s  MFR  and  his  petition  
and   incredible   allegations   which   bolster   the   conclusion   that   they   for  FOE.    
were  tailored  to  suit  the  needs  of  the  petitioner.   • As  to  the  FOE  petition,  the  en  banc  found  that  the  grounds  cited  
  by   Typoco   did   not   fall   under   the   instances   enumerated   under  
Procedure:   Denial   to   conduct   a   technical   examination   also   Section   6   of   the   OEC.   The   en   banc   found   that   in   this   case,   an  
proper  when  petition  is  prima  facie  without  merit   election   took   place;   and   Typoco’s   proper   remedy   would   be   an  
The   Comelec   is   not   mandated   to   conduct   a   technical   examination   election  protest.  
before   it   dismisses   a   petition   for   nullification   of   election   when   the   • Typoco  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  with  the  SC,  claiming  that  the  
petition  is,  on  its  face,  without  merit.   COMELEC  erred  in  refusing  to  declare  FOE.  
  This   is   compared   to   the   case   of   Typoco,   where   Typoco   • The  OSG  even  joined  Typoco’s  prayer  for  affirmative  relief.    
buttressed   his   petition   with   independent   evidence   that   compelled    
the   Comelec   to   conduct   a   technical   examination   of   the   questioned   ISSUE:  WON  declaration  for  FOE  is  proper  in  this  case?  NO  
returns.    
  In  Mitmug   v.   COMELEC,  we  ruled  that  the   Comelec   could   HELD:  
dismiss   outright   a   petition   for   nullification   of   election   if   it   is   Ruling  in  Mitmug  reiterated  
plainly  groundless  and  the  allegations  therein  could  be  better   2  conditions  must  concur;  2  instances.  
ventilated  in  an  election  protest.     None  of  these  circumstances  is  present  in  the  case  at  bar.  
  While   the   OSG   joins   TYPOCO   in   pinpointing   anomalies   in   the  
Even   if   Pasandalan’s   petition   was   verified,   it   must   also   be   valid   preparation   of   the   election   returns   due   to   the   uniformity   of   the  
substantially   handwriting  in  the  same,  implying  that  fraud  was  committed  at  that  
  The   fact   that   a   verified   petition   is   filed   with   the   Comelec   stage,   the   fact   is   that   the   casting   and   counting   of   votes  
does  not  necessarily  mean  that  a  technical  examination  or  a  hearing   proceeded   up   to   the   proclamation   of   the   winning   candidate  
on  the  case  should  be  conducted  first  before  the  Comelec   can  act  on   thus   precluding   the   declaration   of   a   failure   of   election.   While  
the   petition.   There   is   no   grave   abuse   of   discretion   if   the   Comelec   fraud  is  a  ground  to  declare  a  failure  of  election,  the  commission  of  
dismisses   the   petition   even   without   a   technical   examination   or   fraud  must  be  such  that  it  prevented  or  suspended  the  holding  of  an  
hearing  if  the  petition  fails  to  show  on  its  face  the  existence  of  any   election  including  the  preparation  and  transmission  of  the  election  
of   the   three   instances   required   by   law   to   declare   a   failure   of   returns.  
election.  The  Comelec  in  this  case  correctly  dismissed  the  petition.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   76  
 
  It   can   thus   readily   be   seen   that   the   ground   invoked   by   HELD:    
TYPOCO   is   not   proper   in   a   declaration   of   failure   of   election.   Not   merely   a   FOE,   but   a   total   absence   of   a   valid   electoral  
TYPOCO’s   relief   was   for   COMELEC   to   order   a   recount   of   the   exercise  
votes  cast,  on  account  of  the  falsified  election  returns,  which  is   The  ‘election’  was  illegal,  irregular  and  void.    
properly   the   subject   of   an   election   contest.   The   COMELEC,    
therefore,   had   no   choice   but   to   dismiss   TYPOCO’s   petition   in   Venue  of  voting  illegal  
accordance  with  clear  provisions  of  the  law  and  jurisprudence.   Section  42  of  the  Omnibus  Election  Code  provides  that    
  “the   chairman   of   the   board   of   election   tellers   shall   designate  
Other  note   the   public   school   or   any   other   public   building   within   the  
This  case  was  mentioned  in  Pasandalan,  where  the  Court  seemingly   barangay  to  be  used  as  polling  place  in  case  the  barangay  has  
upheld  the  conduct  of  technical  examination  in  this  case,  as  “Typoco   one  election  precinct  xxx.”  
buttressed   his   petition   with   independent   evidence   that   compelled    
the   Comelec   to   conduct   a   technical   examination   of   the   questioned   Affidavits   executed   by   the   Board   of   Election   Tellers   allege   that   the  
returns.”     election   of   officials   for   said   barangay   was   held   at   the   residence   of  
  former   Mayor   Alang   Sagusara   Pukunun,   which   is   located   at  
RECIT   QUESTION:   Why   did   the   Court   rule   differently   in   Typoco   Barangay   Pandarianao,   instead   of   the   officially   designated   polling  
compared  to  the  Pasandalan  case?   precinct  at  Cagayan  Elementary  School.  If  this  allegation  were  true,  
! In   Typoco,   the   petition   for   DFOE   was   accompanied   by   a   such   “election”   cannot   be   valid,   as   it   was   not   held   within   the  
report   by   a   “Licensed   Examiner   of   Questioned   Document.”   barangay  of  the  officials  who  were  being  elected.  
In   Pasandalan,   the   petition   was   accompanied   by   mere    
affidavits.   Time  of  voting  likewise  illegal  
  The  law  provides  that    
  “the  casting  of  votes  shall  start  at  seven  o’clock  in  the  morning  
  and   shall   end   at   three   o’clock   in   the   afternoon,   except   when  
CASE:  BASHER  V  COMELEC   there   are   voters   present   within   thirty   meters   in   front   of   the  
G.R.  No.  139028.  April  12,  2000.*   polling   place   who   have   not   yet   cast   their   votes,   in   which   case  
HADJI   RASUL   BATADOR   BASHER,  petitioner,  vs.  COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   the   voting   shall   continue   but   only   to   allow   said   voters   to   cast  
ABULKAIR  AMPATUA,  respondents.  
 
their  votes  without  interruption.”  
FACTS:    
Section  22,  Article  IV  of  Comelec  Resolution  No.  2971  also  specifies  
• Basher  and  Ampatua  were  candidates  for  Punong  Brgy  during  the  
1997   barangay   elections   in   Lanao   del   Sur.   This   election   was   that   the   voting   hours   shall   start   promptly   at   7:00   a.m.   and   end   at  
declared   a   failure   and   a   special   election   was   set.   This   second   3:00  p.m.  of  the  same  day.  
election  was  later  postponed  to  Aug  30.     However,  the  “election”  for  Barangay  Maidan  officials  was  
supposed  to  have  been  held  after  9:00  p.m.  of  August  30,  1997  until  
• On   Aug   30,   the   election   only   started   at   9PM   because   election  
the  wee  hours  of  the  following  day.  Certainly,  such  schedule  was  not  
officer   Datu-­‐Imam   was   advised   to   not   proceed   with   the   election  
in  accordance  with  law  or  the  Comelec  Rules.    
as   it   might   ‘trigger   bloodshed.’   Datu-­‐Imam   was   also   subject   to  
  The   Comelec   erred   in   relying   on   the   second   sentence   of  
threats   by   the   Mayor   and   they   had   to   be   brought   to   the   police  
Section   22,   Article   IV   of   Comelec   Resolution   2971,   which   states   that  
station.  Thus,  the  election  only  started  at  around  9pm.  
“[i]f  at  three  o’clock  [in  the  afternoon],  there  are  still  voters  within  
• Also,  allegedly,  the  candidates  in  this  case  agreed  to  not  hold  the  
thirty   meters   in   front   of   the   polling   place   who   have   not   cast   their  
elections   on   the   scheduled   date.   Allegedly,   around   this   time,   the  
votes,   the   voting   shall   continue   to   allow   said   voters   to   cast   their  
election  officer  verbally  declared  a  failure  of  election  and  turned  
votes  without  interruption.”  This   sentence   presupposes   that   the  
over  the  ballot  box  to  the  PNP.      
election   commenced   during   the   official   time   and   is   simply  
• However,   Basher   et   al   were   surprised   to   learn   that   the   election  
continued   beyond   3:00   p.m.   in   order   to   accommodate   voters  
officer  had  ordered  to  push  through  with  the  election.    
who   are   within   thirty   meters   of   the   polling   place,   already  
• The   holding   of   the   9PM   election   was   allegedly   announced   waiting   for   their   turn   to   cast   their   votes.   This   is   clearly   the  
over  the  mosque  and  was  ‘held’  at  the  former  mayor’s  house.    
meaning  and  intent  of  the  word  continue—”to  go  on  in  a  specified  
• During   the   canvass,   Ampatua   was   proclaimed   a   winner   by   a   course   of   action   or   condition.”   The   action   or   condition   already  
landslide  (250  v  15  votes).   subsists  and  is  allowed  to  go  on.  
• Basher   then   filed   a   petition   with  the  COMELEC  praying   that   the    
election   be   declared   a   failure,   as   there   was   no   election   conducted   Election   date   invalid;   election   officer   nor   candidates   have  
at  the  time  and  place  prescribed  by  law.   authority  to  declare  FOE  
• The   COMELEC   dismissed   his   petition,   finding   that   actual   voting   The  Comelec  scheduled  the  special  election  on  August  30,  1997.  Any  
took  place.   suspension  or  postponement  of  an  election  is  governed  by  Section  2  
  of  RA  6679,17  which  states  that:  
ISSUE:  WON  there  was  failure  of  election.  YES    “when   for   any   serious   cause   such   as   rebellion,   insurrection,  
  violence,   terrorism,   loss   or   destruction   of   election  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   77  
 
paraphernalia,   and   any   analogous   causes   of   such   nature   that   CASE:  MITMUG  V  COMELEC  
the   holding   of   a   free,   orderly   and   honest   election   should   G.R.  Nos.  106270-­‐73.  February  10,  1994.*  
SULTAN  MOHAMAD  L.  MITMUG,  petitioner,  vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  MUNICIPAL  BOARD  
become   impossible   in   any   barangay,   the   Commission   on   OF   CANVASSERS   OF   LUMBA-­‐BAYABAO,   LANAO   DEL   SUR,   and   DATU   GAMBAI   DAGALANGIT,  
Elections   motu   proprio   or   upon   sworn   petition   of   ten   (10)   respondents.  
registered  voters  of  a  barangay,  after  summary  proceedings  of    
the   existence   of   such   grounds,   shall   suspend   or   postpone   the   FACTS:  
election   therein   to   a   date   reasonably   close   to   the   date   of   the   • Mitmug   and   Dagalangit   were   candidates   for   municipal   mayor  
election   that   is   not   held   or   is   suspended   or   postponed,   or   during   the   1992   elections   in   Lumba-­‐Bayabao,   Lanao   del   Sur.  
which   resulted   in   a   failure   to   elect,   but   not   later   than   thirty   Lumba-­‐Bayabao  has  67  municipalities.  
(30)  days  after  the  cessation  of  the  cause  for  such  suspension   • On  election  daw,  only  2,330  people  out  of  9,830  registered  voters  
or   postponement   of   the   election   or   failure   to   elect,   and   in   all   cast   their   vote   (22.26%   voter   turnout),   with   5   precincts   not  
cases   not   later   than   ninety   (90)   days   from   the   date   of   the   conducting   voting   at   all.   Special   elections   were   scheduled   for  
original  election.”   these  precincts.  
  • Mitmug   and   other   mayoralty   candidates   filed   petitions   to   declare  
Election   Officer   Diana   Datu-­‐Imam   of   Tugaya,   Lanao   del   Sur   FOE:  
practically   postponed   the   election   in   Barangay   Maidan   from   the   -­‐ 1  precinct  had  the  ballots  in  the  boxes  torn  to  pieces  
official   original   schedule   of   7:00   a.m.   to   3:00   p.m.   of   August   30,   -­‐ 29   precincts   where   ballots   were   allegedly   tampered   with  
1997   to   10:00   p.m.   of   August   30,   1997   until   the   early   morning   of   (fraud)  
August  31,  1997.   -­‐ DFOE   was   filed   for   all   67   precincts   on   the   ground   of   massive  
  As   election   officer,   she   has   no   authority   to   declare   a   disenfranchisement  of  voters.  
failure   of   election.   Indeed,   only   the   Comelec   itself   has   legal   • The  COMELEC  dismissed  the  petitions  motu  proprio,  stating  that  
authority  to  exercise  such  awesome  power.  An  election  officer   the   grounds   were   not   support   a   DFOE.   Mitmug   also   filed   Motions  
alone,   or   even   with   the   agreement   of   the   candidates,   cannot   to   intervene   in   these   petitions   but   were   dismissed   by   the  
validly  postpone  or  suspend  the  elections.   COMELEC  for  being  prohibited  pleadings.    
  Datu-­‐Imam   did   not   follow   the   procedure   laid   down   by   law   • Another   MBOC   was   convened.   After   canvass,   Dagalangit   was  
for   election   postponement   or   suspension   or   the   declaation   of   a   proclaimed   winner.   Mitmug   praye   for   a   TRO   to   enjoin   him   from  
failure   of   election.   It   was   clear   that   she   did   not   conduct   any   assuming  office.  
proceeding,  summary  or  otherwise,  to  find  out  whether  any  of  the   • By   August,   Mitmug   filed   another   petition   to   DFOE   in   49  
legal   grounds   for   the   suspension   or   postponement   or   the   precincts.  One  week  later,  Mitmug  also  filed  an  election   protest  
declaration  of  failure  of  the  election  actually  existed  in  the  barangay   with  the  RTC.    
concerned.    
  ISSUE:   WON   a   DFOE   is   proper   when   there   is   a   very   low   voter  
Notice   of   the   9pm   election   was   irregular;   equivalent   to   ‘no   turnout.  NO  
notice’   WON  the  other  grounds  alleged  justify  a  DFOE.  NO  
  The   electorate   was   not   given   ample   notice   of   the   exact    
schedule   and   venue   of   the   election;   nor   were   the   electorate   of   HELD:  
Barangay   Maidan   given   due   notice   that   the   election   would   push   a. While   the   SC   agreed   that   the   votes   cast   would   have  
through  after  9:00  p.m.  that  same  day.   affected   the   results   of   the   election,   the   first   requisite  
  Such  abbreviated  announcement  “over  the  mosque”  at   (failure  of  elect)  was  not  present.    
such   late   hour   did   NOT   constitute   sufficient   notice   to   the     In   the   case   before   us,   it   is   indubitable   that   the   votes   not  
electorate.   Consequently,   not   the   entire   electorate   or   even   a   cast   will   definitely   affect   the   outcome   of   the   election.   But,   the  
respectable   number   could   have   known   of   the   activity   and   actually   first  requisite  is  missing,  i.e.,  that  no  actual  voting  took  place,  or  
participated   therein   or   voluntarily   and   discerningly   chosen   not   to   even   if   there   is,   the   results   thereon   will   be   tantamount   to   a  
have  done  so.   failure   to   elect.   Since   actual   voting   and   election   by   the  
  In   the   case   at   bar,   the   announcement   was   made   only   registered   voters   in   the   questioned   precincts   have   taken  
minutes   before   the   supposed   voting.   If   one-­‐day   notice   was   held   to   place,   the   results   thereof   cannot   be   disregarded   and  
be   insufficient   in   Hassan   v  COMELEC,   the   much   shorter   notice   in   the   excluded.   COMELEC   therefore   did   not   commit   any   abuse   of  
present   case   should   all   the   more   be   declared   wanting.   It   should   in   discretion,   much   less   grave,   in   denying   the   petitions   outright.  
fact  be  equated  with  “no  notice.”   There   was   no   basis   for   the   petitions   since   the   facts   alleged  
  therein   did   not   constitute   sufficient   grounds   to   warrant   the  
>   SC  declared  Ampatua  proclamation  VOID  and  COMELEC  ordered   relief   sought.   For,   the   language   of   the   law   expressly   requires  
to  conduct  special  elections  in  Brgy.  Maidan   the   concurrence   of   these   conditions   to   justify   the   calling   of   a  
  special  election.  
   
 
 

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   78  
 
b. A   petition   to   declare   failure   of   elections   is   not   a   pre-­‐ ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   when   it   dismissed  
proclamation  controversy.     Banaga’s  complaint.  NO  
  Consequently,   the   proclamation   of   a   winning   candidate    
together   with   his   subsequent   assumption   of   office   is   not   an   HELD:  
impediment   to   the   prosecution   of   the   case   to   its   logical   Banaga’s  action  could  not  be  considered  an  election  protest;    
conclusion.  Also  note  distinctions  in  Banaga  case        
    Banaga’s   “petition”   was   instituted   pursuant   to   Section   4   of  
c. Recall  only  plurality  of  votes  required.     Republic   Act   No.   7166   in   relation   to   Section   6   of   the   Omnibus  
  There   can   be   failure   of   election   in   a   political   unit   only   if   Election   Code.   Section   4   of   RA   7166   refers   to   "postponement,  failure  
the   will   of   the   majority   has   been   defiled   and   cannot   be   of   election   and   special   elections   while   Section   6   of   the   Omnibus  
ascertained.   But,   if   it   can   be   determined,   it   must   be   accorded   Election  Code  relates  to  "failure  of  election.”  
respect.   After   all,   there   is   no   provision   in   our   election   laws     The   allegations   in   a   petition   decisively   determines   its  
which   requires   that   a   majority   of   registered   voters   must   cast   nature.    In  his  petition,  Banaga  claimed  that  the  1998  elections  was  
their   votes.   All   the   law   requires   is   that   a   winning   candidate   attended  by  circumstances  that  amounted  to  a  failure  of  election.  
must  be  elected  by  a  plurality  of  valid  votes,  regardless  of  the      
actual  number  of  ballots  cast.  Thus,  even  if  less  than  25%  of  the   Reasons  why  Banaga’s  action  cannot  be  an  election  protest:  
electorate   in   the   questioned   precincts   cast   their   votes,   the   3. He  filed  it  as  a  special  action  and  paid  the  corresponding  
same   must   still   be   respected.   There   is  prima  facie   showing   that   fee.  The  case  was  docketed  as  SPA,  while  election  protest  
private   respondent   was   elected   through   a   plurality   of   valid   cases  are  docketed  as  EPC.  
votes  of  a  valid  constituency.   4. Banaga  did  not  comply  with  requirements  for  filing  an  
  election   protest.   He   failed   to   pay   the   required   filing   fee  
d. Mitmug’s  filing  of  an  election  protest  did  not  mean  he  was   and   cash   deposits   for   an   election   protest.   Failure   to   pay  
abandoning  his  petition  for  DFOE   filing   fees   will   not   vest   the   election   tribunal   jurisdiction  
  It   may   be   noted   that   when   petitioner   filed   his   election   over   the   case.   Such   procedural   lapse   on   the   part   of   a  
protest   with   the   Regional   Trial   Court   of   Lanao   del   Sur,   he   petitioner  would  clearly  warrant  the  outright  dismissal  of  
informed  the  trial  court  of  the  pendency  of  these  proceedings.   his  action.  
Evidently,   Mitmug   did   not   intend   to   abandon   his   recourse   with    
this  Court.   Distinctions  between  ordinary  actions  and  special  actions  
  3. AS   TO   GOVERNING   RULES   -­‐   An   election   protest   is   an  
  ordinary  action  while  a  petition  to  declare  a  failure  of  
elections   is   a   special   action   under   the   1993   COMELEC  
CASE:  BANAGA  JR  V  COMELEC  (reproduced  from  Set  7)  
G.R.  No.  134696                              July  31,  2000   Rules   of   Procedure   as   amended.   An   election   protest   is  
TOMAS   T.   BANAGA,   JR.,   petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   governed  by  Rule  20  on  ordinary  actions,  while  a  petition  
FLORENCIO  M.  BERNABE,  JR.,  respondents.   to  declare  failure  of  elections  is  covered  by  Rule  26  under  
  special  actions.  They  are  also  docketed  differently.    
FACTS:    
• Banaga  and  Bernabe  were  vice-­‐mayor  candidates  for  Pque  during   4. AS  TO  EXECUTION  :  
the   1998   elections,   where   the   CBOC   proclaimed   Bernabe   as   the   -­‐ an  en  banc  decision  of  COMELEC  in  an  ordinary  action  
winner.   becomes   final   and   executory   after   thirty   (30)   days  
• Banaga  filed  an  action  with  the  COMELEC  an  action  denominated   from  its  promulgation  
as   a   “petition  to  declare  failure  of  elections  and/or  for  annulment   -­‐ an   en  banc   decision   in   a   special   action   becomes   final  
of   elections,”   alleging   that   the   elected   was   tainted   with   and  executory  after  five  (5)  days  from  promulgation,  
widespread   fraud,   vote-­‐buying   and   flying   voters.   Banaga   also   unless  restrained  by  the  Supreme  Court.    
claimed   that   there   were   ‘discrepancies   and   omissions’   during   the    
canvassing  stage.     For   that   reason,   a   petition   cannot   be   treated   as   both   an  
• Banaga   also   prayed   for   the   holding   of   a   special   election   for   the   election   protest   and   a   petition   to   declare   failure   of  
Vice-­‐mayor  position.   elections.  
• The   COMELEC   en   banc   dismissed   Banaga’s   action,   holding   that    
the   grounds   cited   do   not   fall   under   the   circumstances   No  failure  of  elections  
enumerated   in   Section   6   of   the   OEC   that   would   warrant   the     Before   the   COMELEC   can   act   on   a   verified   petition   seeking  
declaration  of  failure  of  elections.   to  declare  a  failure  of  election  two  conditions  must  concur:    
• Banaga   filed   a   timely   petition   for   certiorari   with   the   Supreme    
Court  (recall  ruling  in  Angelia  re:  prohibited  pleadings).     3. no   voting   took   place   in   the   precinct   or   precincts   on   the  
• Banaga   claimed   that   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   when   it   date  fixed  by  law,  or  even  if  there  was  voting,  the  election  
dismissed   his   petition   motu   propio   and   without   giving   him   the   resulted  in  a  failure  to  elect;  and      
benefit   of   a   hearing.   Banaga   also   claimed   that   his   previously   filed   4. the   votes   not   cast   would   have   affected   the   result   of   the  
action  should  be  considered  as  an  election  protest.   election.    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   79  
 
  • Ampatuan   et   al   assailed   these   orders.   They   claimed   that   since  
  Note   that   the   cause   of   such   failure   of   election   could   only   they   had   already   been   proclaimed,   the   proper   remedy   is   not  
be  any  of  the  following:  force   majeure,  violence,  terrorism,  fraud  or   DFOE   but   election   protests.   The   former   is   heard   summarily   while  
other  analogous  causes.   the  latter  involves  a  full-­‐blown  trial.  They  argued  that  the  manner  
  Banaga  did  not  allege  at  all  that  elections  were  either  not   by   which   the   technical   examination   is   to   be   conducted   would  
held   or   suspended.   Neither   did   he   aver   that   although   there   was   defeat  the  summary  nature  of  a   petition  for  declaration  of  failure  
voting,   nobody   was   elected.   On   the   contrary,   he   conceded   that   an   of  elections.  
election   took   place   for   the   office   of   vice-­‐mayor   of   Parañaque   City,    
but   only   that   it   was   marred   with   fraud.   It   must   be   noted   that   to   ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   has   no   jurisdiction   to   decide   petitions  
warrant   a   declaration   of   failure   of   election   the   commission   of   for   DFOE   after   winning   candidates   have   already   been   proclaimed.  
fraud  must  be  such  that  it  prevented  or  suspended  the  holding   NO  
of   an   election,   or   marred   fatally   the   preparation   and    
transmission,   custody   and   canvass   of   the   election   returns.   HELD:  
Banaga  failed  to  allege  these  essential  facts.   a. Election  protests  are  the  proper  remedy  in  pre-­‐proclamation  
  cases,  but  not  in  petitions  for  DFOE.  
Hearing  not  required  if  petition  prima  facie  insufficient     Ampatuan  cited  several  rulings  that  an  election  protest  is  
  The   fact   that   a   verified   petition   has   been   filed   does   not   the   proper   remedy   for   a   losing   candidate   after   the  
mean   that   a   hearing   on   the   case   should   first   be   held   before   proclamation   of   the   winning   candidate.   However,   the  
COMELEC  can  act  on  it.  The  petition  to  declare  a  failure  of  election   authorities   petitioners   relied   upon   involved   pre-­‐proclamation  
and/or   to   annul   election   results   must   show   on   its   face   that   the   controversies.  A  pre-­‐proclamation  controversy  is  not  the  same  
conditions   necessary   to   declare   a   failure   to   elect   are   present.   In   as   an   action   for   annulment   of   election   results,   or   failure   of  
their  absence,  the  petition  must  be  denied  outright.  The  COMELEC   elections;   and   their   remedies   are   not   the   same.   See   Loong   v  
had  no  recourse  but  to  dismiss  petition.   COMELEC.  
   
   
CASE:  AMPATUAN  V  COMELEC   b. Proclamation   not   bar   for   COMELEC   to   annul   and   canvass  
G.R.  No.  149803.  January  31,  2002.*   and  illegal  proclamation.  
DATU  ANDAL  S.  AMPATUAN,  BIMBO  Q.  SINSUAT,  SR.,  IBRAHIM  B.  BIRUAR,  ALONTO  B.  DAUDIE,  
MICHAEKL   B.   DIRANGAREN,   ASNAWIS   S.   LIMBONA,   RUSSMAN   Q.   SINSUAT,   ZALNUDIN   M.     In   the   case   at   bar,   we   cannot   assume   that   petitioners’  
ABUTAZIL,  DATUWATA  U.  ADZIS,  BORGIVA  T.  DATUMANONG,  FREDDIE  G.  MANGUDADATU  and   proclamation  and  assumption  into  office  on  June  30,  2001,  was  
ABBAS   A.   PENDATUN,   JR.,   petitioners,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   DATU   ZACARIA   A.  
CANDAO,   DATU   NORODIN   M.   MATALAM,   KHARIS   M.   BARAGUIR,   PAGRAS   D.   BIRUAR,   CAHAR   legal   precisely   because   the   conduct   by   which   the   elections  
PENDAT   IBAY,   PATULA   O.   TIOLO,   MARHOMSAL   K.   LAUBAN,   MENTANG   T.   KABAGANI,   were  held  was  put  in  issue  by  respondents  in  their  petition  for  
ELIZABETH   C.   MASUKAT,   GAPOR   A.   RAJAMUDA,   SAID   S.   SALIK   and   LINTATO   G.   SANDIGAN,  
respondents.   annulment   of   election   results   and/or   declaration   of   failure   of  
  elections.  
FACTS:     Respondents’   allegation   of   massive   fraud   and   terrorism  
• Ampatuan   and   Candao   were   candidates   for   the   governor   seat   that   attended   the   May   14,   2001   election   in   the   affected  
during   the   2011   elections   in   Maguindanao.     The   ERs   showed   that   municipalities   cannot   be   taken   lightly   as   to   warrant   the  
Amapatuan’s  slate  won.   dismissal  of  their  petition  by  the  Comelec  on  the  simple  pretext  
• The   losing   candidates   filed   a   petition   for   the   annulment   of   that  petitioners  had  been  proclaimed  winners.  We  have  but  to  
election   results/DFOE   in   several   municipalities.   They   claimed   reiterate   the   oft-­‐cited   rule   that   the   validity   of   a   proclamation  
massive  fraud;  that  the  ballots  were  filled-­‐up  en  masse  by  a  few   may   be   challenged   even   after   the   irregularly   proclaimed  
persons  the  night  before  election  day,  and  in  some  precincts,  the   candidate   has   assumed   office.   The   Court   also   said   that   it   has  
ballot   boxes,   official   ballots   and   other   election   paraphernalia   been   a   trend   for   certain   poliitical   parties   to   ‘grab   the  
were  not  delivered  at  all.   proclamation,   prolong   the   contest’   so   that   by   the   time   the  
• The   COMELEC   issued   an   order   suspending   the   winning   contest  ends,  the  term  of  office  is  about  to  expire  (resulting  in  a  
candidates’   proclamations.   The   suspension   was   later   lifted,   and   pyrrhic  victory).  
the  winners  subsequently  proclaimed.    
• The  losers  then  filed  with  the  SC  petitions  to  suspend  the  effects   c. Ampatuan  cannot  rely  on  Typoco  ruling.  
of  the  proclamation.  The  SC  dismissed  their  petition.     In  Typoco,  the  SC  ruled  that  the  proper  remedy  was  not  a  
• Nevertheless,   the   COMELEC   ordered   to   conduct   a   random   DFOE   but     to   request   a     recount   on   account   of   the   falsified  
technical  examinations  on  4-­‐7  precincts  per  municipality.  This  TE   election   returns,   because   it   was   the   proper   subject   of   an  
the   thumbmarks   and   signatures   of   the   voters   who   voted   and   election  contest.    
affixed   in   their   voter’s   registration   records.   The   COMELEC     Respondents’   petition   for   declaration   of   failure   of  
directed   the   production   of   relevant   election   documents   in   these   elections,   from   which   the   present   case   arose,   exhaustively  
municipalities.     alleged   massive   fraud   and   terrorism   that,   if   proven,   could  
• Subsequent   orders   were   also   issued   by   the   COMELEC   to   direct   warrant  a  declaration  of  failure  of  elections.  
the  hearing  and  disposition  of  the  petitions  for  DFOE.    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   80  
 
d. Even  if  there  was  voting,  the  results  of  an  election  may  still   they   preferred   using   ‘reasonable,   practicable   and   equitable’  
be  annulled  –  failure  at  the  counting/canvassing  stage   solutions  to  end  the  controversy.  
  While   it   may   be   true   that   election   did   take   place,   the   • In  another  resolution,  the  COMELEC  en  banc  dismissed    Loong’s  
irregularities   that   marred   the   counting   of   votes   and   the   prayer  for  technical  examination/annullment  of  elections  in  the  5  
canvassing  of  the  election  returns  resulted  in  a  failure  to  elect.   municipalities   even   though   they   found   that   the   same   badges   of  
Soliva  v  COMELEC   fraud  as  seen  in  the  Parang  were  found  in  the  election  
  In   the   case   at   bar,   the   Comelec   is   duty-­‐bound   to   conduct    
an   investigation   as   to   the   veracity   of   respondents’   allegations   ISSUE:   WON  the  COMELEC  can  conduct  a  technical  examination  in  
of   massive   fraud   and   terrorism   that   attended   the   conduct   of   pre-­‐proclamation  cases.  NO  
the  May  14,  2001  election.   WON   the   COMELEC   can   conduct   technical   examinations   in   actions  
  for  annulment  of  elections/DFOE.  YES  
>  COMELEC  ordered  to  proceed  with  the  TE   WON   the   COMELEC   erred   in   not   calling   for   a   special   election   after  
  annulling  the  elections  in  Parang.  YES  
   
CASE:    LOONG  V  COMELEC  (reproduced  from  Set  7)   HELD:  
G.R.  Nos.  107814-­‐15  May  16,  1996   Technical   examinations   filed   for   by   Loong   and   Tan   valid   as  
GOV.   TUPAY   T.   LOONG,   BARIK   SAMPANG,   KARTINI   MALDISA,   YASSER   HASSAN,   they   were   filed   not   in   pre-­‐proc   actions,   but   in   actions   for  
and   HADJA   SAPINA   RADJAIE,   petitioners,     vs.THE   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS;  
PROVINCIAL   BOARD   OF   CANVASSERS   OF   SULU;   MUNICIPAL   BOARD   OF  
annulment  of  elections/failure  of  election  
CANVASSERS  OF  TALIPAO  &  ABDUSAKUR  TAN,  respondents.     While,   however,   the   COMELEC   is   restricted,   in   pre-­‐
  proclamation   cases,   to   an   examination   of   the   election   returns   on  
FACTS:   their  face  and  is  without  jurisdiction  to  go  beyond  or  behind  them  
• This   case   is   a   consolidation   of   4   cases   relating   to   the   1995   and  investigate  election  irregularities,  the  COMELEC  is  duty  bound  
elections   in   Sulu,   where   Loong   and   PR   Tan   were   gubernatioral   to   investigate   allegations   of   fraud,   terrorism,   violence   and  
candidates.   other   analogous   causes   in   actions   for   annulment   of   election  
Tan’s  pre-­‐proclamation  case   results  or  for  declaration  of  failure  of  elections,  as  the  Omnibus  
• During   the   canvassing,   the   COMELEC,   upon   recommendation   of   Election  Code  denominates  the  same.    
the   provincial   Board   of   Canvassers   (PBOC),   ordered   a   recanvass     Thus,   the   COMELEC,   in   the   case   of   actions   for   annulment  
of  the  ERs  in  2  out  of  18  municipalities:  Parang  and  Talipao.    Tan   of  election  results  or  declaration  of  failure  of  elections,  may  conduct  
objected   to   the   inclusion   of   the   ER   from   Parang   but   the   technical   examination   of   election   documents   and   compare   and  
reconsituted  MBC  merely  noted  his  objections.   analyze   voters'   signatures   and   fingerprints   in   order   to   determine  
• The   PBC   denied   Tan’s   petition   to   exclude   the   Parang   ER.   The   whether   or   not   the   elections   had   indeed   been   free,   honest   and  
recanvassed   ERs   show   that   Loong     et   al   won   the   elections.   Tan   clean.   Needless   to   say,   a   pre-­‐proclamation   controversy   is   not   the  
questioned   the   act   of   the   PBOC   in   an   appeal   to   the   COMELEC,   same  as  an  action  for  annulment  of  election  results  or  declaration  of  
which  dismissed  such  appeal.   failure  of  elections.  
        In   the   instant   case,   Tan   and   Loong   filed,   not   pre-­‐
Tan  and  Loong’s  prayer  for  special  elections   proclamation   cases,   but   actions   for   annulment   of   election   results   or  
• It   seems   that   earlier,   on   June   9,   Tan   filed   a   petition   to   set   declaration   of   failure   of   elections   over   which   the   COMELEC   has  
aside/annul  the  elections  in  Parang.  According  to  Tan,  there  was   statutory  jurisdiction.  
a  failure  of  election  in  Parang  due  to  massive  fraud.        
• Based  on  Tan’s  petition,  the  COMELEC  ordered  the  delivery  of  list   ! Thus,   the   SC   held   that   the   conduct   of   technical  
of  voters  and  book  of  voters  for  all  precincts.     examinations   on   the   Parang   ER   was   valid,   and  
• Anticipating   that   the   COMELEC   would   use   the   documents   to   ordered   the   COMELEC   to   conduct   a   similar  
conduct  a  technical  examination  by  comparing  the  signatures  and   examination  as  prayed  by  Loong  
thumbmarks   to   the   list   of   voters   and   registration   forms,   Loong   et    
al  reminded  the  COMELEC  that  such  a  technical  examination  was   COMELEC   erred   in   not   calling   for   special   elections   after  
prohibited  according  to  the  ruling  in  Dianalan  v  COMELEC.  In  the   annulling  Parang  election  
meantime,  Loong  et  al  prayed  for  the  same  technical  examination     The   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   when   it   disregarded   the  
in  5  municipalities  where  they  allege  Tan  cheated.  However,  the   statutory  mandate  under  RA  7166  and  did  away  with  the  holding  of  
COMELEC  went  ahead  and  conducted  the  technical  examination.   special   elections   in   Parang,   Sulu.   The   Court   noted   the   dissent   of   a  
commissioner:  
• Loong  also  filed  with  the  COMELEC  to  declare  failure  of  elections  
in   the   said   5   municipalities.   The   COMELEC   en   banc   dismissed   the     With   the   annulment   of   the   results   of   the   election   in   the  
petition.   Municipality  of  Parang,  no   proclamation   of   the   winners   for  
the   contested   positions   of   Governor   and   Vice-­‐Governor  
• On   the   basis   of   the   technical   examination   results,   the   COMELEC  
can  be  made  unless  a  special  election  is  held.  
en  banc  issued  a  resolution  where  they  declared  the  elections  in  
  Any   proclamation   made   will   be   null   and   void   because   it  
Parang   null   and   void   (but   did   not   order   a   special   election)   and  
would  be  based  on  an  incomplete  canvass.  The  only  exception  
held  in  abeyance  the  proclamation  of  the  winning  candidates.  The  
is   if   the   election   returns   from   the   elections   of   Parang   will   not  
COMELEC   did   not   order   the   conduct   of   a   special   election   because  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   81  
 
affect   the   results   of   the   provincial   election.   Based   on   the   CASE:  LUCERO  V  COMELEC  
number  of  registered  voters,  however,  the  exclusion  of  Parang   G.R.  No.  113107.  July  20,  1994.*  
will  affect  the  results  of  the  provincial  election.     WILMAR  P.  LUCERO,  petitioner,  vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS  and  JOSE  L.  ONG,  
JR.,  respondents.  
   
Grounds  for  pre-­‐proclamations   G.R.  No.  113509.  July  20,  1994.*  
The   scope   of   a   pre-­‐proc   controversy   is   limited   to   the   issues   under   JOSE   L.   ONG,   JR.,   petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   WILMAR   P.  
Section  243  of  the  OEC:   LUCERO,  respondents.  
 
4. there   is   a   clear   showing   or   proof   that   the   election  
FACTS:  
returns   canvassed   are   incomplete   or   contain   material  
defects   • Lucero   and   Ong   were   candidates   for   a   congressional   seat   in  
5. there   is   a   clear   showing   or   proof   that   the   election   Samar  during  the  1992  national  elections.  During  the  canvass  of  
returns   canvassed   appear   to   have   been   tampered   the  PBOC,  Ong  had  a  204-­‐vote  lead.    
with,  falsified  or  prepared  under  duress   • However,  this  canvass  by  the  PBOC  did  not  include  the  ERs  from  
6. there   is   a   clear   showing   or   proof   that   the   election   three  precincts  in  the  municipality  of  Silvino  Lobos:  
returns  canvassed contain  discrepancies  in  the  votes   a. Precinct  7  –  ER  was  illegible  
credited   to   any   candidate,   the   difference   of   which   b. Precinct   13   –   ballot   box   was   snatched   and   no   election   was  
affects  the  result  of  the  election   held  
  c. Precinct  16  –  all  copies  of  ER  were  lost  
The   rule   is   technical   examinations   are   not   allowed   in   pre-­‐ • Lucero   filed   a   special   action   with   the   COMELEC   asking   a   special  
proclamation  cases   election   to   be   held   in   Precinct   13,   as   well   as   a   recount   for  
  In   the   controlling   case   of   Dianalan  v  COMELEC,  the   Court   Precincts   7   and   16.   Lucero   also   prayed   for   the   correction   of  
said   that   the   prevailing   doctrine   in   this   jurisdiction,   therefore,   is   manifest  errors  on  the  ER  of  the  municipality  of  Las  Navas.  (The  
that   as   long   as   the   returns   appear   to   be   authentic   and   duly   error  in  the  Las  Navas  ER  gave  Ong  20  additional  votes)  
accomplished   on   their   face,   the   Board   of   Canvassers   cannot   look   • One   year   later   (June   1993)   the   COMELEC   en   banc   issued   a  
beyond  or  behind  them  to  verify  allegations  of  irregularities  in  the   Resolution   which   directed   the   PBOC   to   deliver   the   ballot   boxes   of  
casting  or  the  counting  of  the  votes.     Precincts   7   and   16   to   the   COMELEC   to   conduct   a   recount.   Ong  
  Corollarily,   technical   examination   of   voting   questioned   this   order   through   a   certiorari   petition,   but  
paraphernalia   involving   analysis   and   comparison   of   voters'   nonetheless,  the  recount  for  Precinct  16  continued.  
signatures   and   thumbprints   thereon   is   prohibited   in   pre-­‐ • Later,   the   SC   granted   Ong’s   prayer   for   TRO.   The   SC   would   also  
proclamation   cases   which   are   mandated   by   law   to   be   later   annul   te   COMELEC’s   actions   towards   the   ballot   boxes.   The  
expeditiously   resolved   without   involving   evidence   aliunde   and   SC   however,   held   that   a   special   election   forPrecinct   13   was   in  
examination   of   voluminous   documents   which   take   up   much   time   order.    
and   cause   delay   in   defeat   of   the   public   policy   underlying   the   • Thus,   in   January   2004,   the   COMELEC   en   banc   resolved   to   call   a  
summary  nature  of  pre-­‐proclamation  controversies.   special  election  in  Precinct  13;  to  include  the  ER  of  Precinct  7  in  
  the   canvass,   and   to   correct   the   errors   in   the   ER   of   Las   Navas.   The  
Reasons   why   technical   examinations   are   prohibited   in   pre-­‐ special   election   was   scheduled   after   1year   and   10months   after  
proc   the  day  of  the  elections.  
    • Ong   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   with   the   SC   questioning   the  
3. To   determine   winners   ASAP   -­‐The   policy   consideration   authority   of   the   COMELEC   to   call   for   a   special   election   in   Precinct  
underlying   the   prohibition   is   the   policy   to   determine   as   quickly   No.  13  almost  two  years  after  the  regular  election.  
as  possible  the  result  of  the  election  on  the  basis  of  canvass.    
  To  expand  the  issues  beyond  those  enumerated  under  sec.   ISSUE/S:  
243   and   allow   a   recount/reappreciation   of   votes   in   every   WON   the   call   for   special   election   for   Precinct   13   is   proper,   even  
instance   where   a   claim   of   misdeclaration   of   stray   votes   is   made   after  all  this  time.  YES  
would  open  the  floodgates  to  such  claims  and   paralyze   canvass   WON   the   votes   from   Precinct   7   should   first   be   counted   before  
and   proclamation   proceedings,   given   the   propensity   of   the   determining  the  need  of  special  election  in  precinct  13?  YES  
loser  to  demand  a  recount.   WON   the   correction   of   manifest   errors   of   the   Las   Navas   ER   was  
  proper.  YES  
4. ERs   prima   facie   considered   valid   -­‐   The   complete   election    
returns  whose  authenticity  is  not  in  question,  must  be  prima  facie   HELD:  
considered   valid   for   the   purpose   of   canvassing   the   same   and   a. Two  requisites  for  the  calling  of  a  special  election.  
proclamation  of  the  winning  candidates.   1. that  there  is  a  failure  of  election,  and  
  2. that   such   failure   would   affect   the   results   of   the  
  election.  
Both   requisites   were   present.   There   was   a   failure   of   election  
because   the   ballot   box   in   Precinct   13   was   stolen,   and   the  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   82  
 
number  of  voters  in  the  same  precinct  would  affect  the  results   The   order   of   the   COMELEC   for   the   correction   of   the   manifest  
of  the  election.  The  calling  of  a  special  election  was  proper.   error   in   the   municipal   certificate   of   canvass   of   Las   Navas   was  
  According   to   Comelec   records,   the   number   of   registered   made   pursuant   to   the   declaration   made   by   this   Court   in   G.R.  
voters  in  Precinct  No.  13  is  two  hundred  thirteen  (213).  Since   No.   105717.   Since   no   motion   for   reconsideration   was   filed   in  
the   lead   of   respondent   Ong   is   less   than   the   number   of   that   case,   the   decision   therein   became   final   and   entry   of  
registered   voters,   the   votes   in   that   precinct   could   affect   the   judgment   was   made   on   4   August   1993.   Consequently,   Ong  
existing  result  because  of  the  possibility  that  petitioner  Lucero   cannot   now   re-­‐litigate   the   issue   of   the   correction   of   the  
might   get   a   majority   over   Ong   in   that   precinct   and   that   certificate  of  canvass  of  Las  Navas.  
majority  might  be  more  than  the  present  lead  of  Ong.    
  e. Discussion   on   Article   VII,   Section   10   of   the   Constitution   and  
b.   Special   elections   may   still   be   set   even   if   it   has   been   two   Section   4   of   7166,   prohibitions   do   not   apply   to   special  
years   as   the   delay   was   attributable   to   both   Lucero   and   elections  called  under  Section  6  of  OEC  
Ong.   The  aforementioned  Constitutional  provision  provides  that  no  
In   fixing   the   date   of   the   special   election,   the   COMELEC   should   special   election   in   the   event   of   a   vacancy   in   the   Offices   of   the  
see  to  it  that:     President   and   Vice   President   “shall   be   called   if   the   vacancy  
(1) it   should   be   not   later   than   thirty   days   after   the   occurs   within   eighteen   months   before   the   date   of   the   next  
cessation   of   the   cause   of   the   postponement   or   presidential  election.  
suspension   of   the   election   or   the   failure   to   elect,    
and     Meanwhile,  in  7166:  
(2) it   should   be   reasonably   close   to   the   date   of   the   “In   case   a   permanent   vacancy   shall   occur   in   the   Senate   or  
election  not  held,  suspended,  or  which  resulted  in   House   of   Representatives   at   least   one   (1)   year   before   the  
failure  to  elect.     expiration   of   the   term,   the   Commission   shall   call   and   hold   a  
(3)   special   election   to   fill   the   vacancy   not   earlier   than   sixty   (60)  
The   first   involves   questions   of   fact.   The   second   must   be   days   nor   longer   than   ninety   (90)   days   after   the   occurrence   of  
determined  in  the  light  of  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  a  case.   the   vacancy.   However,   in   case   of   such   vacancy   in   the   Senate,  
In   the   instant   case,   the   delay   was   not   attributable   to   the   poor   the  special  election  shall  be  held  simultaneously  with  the  next  
voters  of  Precinct  No.  13  or  to  the  rest  of  the  electorate  of  the   succeeding  regular  election.”  
Second   Legislative   District   of   Northern   Samar.   The   delay   was    
primarily   caused   by   the   legal   skirmishes   or   maneuvers   of   the      
petitioners  which  muddled  simple  issues.     A   view   was   expressed   that   we   should   not   hold   the   special  
  Considering   then   that   the   petitioners   themselves   must   election  because  the  underlying  philosophy  for  the  prohibition  
share  the  blame  for  the  delay,  and  taking  into  account  the  fact   to   hold   the   special   election   if   the   vacancy   occurred   within   a  
that   since   the   term   of   the   office   of   the   contested   position   is   certain  period  before  the  next  presidential  election  or  the  next  
only   three   years,   the   holding   of   a   special   election   in   Precinct   regular   election,   as   the   case   may   be,   is   obviously   the   avoidance  
No.   13   within   the   next   few   months   may   still   be   considered   of   the   expense   to   be   incurred   in   the   holding   of   a   special  
"reasonably  close  to  the  date  of  the  election  not  held."   election   when   a   regular   election   is,   after   all,   less   than   a   year  
  away.    
c. Votes  cast  in  Precinct  7  should  be  counted  first     The   Court   ultimately   resolved   that   the   aforesaid  
Since   there   was   no   counting   of   the   votes   of   Precinct   No.   7,   no   constitutional  and  statutory  proscriptions  are  inapplicable  
valid   election   returns   could   be   made   and   any   copy   of   election   to  special  elections  which  may  be  called  under  Section  6  of  
returns   purporting   to   come   therefrom   is   a   fabrication.   A   the  Omnibus  Election  Code.    
recount   thereof,   which   presupposes   a   prior   count,   would    
obviously  be  unwarranted.     First,  the  special  election  in  the  former  is  to  fill  permanent  
  vacancies   in   the   Office   of   the   President,   Vice   President,   and  
Only   a   count   then   of   the   votes   of   Precinct   No.   13   would   Members   of   Congress   occurring   after   the   election,   while   the  
heretofore   be   in   order.   Sections   234,   235,   and   236   of   the   special   election   under   the   latter   is   due   to   or   by   reason   of   a  
Omnibus   Election   Code   are   thus   still   inapplicable.   And,   in   the   failure  of  election.    
light   of   what   we   stated   before   in   relation   to   the   holding   of   a     Second,   a   special   election   under   Section   6   would   entail  
special   election,   such   a   count   of   the   votes   of   Precinct   No.   7   minimal   costs   because   it   is   limited   to   only   the   precincts  
must,  perforce,  precede  the  special  election  in  Precinct  No.  13.   involved   and   to   the   candidates   who,   by   the   result   of   the  
  election  in  a  particular  constituency,  would  be  affected  by  the  
d. Las  Navas  ER  correction  proper   failure   of   election.   On   the   other   hand,   the   special   election   for  
The   correction   of   the   certificate   of   canvass   of   Las   Navas   is   the  Offices  of  the  President,  Vice  President,  and  Senators  would  
likewise   in   order.   Even   though   a   pre-­‐proclamation   issue   is   be  nation-­‐wide,  and  that  of  a  Representative,  district-­‐wide.    
involved,  the  correction  of  the  manifest  error  is  allowed  under     Third,   Section   6,   when   specifically   applied   to   the   instant  
Sec.  15  of  R.A.  No.  7166.   case,  presupposes  that  no  candidate  had  been  proclaimed  and  
  therefore   the   people   of   the   Second   Legislative   District   of  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   83  
 
Northern   Samar   would   be   unrepresented   in   the   House   of   Rule   1   of   the   Revised   COMELEC   Rules   of   Procedure,   nor   an  
Representatives   until   the   special   election   shall   ultimately   election  case.  
determine  the  winning  candidate,  such  that  if  none  is  held,  they     Furthermore,  under  RA  7166,  only  the  COMELEC  en  banc  
would  have  no  representation  until  the  end  of  the  term.  Under   has  the  authority  to  decide  on  the  existence  of  FOE.  
the   aforesaid   constitutional   and   statutory   provisions,   the    
elected   officials   have   already   served   their   constituencies   for   b. Borja’s   grounds   are   grounds   for   an   election   protest;   proper  
more  than  one-­‐half  of  their  terms  of  office.     action  is  election  protest  with  the  RTC  
  Fourth,   if   the   law   had   found   it   fit   to   provide   a   specific   and     Borja’s   grounds   -­‐   Lack   of   notice   of   the   date   and   time   of  
determinate   time-­‐frame   for   the   holding   of   a   special   election   canvass,   fraud,   violence,   terrorism   and   analogous   causes,  
under  Section  6,  then  it  could  have  easily  done  so  in  Section  4   disenfranchisement   of   voters,   presence   of   flying   voters,   and  
of  R.A.  No.  7166.   unqualified   members   of   the   Board   of   Election   Inspectors   -­‐   are  
  proper   grounds   only   in   an   election   contest   but   not   in   a  
  petition   to   declare   a   failure   of   election   and   to   nullify   a  
  proclamation.  
CASE:  BORJA  V  COMELEC     It   must   be   remembered   that   Capco   was   duly   elected   and  
G.R.  No.  120140.  August  21,  1996.*   proclaimed   as   Mayor   of   Pateros.   “Such   proclamation   enjoys   the  
BENJAMIN   U.   BORJA,   JR.,   petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   PATEROS   presumption   of   regularity   and   validity.”   To   destroy   the  
MUNICIPAL  BOARD  OF  CANVASSERS  and  JOSE  T.  CAPCO,  JR.,  respondents.  
 
presumption,   Borja   must   convincingly   show   that   his  
FACTS:   opponent’s  victory  was  procured  through  extra-­‐legal  means.  
• Borja   and   Capco   were   municipal   mayor   candidates   during   the   This   he   tried   to   do   by   alleging   matters   in   his   petition   which   he  
1995  elections  in  Pateros.    Capco  was  proclaimed  winner.   thought   constituted   failure   of   election,   such   as   lack   of   notice   of  
the   date   and   time   of   canvass;   fraud,   violence,   terrorism   and  
• Borja   filed   a   petition   to   DFOE   and   to   nullify   the  
analogous   causes;   disenfranchisement   of   voters;   presence   of  
canvass/proclamation.  Borja’s  grounds  were:  
flying   voters;   and   unqualified   members   of   the   Board   of   Election  
1. lack  of  notice  of  dae/time  of  canvass  
Inspectors.  
2. fraud  
  The   COMELEC   can   call   for   the   holding   or   continuation   of  
3. violence/terrorism  
election  by  reason  of  failure  of  election  only  when  the  election  is  
4. flying  voters,  unqualified  BEI  
not   held,   is   suspended   or   results   in   a   failure   to   elect,   and   the  
• The   COMELEC   en   banc   dismissed   the   petition   in   the   assailed  
latter  phrase  must  be  understood  in  its  literal  sense,  which  is  
Resolution,   finding   that   they   were   grounds   for   an   election  
“nobody  was  elected.  
protest.  The  three  instances  were  not  alleged  in  Borja’s  petition.  
  Borja’s  petition  was  nothing  but  a  simple  election  protest  
•  Borja   claims   that   the   COMELEC   en   banc   committed   GAOD   by  
involving  an  elective  municipal  position  which,  under  Section  251  
deciding  on  his  petition,  claiming  that  it  should  have  been  heard  
of   the   Election   Code,   falls   within   the   exclusive   original  
by  a  Division  first.  
jurisdiction  of  the  appropriate  Regional  Trial  Court.  
• His  basis  was  Article  9C  of  the  1987  Constitution,  which  states:      
SEC.   3.   The   Commission   on   Elections   may   sit   en   banc   or   in   c. Borja  was  accorded  due  process  when  the  en  banc  reviewed  
two   divisions,   and   shall   promulgate   its   rules   of   procedure   in   and  evaluated  his  petition  
order   to   expedite   disposition   of   election   cases,   including     Nor   can   Borja   claim   that   he   was   denied   due   process  
pre-­‐proclamation   controversies.   All   such   election   cases   because  when  the  COMELEC  en  banc  reviewed  and  evaluated  his  
shall  be  heard  and  decided  in  division,  provided  that  motions   petition,  the  same  was  tantamount  to  a  fair  “hearing”  of  his  case.  
for   reconsideration   shall   be   decided   by   the   Commission   en   The  fact  that  Capco  was  not  even  ordered  to  rebut  the  allegations  
banc.”   therein   certainly   did   not   deprive   him   of   his   day   in   court.   If  
  anybody   here   was   aggrieved   by   the   alleged   lack   of   notice   and  
ISSUE:   WON  the  COMELEC  en  banc  committed  GAOD  in  dismissing  
hearing,  it  was  Capco  whose  arguments  were  never  ventilated.  
Borja’s  petition.  NO    
 
 
HELD:  
a. A  petition  to  declare  FOE  is  not  an  election  protest,  nor  is  it  a  
pre-­‐proclamation  case;  why  important  to  distinguish  
  In   order   to   resolve   the   issue,   there   must   first   be   a  
determination   as   to   whether   a   petition   to   declare   a   failure   of  
election   qualifies   as   an   election   case   or   a   pre-­‐proclamation  
controversy.   If   it   does,   the   Constitution   mandates   that   it   be   heard  
and   adjudged   by   the   COMELEC   through   any   of   its   Divisions.  
Recall   that   the   COMELEC   en   banc   is   only   empowered   to   resolve  
motions  for  reconsideration  of  cases  decided  by  a  Division.  
  A   petition   to   declare   a   failure   of   election   is   neither   a  
preproclamation   controversy   as   classified   under   Section   5(h),  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   84  
 
CASE:    BALINDONG  V  COMELEC   b. Technical  examination  of  ballots  not  proper  as  long  as  the  
G.R.  No.  124041.  August  9,  1996.*   returns   appear   to   be   authentic   and   duly   accomplished   on  
SULTAN   AMER   BALINDONG,   petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   their  face.  
MAYOR  CABIB  A.  TANOG,  respondents.  
The  Court  reiterated  the  ruling  in  Loong  v  COMELEC  that:  
 
"as   long   as   the   returns   appear   to   be   authentic   and   duly  
FACTS:  
accomplished   on   their   face,   the   Board   of   Canvassers  
• Balindong  and  Tanog  were  municipal  mayor  candidates  in  Lanao  
cannot  look  beyond  or  behind  them  to  verify  allegations  of  
del   Sur   during   the   1995   elections.   Tanog   won   by   a   margin   of   149  
irregularities   in   the   casting   or   the   counting   of   the   votes.”   "  
votes,  and  was  subsequently  proclaimed.  
If   the   technical   examination   of   the   Voters'   List   and   Voters'  
• Balindong   then   filed   a   petition   to   suspend/annul  
Affidavits  was  sustained  in  that  case,  it  was  because  "even  
proclamation  against  Tanog.  He  alleged  that  the  polling  place  in  
before   the   technical   examination   was   conducted,   the  
Precinct   4   had   been   transferred   from   one   barangay   to   another.  
Commission  already  noted  certain  badges  of  fraud  just  
Due  to  this  transfer,  he  claims  that  some  of  his  supporters  were  
by  looking  at  the  election  results  of  Parang,  Sulu."  
not  able  to  cast  their  votes.  Despite  his  objection  to  the  inclusion  
In  this  case,  there  is  no  prima  facie  case  of  fraud.  Indeed,  what  
of   Precint   4’s   ER,   the   MBOC   included   the   same,   which   led   to  
Balindong  wants  is  a  technical  examination  of  the  signatures  so  
Tanog’s  victory.  
that  he  can  prove  fraud.  Balindong  must  find  his  own  evidence  
• One   month   later,   Balindong   filed   a   supplemental   petition   rather   than   fish   for   it   in   this   manner.   To   allow   election  
wherein  he  prayed  for  the  conduct  of  a  technical  examination  to   documents  to  be  examined  on  a  mere  hunch  or  at  the  whim  of  
prove  that  the  ER  of  Precinct  4  was  ‘obviously  manufactured.’   a  losing  candidate  without  any  factual  basis  would  be  to  allow  
• The   COMELEC   2nd   Div.   dismissed   both   of   Balindong’s   petitions,   him  to  trifle  with  the  will  of  the  people.  
ruling   that   Balindong’s   proper   action   would   be   an   election    
protest.  This  was  affirmed  by  the  COMELEC  en  banc.     c. Proper  remedy:  election  protest  with  the  RTC.    
• The  COMELEC  en  banc  held  that  the  transfer  of  the  polling  place   He  can  there  show  if  the  illegality  of  the  transfer  of  the  polling  
of  Precinct  No.  4  was  illegal  because  it  was  made  only  by  parties,   place,  as  determined  by  the  COMELEC,  in  any  way  affected  the  
without  notice  and  hearing.  This  transfer  was  in  violation  of  the   result  of  the  voting  in  the  precinct  and  ultimately  the  result  of  
prohibition   against   transfers   less   than   45   days   before   a   regular   the  election  in  Pualas,  Lanao  del  Sur.    
election,   as   provided   in   Sections   153-­‐154   of   the   OEC.   The    
COMELEC,   therefore,   ordered   its   Law   Department   to   investigate   d. Procedure:   Filing   of   petition   for   annulment   of  
the  matter  and  determine  the  parties  responsible  for  it.   proclamation   tolled   the   period   for   filing   an   election  
• However,   the   en   banc   held   that   there   was   no   failure   of   election   protest.  
(lack   of   2   conditions).   Despite   the   illegal   transfer   of   venue,   an   As   his   petition   was   not   acted   upon   by   the   Municipal   Board   of  
election  actually  took  place  in  Precinct  4.  And  even  then,  only  66   Canvassers,   he   filed   a   petition   for   the   annulment   of   private  
people   were   not   able   to   vote,   which   is   not   enough   to   overcome   respondent's  proclamation  in  the  COMELEC.  Pursuant  to  §248  
Tanog’s  margin  of  149  votes.   of  the  OEC,  the  filing  of  this  case  for  suspension  or  annulment  
• Balindong  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  with  the  SC,  claiming  that   of  the  proclamation  of  Tanog  suspended  the  running  of  the  period  
the  COMELEC  committed  GAOD  in  refusing  to  annul  the  results  of   for  filing  an  election  protest.  
the  election  in  Precinct  4.    
   
ISSUE:   WON   Tanog’s   proclamation   should   be   annulled   on   the   CASE:  HASSAN  V  COMELEC  
ground  of  the  illegal  transfer  of  polling  venue?  NO   G.R.  No.  124089.  November  13,  1996.*  
WON  a  technical  examination  is  proper?  NO   HADJI   NOR   BASHER   L.   HASSAN,   petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   MANGONDAYA   P.  
HASSAN   BUATAN;   COMELEC   MONITORING   AND   SUPERVISING   TEAM,   REGION   XII;   MADALUM  
  ELECTION   OFFICER;   MADALUM   MUNICIPAL   BOARD   OF   CANVASSERS;   REGULAR   and  
HELD:   SUBSTITUTE   MEMBERS,   BOARDS   OF   ELECTION   INSPECTORS   FOR  PRECINCTS  7-­‐A,  9,  9-­‐A,  10,  13  
and   14,   MADALUM,   care   of   REGIONAL   ELECTION   DIRECTOR,   REGION   XII;   CANDIDATES   FOR  
a. Transfer   of   polling   place   illegal   but   not   a   ground   for   VICEMAYOR   OSOP   KIRAM,   ANGNI   ERSA   AND   IBRAHIM   ALAWI,   and   CANDIDATES   FOR  
declaration  of  failure  of  election.   COUNCILOR   USNGAN   MACASAMBIT,   MALIK   M.   COSAIN,   FARIDA   S.   TANTAO,   ALIM   A.  
PATARANDANG,   HALIL   D.   DAISANGKAY,   BINOLAWAN   L.   HASSAN,   and   ALEX   M.   ASIZ,  
  The   mere   fact   that   the   transfer   of   polling   place   was   not   respondents.  
made  in  accordance  with  law  does  not  warrant  a  declaration  of    
failure  of  election  and  the  annulment  of  the  proclamation  of  the   FACTS:  
winning   candidate,   unless   the   number   of   uncast   votes   will   • Hassan   and   PR   Hassan-­‐Buatan   were   vice-­‐mayor   candidates  
affect  the  result  of  the  election.  In  the  case  at  bar,  although  the   during  the  1995  elections  in  Lanao  del  Sur.    
COMELEC   declared   the   transfer   of   the   polling   place   to   be   • Due  to  threats  of  violence  and  terrorism  in  the  area,  there  was  a  
illegal,   the   fact   is   that   only   66,   out   of   255   registered   voters   in   failure   of   election   in   6   out   of   the   24   precincts   in   the   municipality.  
Precinct   No.   4,   were   not   able   to   vote.   The   additional   votes   Elections  were  not  held  in  several  precincts  because  of  the  failure  
would   not   have   materially   affected   the   results   of   the   of  the  BEIs  to  report.  
election   so   as   to   warrant   a   declaration   of   failure   of   • The  elections  were  postponed  twice  (May  27  and  May  29).  Both  
election.   times,   the   BEIs   did   not   report,   so   for   the   May   29   elections,   the  
 

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   85  
 
COMELEC   was   forced   to   appoint   police   and   military   personnel   Out   of   the   1,546   registered   voters,   only   328   actually   voted  
just  so  the  elections  can  push  through.   because   of   the   insufficient   and   ineffectual   notice   given   of   the  
• The   canvass   of   both   election   (May   8   and   May   29)   show   that   time   and   place   of   elections.   Whether   or   not   another   special  
Hassan-­‐Buatan   won   the   plurality   of   votes   by   a   219   margin   over   election   would   turn   the   tide   in   petitioner’s   favor   is   of   no   moment  
Hassan.   because   what   is   more   important   is   that   the   electors   should   not  
• Hassan  then  filed  with  the  COMELEC  a  petition  for  DFOE,  on  the   have   been   deprived   of   their   right   to   vote   which   was   rather  
following  grounds:   apparent  in  the  case  at  bar.  
-­‐ voting   started   at   10am,   ended   at   2pm   because   of   rapid    
gunfire  and  grenade  launching  (violence/terrorism)   c. Notice;  importance  and  when  considered  sufficient  
-­‐ change  of  venue     We   cannot   agree   with   the   COMELEC   that   petitioner,   his  
-­‐ notice  of  change  of  venue  only  sent  the  night  before   followers  or  the  constituents  must  be  charged  with  notice  of  the  
-­‐ only   21%   of   registered   voters   were   able   to   vote,   78%   special   elections   to   be   held   because   of   the   failure   of   the   two   (2)  
disenfranchised   previous  elections.  To  require  the  voters  to  come  to  the  polls  on  
-­‐ non-­‐performance  of  the  BEIs   such   short   notice   was   highly   impracticable.   In   a   place   marred  
• The   COMELEC   en   banc   issued   a   Resolution   denying   his   petition   by   violence,   it   was   necessary   for   the   voters   to   be   given  
for   FOE   and   ordered   the   MBOC   to   complete   the   canvass   and   sufficient   time   to   be   notified   of   the   changes   and   prepare  
declare   Hassan-­‐Buatan   as   the   winner.   The   SC   would   later   grant   themselves  for  the  eventuality.  
Hassan’s  TRO  assailing  this  Resolution.     It  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  election  that  the  voters  
• The  COMELEC  held  that  the  petition  for  DFOE  has  not  valid  since   have   notice   in   some   form,   either   actual   or   constructive   of   the  
the  special  elections  in  the  5  disputed  precincts  would  not  change   time,  place  and  purpose  thereof.  The  time  for  holding  it  must  be  
the   outcome   of   the   election.   The   number   of   voters   in   the   authoritatively  designated  in  advance.  The  requirement  of  notice  
precincts   not   counted   to   219   (the   exact   number   of   Hassan-­‐ even   becomes   stricter   in   cases   of   special   elections   where   it   was  
Buatan’s   lead),   and   thus   the   COMELEC   said   it   was   improbable   called   by   some   authority   after   the   happening   of   a   condition  
that  all  of  them  would  vote  for  Hassan.   precedent,   or   at   least   there   must   be   a   substantial   compliance  
  therewith   so   that   it   may   fairly   and   reasonably   be   said   that   the  
ISSUE:  WON  there  was  FOE  in  this  case.  YES   purpose  of  the  statute  has  been  carried  into  effect.    
    The  sufficiency  of  notice  is  determined  on  whether  the  
HELD:   voters   generally   have   knowledge   of   the   time,   place   and  
a. Violence  in  the  area  prevalent  enough  to  cause  FOE   purpose   of   the   elections   so   as   to   give   them   full   opportunity  
While   we   are   aware   of   the   rule   that   the   power   of   declaring   FOE   to  attend  the  polls  and  express  their  will  or  on  the  other  hand,  
should  not  be  used  so  as  to  disenfranchise  voters  due  to  the  acts   whether   the   omission   resulted   in   depriving   a   sufficient   number  
of  a  few,  the  COMELEC  can  not  turn  a  blind  eye  to  the  fact  that   of   the   qualified   electors   of   the   opportunity   of   exercising   their  
terrorism   was   so   prevalent   in   the   area,   sufficient   enough   to   franchise  so  as  to  change  the  result  of  the  election.  
declare  that  no  voting  actually  occurred  on  May  29,  1995  in    
the  areas  concerned.     d. On  setting  the  date  of  the  special  election  
  It  must  be  recalled  that  elections  had  to  be  set  for  the  third   In   fixing   the   date   of   the   special   election,   the   COMELEC   should   see  
time   because   no   members   of   the   Board   of   Election   Inspectors   to  it  that:    
(BEI)   reported   for   duty   due   to   impending   threats   of   violence   in   1. it  should  be  not  later  than  thirty  days  after  the  cessation  of  
the  area.  This  then  prompted  COMELEC  to  deploy  military  men  to   the   cause   of   the   postponement   or   suspension   of   the  
act  as  substitute  members  just  so  elections  could  be  held;  and  to   election  or  the  failure  to  elect,  and    
thwart  these  threats  of  violence,  the  COMELEC  Team,  moreover,   2. it  should  be  reasonably  close  to  the  date  of  the  election  not  
decided   to   transfer   the   polling   places   to   Liangan   Elementary   held,  suspended,  or  which  resulted  in  failure  to  elect.    
School   which   was   15   kilometers   away   from   the   polling   place.     The   first   involves   questions   of   fact.   The   second   must   be  
Nonetheless,   voting   on   May   29   had   to   be   suspended   before   the   determined  in  the  light  of  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  a  case.  
hour  fixed  by  law  for  the  closing  of  the  voting  because  of  threats    
of  violence,  grenade  launching  and  gunfires.     The  re-­‐scheduling  of  the  special  elections  from  May  27  to  
  May  29,  was  done  in  uncommon  haste  and  unreasonably  too  close  
b. More  than  1000  voters  were  disenfranchised   for   all   voters   to   be   notified   of   the   changes,   not   only   as   to   the   date  
It   was   quite   sweeping   and   illogical   for   the   COMELEC   to   state   that   but   as   to   the   designated   polling   place.   We   must   agree   with   the  
the  votes  uncast  would  not  have  in  any  way  affected  the  results  of   dissenting   opinion   that   even   in   highly   urbanized   areas,   the  
the   elections.   While   the   difference   between   the   two   candidates   is   dissemination  of  notices  poses  to  be  a  problem.  In   the   absence   of  
only   219   out   of   the   votes   actually   cast,   the   COMELEC   totally   proof   that   actual   notice   of   the   special   elections   has   reached   a  
ignored   the   fact   that   there   were   more   than   a   thousand   great   number   of   voters,   we   are   constrained   to   consider   the  
registered   voters   who   failed   to   vote.  Aside  from  Precinct  7-­‐A   May   29   elections   as   invalid.   If   only   to   ascertain   the   will   of   the  
where  the  ballot  box  had  been  burned  and  which  had  219  voters,   people   and   to   prevent   that   will   from   being   muted,   it   is   necessary  
the  COMELEC  failed  to  consider  the  disenfranchisement  of  about   that   a   special   election   be   held   in   view   of   the   failure   of   elections   in  
78%  of  the  registered  voters  in  the  five  (5)  precincts  of  Madalum.   Madalum,  Lanao  del  Sur.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   86  
 
  Section  7  Call  of  special  election.  -­‐    
 >   COMELEC   ordered   to   suspend   proclamation   and   to   hold   special   (3) In   case   a   vacancy   arises   in   the   Batasang   Pambansa  
elections  in  Madalum   eighteen   months   or   more   before   a   regular   election,   the  
  Commission   shall   call   a   special   election   to   be   held   within  
  sixty  days  after  the  vacancy  occurs  to  elect  the  Member  to  
  serve  the  unexpired  term.  
(4) In   case   of   the   dissolution   of   the   Batasang   Pambansa,   the  
POWER  TO  CALL  SPECIAL  ELECTIONS   President   shall   call   an   election   which   shall   not   be   held  
  earlier   than   forty-­‐five   nor   later   than   sixty   days   from   the  
  date  of  such  dissolution.  
UNDER  THE  OMNIBUS  ELECTION  CODE    
  The   Commission   shall   send   sufficient   copies   of   its   resolution   for   the  
Section   5   Postponement  of  election.  -­‐  When  for  any  serious  cause   holding   of   the   election   to   its   provincial   election   supervisors   and  
such   as   violence,   terrorism,   loss   or   destruction   of   election   election  registrars  for  dissemination,  who  shall  post  copies  thereof  
paraphernalia   or   records,   force   majeure,   and   other   analogous   in   at   least   three   conspicuous   places   preferably   where   public  
causes   of   such   a   nature   that   the   holding   of   a   free,   orderly   and   meetings  are  held  in  each  city  or  municipality  affected.  
honest   election   should   become   impossible   in   any   political    
subdivision,   the   Commission,   motu   proprio   or   upon   a   verified   UNDER  RA  7166    
petition   by   any   interested   party,   and   after   due   notice   and   hearing,    
whereby  all  interested  parties  are  afforded  equal  opportunity  to  be   Section   4.   Postponement,   Failure   of   Election   and   Special  
heard,   shall   postpone   the   election   therein   to   a   date   which   Elections.   -­‐   The   postponement,   declaration   of   failure   of  
should  be  reasonably  close  to  the  date  of  the  election  not  held,   election   and   the   calling   of   special   elections   as   provided   in  
suspended   or   which   resulted   in   a   failure   to   elect   but   not   later   Sections   5,   6   and   7   of   the   Omnibus   Election   Code   shall   be  
than   thirty   days   after   the   cessation   of   the   cause   for   such   decided   by   the   Commission   sitting   en   banc   by   a   majority  
postponement  or  suspension  of  the  election  or  failure  to  elect.   vote  of  its  members.  The  causes  for  the  declaration  of  a  failure  
  of  election  may  occur  before  or  after  the  casting  of  votes  or  on  
Section   6   Failure   of   election.   -­‐   If,   on   account   of   force   majeure,   the  day  of  the  election.    
violence,   terrorism,   fraud,   or   other   analogous   causes   the   election   in    
any   polling   place   has   not   been   held   on   the   date   fixed,   or   had   been   **   In   case   a   permanent   vacancy   shall   occur   in   the   Senate   or  
suspended  before  the  hour  fixed  by  law  for  the  closing  of  the  voting,   House   of   Representatives   at   least   one   (1)   year   before   the  
or  after  the  voting  and  during  the  preparation  and  the  transmission   expiration   of   the   term,   the   Commission   shall   call   and   hold   a  
of   the   election   returns   or   in   the   custody   or   canvass   thereof,   such   special   election   to   fill   the   vacancy   not   earlier   than   sixty   (60)  
election   results   in   a   failure   to   elect,   and   in   any   of   such   cases   the   days   nor   longer   than   ninety   (90)   days   after   the   occurrence   of  
failure   or   suspension   of   election   would   affect   the   result   of   the   the   vacancy.   However,   in   case   of   such   vacancy   in   the   Senate,   the  
election,   the   Commission   shall,  on  the  basis  of  a  verified  petition   special   election   shall   be   held   simultaneously   with   the  
by   any   interested   party   and   after   due   notice   and   hearing,   call   for   succeeding  regular  election.  
the  holding  or  continuation  of  the  election  not  held,  suspended    
or  which  resulted  in  a  failure  to  elect  on   a   date   reasonably   close   OTHER  CONCEPTS:  
to  the  date  of  the  election  not  held,  suspended  or  which  resulted  in    
a   failure   to   elect   but   not   later   than   thirty  days   after   the  cessation  of   1. The  30  day  period  in  Sections  5  and  6  are  not  absolute.    
the   cause   of   such   postponement   or   suspension   of   the   election   or    
failure  to  elect.   The   prohibition   on   conducting   special   elections   after   thirty  
  days  from  the  cessation  of  the  cause  of  the  failure  of  elections  
is   not   absolute.   It   is   directory,   not   mandatory,   and   the  
COMELEC   possesses   residual   power   to   conduct   special  
elections   even   beyond   the   deadline   prescribed   by   law.   The  
deadline  in  Section  6  cannot  defeat  the  right  of  suffrage  of  the  
people   as   guaranteed   by   the   Constitution.   (Sambarani   v  
COMELEC,  GR.  160427)  
 
Guidelines  for  setting  the  date  of  the  special  elections:  
In   fixing   the   date   of   the   special   election,   the   COMELEC   should   see  
to  it  that:    
3. it  should  be  not  later  than  thirty  days  after  the  cessation  of  
the   cause   of   the   postponement   or   suspension   of   the  
election  or  the  failure  to  elect,  and    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   87  
 
4. it  should  be  reasonably  close  to  the  date  of  the  election  not   requirements   embodied   in   our   Constitution,   statute   books   and  
held,  suspended,  or  which  resulted  in  failure  to  elect.     other  repositories  of  law.  
    As   to   the   procedural   limitation,   the   right   of   a   citizen   to  
  The   first   involves   questions   of   fact.   The   second   must   be   vote   is   necessarily   conditioned   upon   certain   procedural  
determined  in  the  light  of  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  a  case.   requirements   he   must   undergo:   among   others,   the   process   of  
        (Hassan  v  COMELEC)   registration.   Specifically,   a   citizen   in   order   to   be   qualified   to  
  exercise   his   right   to   vote,   in   addition   to   the   minimum   requirements  
  set   by   fundamental   charter,   is   obliged   by   law   to   register,   at   present,  
CASE:  Akbayan  v  COMELEC   under  the  provisions  of  Republic  Act  No.  8189.  
G.R.  No.  147066  26  March  2001     Stated   differently,   the   act   of   registration   is   an  
AKBAYAN  -­‐  Youth,  SCAP,  UCSC,  MASP,  KOMPIL  II  -­‐  Youth,  ALYANSA,  KALIPI,  PATRICIA  Q.  PICAR,  
MYLA   GAIL   Z.   TAMONDONG,   EMMANUEL   E.   OMBAO,   JOHNNY   ACOSTA,   ARCHIE   JOHN   TALAUE,  
indispensable   precondition   to   the   right   of   suffrage.   For  
RYAN  DAPITAN,  CHRISTOPHER  OARDE,  JOSE  MARI  MODESTO,  RICHARD  M.  VALENCIA,  EDBEN   registration   is   part   and   parcel   of   the   right   to   vote   and   an  
TABUCOL,  petitioners    vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTION,  respondents.  
 
indispensable   element   in   the   election   process.   Thus,   contrary   to  
  Akbayan's   argument,   registration   cannot   and   should   not   be  
FACTS:   denigrated  to  the  lowly  stature  of  a  mere  statutory  requirement.    
• In   March   of   2001,   Akbayan-­‐Youth   requested   that   the   COMELEC     Proceeding   from   the   significance   of   registration   as   a  
conduct   a   special   2-­‐day   registration   period   before   the   May   14,   necessary   requisite   to   the   right   to   vote,   the   State   undoubtedly,   in  
2001  regular  elections.  According  to  Akbayan-­‐Youth,  around  4m   the   exercise   of   its   inherent   police   power,   may   then   enact   laws   to  
youth  failed  to  register  on  or  before  the  deadline  under  RA  8189   safeguard   and   regulate   the   act   of   voter's   registration   for   the  
(Voter’s  Registration  Act  of  1996).   ultimate   purpose   of   conducting   honest,   orderly   and   peaceful  
• The   possibility   of   conducting   this   special   registration   was   election,   to   the   incidental   yet   generally   important   end,   that   even  
discussed   in   public   hearings.   The   COMELEC   also   consulted   its   pre-­‐election   activities   could   be   performed   by   the   duly   constituted  
regional  heads  as  to  the  feasibility  of  such  an  undertaking.   authorities   in   a   realistic   and   orderly   manner   -­‐   one   which   is   not  
• In  the  end,  the  COMELEC  issued  the  assailed  Resolution  wherein   indifferent   and   so   far   removed   from   the   pressing   order   of   the   day  
they   denied   the   request.   The   basis   for   COMELEC’s   denial   was   and  the  prevalent  circumstances  of  the  times.  
logistic   impossibility:   that   registration   process   would   take   more    
than  3  weeks  to  complete  –  from  printing  the  required  forms  to   Sec  8,  RA  8189  and  Sec  28  of  RA  8436  reconciled  
preparing  the  required  accomodations  for  the  new  registrants.     RA   8189   explicitly   provides   that   no   registration   shall   be  
• Furthermore,   the   COMELEC   claimed,   Section   8   of   RA   8189   conducted   during   the   period   starting   one   hundred   twenty   (120)  
precludes   the   registration   of   voters   120   days   before   a   regular   days   before   a   regular   election.   Thus   it   is   improper   for   Akbayan   to  
election  and  90  days  before  a  special  election.   request   COMELEC   to   conduct   a   special   registration   through   RA  
• Akbayan   then   filed   a   petition   for   certioari   and   mandamus,   8346.  
seeking   to   declare   such   provision   unconstitutional   as   it   causes     The   provisions   of   Section   28,   RA   8436   would   come  
disenfranchisement   of   voters.   Petitions   of   mandamus   were   also   into  play  in  cases  where  the  pre-­‐election  acts  are  susceptible  of  
filed   seeking   to   compel   the   COMELEC   to   conduct   the   requested   performance  within  the  available  period  prior  to  election  day.  
registration.   In  more  categorical  language,  Section  28  of  R.A  8436  is,  to  our  mind,  
anchored   on   the   sound   premise   that   these   certain   "pre-­‐election  
• Akbayan  claims  that  the  COMELEC  may  still  hold  the  registration  
under  Section  28  of  8346  where  it  states:   acts"   are   still   capable   of   being   reasonably   performed   vis-­‐a-­‐vis   the  
  remaining   period   before   the   date   of   election   and   the   conduct   of  
SEC.  28.  Designation   of   other   Dates   for   Certain   Pre-­‐election   Acts   other   related   pre-­‐election   activities   required   under   the   law.   The  
-­‐  if  it  should  no  longer  be  possible  to  observe  the  periods  and   “standby  power”  of  the  COMELEC  under  RA  8436  presupposeS  the  
dates   prescribed   by   law   for   certain   pre-­‐election   acts,   the   possibility  of  its  being  exercised  or  availed  of,  and  not  otherwise  (as  
Commission   shall   fix   other   periods   and   dates   in   order   to   in  this  case  as  it  is  prohibited  by  law).  
ensure  accomplishments  of  the  activities  so  voters  shall  not  be    
deprived  of  their  right  to  suffrage.   On   the   contention   of   disenfranchisement:   those   who   failed   to  
  register  also  had  fault  
ISSUE:   WON  the  COMELEC  should  conduct  a  special  registration  of     There  is  no  showing  that  anyone  of  herein  petitioners  has  
voters  as  requested.  NO   filed   an   application   to   be   registered   as   a   voter   which   was   denied   by  
WON   such   undertaking   by   the   COMELEC   may   be   compelled   by   the   COMELEC   or   that   he   or   she   was   disallowed   or   barred   by  
mandamus.  NO   respondent   COMELEC   from   filing   his   application   for   registration.  
  While  it  may  be  true  that  respondent  COMELEC  set  the  registration  
HELD:   deadline  on  December  27,  2000,  this  Court  is  of  the  firm  view  that  
Right   to   vote   subject   to   procedural   limitations   such   as   petitioners   were   not   totally   denied   the   opportunity   to   avail   of   the  
registration   continuing  registration  under  R.A.  8189.  
  The  exercise  of  the  right  of  suffrage,  as  in  the  enjoyment  of    
all   other   rights,   is   subject   to   existing   substantive   and   procedural  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   88  
 
Determination   of   feasibility   of   conducting   a   special    
registration  involves  discretion  and  is  therefore  not  subject  to  
mandamus  
SET  10  :  POWER  TO  REGISTER  POLITICAL  
  As   an   extraordinary   writ,   the   remedy   of   mandamus   lies   PARTIES  AND  ACCREDIT  CITIZEN  ARMS  
only   to   compel   an   officer   to   perform   a   ministerial   duty,   not   a    
discretionary  one;  mandamus  will  not  issue  to  control  the  exercise      
of  discretion  of  a  public  officer  where  the  law  imposes  upon  him  the   UNDER  THE  1987  CONSTITUTION  
duty  to  exercise  his  judgment  in  reference  to  any  manner  in  which    
he   is   required   to   act,   because   it   is   his   judgment   that   is   to   be   Section  2  (5),  Article  9-­‐C:  
exercised  and  not  that  of  the  court.   Register,   after   sufficient   publication,   political   parties,  
  For  the  determination  of  whether  or  not  the  conduct  of  a   organizations,   or   coalitions   which,   in   addition   to   other  
special   registration   of   voters   is   feasible,   possible   or   practical   within   requirements,   must   present   their   platform   or   program   of  
the  remaining  period  before  the  actual  date  of  election,  involves  the   government;;   and   accredit   citizens'   arms   of   the   Commission   on  
exercise  of  discretion  and  thus,  cannot  be  controlled  by  mandamus.   Elections.   Religious   denominations   and   sects   shall   not   be  
  registered.   Those   which   seek   to   achieve   their   goals   through  
  violence  or  unlawful  means,  or  refuse  to  uphold  and  adhere  to  
  this   Constitution,   or   which   are   supported   by   any   foreign  
government  shall  likewise  be  refused  registration.      
 
Financial   contributions   from   foreign   governments   and   their  
agencies   to   political   parties,   organizations,   coalitions,   or  
candidates   related   to   elections,   constitute   interference   in  
national   affairs,   and,   when   accepted,   shall   be   an   additional  
ground   for   the   cancellation   of   their   registration   with   the  
Commission,   in   addition   to   other   penalties   that   may   be  
prescribed  by  law.    
 
UNDER  ARTICLE  8,  OMNIBUS  ELECTION  CODE  
 
Section   60.  Political   party.   -­‐  "Political  party"  or  "party",  when  used  
in  this  Act,  means  an  organized  group  of  persons  pursuing  the  same  
ideology,  political  ideas  or  platforms  of  government  and  includes  its  
branches   and   divisions.   To   acquire   juridical   personality,   quality   it  
for   subsequent   accreditation,   and   to   entitle   it   to   the   rights   and  
privileges   herein   granted   to   political   parties,   a   political   party   shall  
first   be   duly   registered   with   the   Commission.   Any   registered  
political  party  that,  singly  or  in  coalition  with  others,  fails  to  obtain  
at  least  ten  percent  of  the  votes  cast  in  the  constituency  in  which  it  
nominated  and  supported  a  candidate  or  candidates  in  the  election  
next   following   its   registration   shall,   after   notice   and   hearing   be  
deemed  to  have  forfeited  such  status  as  a  registered  political  party  
in  such  constituency.    
 
Section   61.  Registration.   -­‐  Any  organized  group  of  persons  seeking  
registration   as   a   national   or   regional   political   party   may   file   with  
the  Commission  a  verified  petition  attaching  thereto  its  constitution  
and   by-­‐laws,   platform   or   program   of   government   and   such   other  
relevant   information   as   may   be   required   by   the   Commission.   The  
Commission   shall,   after   due   notice   and   hearing,   resolve   the   petition  
within  ten  days  from  the  date  it  is  submitted  for  decision.    
  No   religious   sect   shall   be   registered   as   a   political   party  
and   no   political   party   which   seeks   to   achieve   its   goal   through  
violence  shall  be  entitled  to  accreditation.    
 
Section  62.  Publication  of  petition  for  registration  or  accreditation.  -­‐  
The   Commission   shall   require   publication   of   the   petition   for  
registration  or  accreditation  in  at  least  three  newspapers  of  general  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   89  
 
circulation   and   shall,   after   due   notice   and   hearing,   resolve   the   PARTYLIST  REPRESENTATION  UNDER  THE  1987  CONSTI  
petition   within   fifteen   days   from   the   date   it   is   submitted   for    
decision.     Article   2,   Section   23,   1987   Constitution.   The   State   shall  
  encourage   non-­‐governmental,   community-­‐based,   or   sectoral  
UNDER  THE  COMELEC  RULES  OF  PROCEDURE,  RULE  32   organizations  that  promote  the  welfare  of  the  nation.  
   
Section   4.   Verification.   -­‐   Before   taking   action   on   the   petition,   the   Article  VI,  Section  5:  
Commission   shall   first   verify,   through   its   field   offices,   the   status     The   House   of   Representatives   shall   be   composed   of   not  
and  capacity  of  the  petitioner  and  the  veracity  of  the  allegations  in   more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty  members,  unless  otherwise  fixed  
the  petition  and  its  enclosures.  Not  later  than  fifteen  (15)  days  from   by   law,   who   shall   be   elected   from   legislative   districts   apportioned  
notice   of   the   Commission's   instruction,   the   field   office   concerned   among   the   provinces,   cities,   and   the   Metropolitan   Manila   area   in  
shall   submit   its   written   report,   in   ten   (10)   copies,   together   with   accordance  with  the  number  of  their  respective  inhabitants,  and  on  
supporting  documents  or  records,  if  any.   the   basis   of   a   uniform   and   progressive   ratio,   and   those   who,   as  
  provided   by   law,   shall   be   elected   by   a   party-­‐list   system   of  
Section   5.   Notice  of  Hearing.  -­‐  Upon  receipt  of  the  reports  from  its   registered   national,   regional,   and   sectoral   parties   or  
field   offices,   the   Commission   shall   immediately   set   the   petition   for   organizations.  
hearing   and   shall   send   notices   to   the   petitioner   and   other   parties     The   party-­‐list   representatives   shall   constitute   twenty   per  
concerned.   centum   of   the   total   number   of   representatives   including   those  
  under   the   party-­‐list.   For   three   consecutive   terms   after   the  
Section  6.  Publication  of  Petition  and  notice  of  Hearing.   -­‐   On   the   day   ratification   of   this   Constitution,   one   half   of   the   seats   allocated   to  
following   the   receipt   of   the   notice   of   hearing,   the   petitioner   shall   party-­‐list   representatives   shall   be   filled,   as   provided   by   law,   by  
cause   the   publication   of   the   petition,   together   with   the   notice   of   selection   or   election   from   the   labor,   peasant,   urban   poor,  
hearing,   in   three   (3)   daily   newspaper   of   general   circulation,   indigenous   cultural   communities,   women,   youth,   and   such   other  
notifying  in  writing  the  Commission  of  such  action.   sectors  as  may  be  provided  by  law,  except  the  religious  sector.”  
   
Section   7.   Certificate   of   Registration.   -­‐   A   certificate   of   registration   UNDER  RA  7941  
shall   be   issued   by   the   Commission   upon   approval   of   the   petition,    
which  shall  be  displayed  in  the  main  office  and  in  all  chapters  of  the   Section   2   Declaration   of   policy.   The   State   shall   promote  
petitioner.   proportional  representation  in  the  election  of  representatives  to  the  
  House  of  Representatives  through  a  party-­‐list  system  of  registered  
Section  8.  Cancellation  of  Registration.  -­‐  Upon  verified  complaint  of   national,  regional  and  sectoral  parties  or  organizations  or  coalitions  
any   interested   party,   or   motu   proprio   by   the   Commission,   the   thereof,   which   will   enable   Filipino   citizens   belonging   to  
registration   of   any   political   party,   coalition   of   political   parties   or   marginalized   and   under-­‐represented   sectors,   organizations   and  
organization  under  the  party-­‐list  system  may  be  cancelled  after  due   parties,  and  who  lack  well-­‐defined  political  constituencies  but  who  
notice  and  hearing  on  the  following  grounds:   could   contribute   to   the   formulation   and   enactment   of   appropriate  
a) Acceptance   by   the   political   party,   coalition   of   political   legislation   that   will   benefit   the   nation   as   a   whole,   to   become  
parties,   or   organizations   or   any   of   its   candidates,   of   members   of   the   House   of   Representatives.   Towards   this   end,   the  
financial   contributions   from   foreign   governments   and/or   State  shall  develop  and  guarantee  a  full,  free  and  open  party  system  
their  agencies  for  activities  related  to  elections;   in   order   to   attain   the   broadcast   possible   representation   of   party,  
b) Violation  of  laws,  rules  or  regulations  relating  to  elections,   sectoral   or   group   interests   in   the   House   of   Representatives   by  
plebiscites,  referenda,  or  initiative;   enhancing   their   chances   to   compete   for   and   win   seats   in   the  
c) Untruthful  statements  in  its  petition  for  registration;   legislature,  and  shall  provide  the  simplest  scheme  possible.  
d) The   said   political   party,   coalition   of   political   parties   or    
organization   has   become   a   religious   sect   or   denomination,   Section  3  Definition  of  Terms:  
is   pursuing   its   goals   thru   violence   or   other   unlawful    
means,  is  refusing  to  adhere  to  or  uphold  the  Constitution   a. PARTY-­‐LIST   SYSTEM   -­‐   a   mechanism   of   proportional  
of  the  Philippines,  or  is  receiving  support  from  any  foreign   representation   in   the   election   of   representatives   to   the  
government,  and   House   of   Representatives   from   national,   regional   and  
e) Failure   to   comply   with   applicable   laws,   rules   or   sectoral   parties   or   organizations   or   coalitions   thereof  
regulations  of  the  Commission.   registered  with  the  Commission  on  Elections  (COMELEC)  
f) Failure   to   field   official   candidates   in   the   last   two    
proceeding   elections   or   failure   of   their   candidates   to   b. PARTY  -­‐  means   either   a   political   party   or   a   sectoral   party  
obtain  at  least  five  (5)  per  centum  of  the  votes  cast  in  the   or  a  coalition  of  parties.  
last  two  preceding  elections.    
  c. POLITICAL   PARTY   -­‐   refers   to   an   organized   group   of  
  citizens  advocating  an  ideology  or  platform,  principles  and  
  policies   for   the   general   conduct   of   government   and   which,  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   90  
 
as   the   most   immediate   means   of   securing   their   adoption,   Section  9,  Qualifications  for  partylist  representatives:  
regularly   nominates   and   supports   certain   of   its   leaders   1. Natural-­‐born  citizen  
and  members  as  candidates  for  public  office.   2. Registered  voter  
  It   is   a   national   party   when   its   constituency   is   3. Resident   of   the   Philippines   for   not   less   than   1yr  
spread   over   the   geographical   territory   of   at   least   a   immediately  preceding  the  day  of  election  
majority   of   the   regions.   It   is   a   regional   party   when   its   4. Able  to  read  and  write  
constituency   is   spread   over   the   geographical   territory   of   5. Bona  fide  member  of  the  party  he  seeks  to  represent  for  at  
at   least   a   majority   of   the   cities   and   provinces   comprising   least  90  days  preceding  the  day  of  the  election  
the  region.   6. At  least  25yrs  old  on  the  day  of  the  election  
  ! in  case  of  youth  sector,  must  be  at  least  
d. SECTORAL   PARTY   –   refers   to   an   organized   group   of   25  but  not  more  than  30  years  of  age  on  
citizens   belonging   to   any   of   the   sectors   enumerated   in   the  day  of  the  election.    
Section  5  hereof  whose  principal  advocacy  pertains  to  the    
special  interest  and  concerns  of  their  sector.   4  Thresholds/parameters  to  the  party-­‐list  system:  
  1. 20%  allocation  –  Article  6,  Section  5(2)  provides  that  the  
e. SECTORAL   ORGANIZATION   –   refers   to   a   group   of   citizens   party-­‐list   reps   shall   constitute   20%   of   the   total  
or   a   coalition   of   groups   of   citizens   who   share   similar   membership   of   the   House   of   Representatives.   The   20%  
physical   attributes   or   characteristics,   employment,   should   be   interpreted   as   merely   a   ceiling.   It   is   not  
interests  or  concerns.   mandatory  to  be  filled.  
   
f. COALITION   -­‐   refers   to   an   aggrupation   of   duly   registered   2. 2%   threshold   –   Parties   which   obtain   at   least   2%   of   the  
national,   regional,   sectoral   parties   or   organizations   for   total   number   of   valid   votes   cast   for   the   party-­‐list   system  
political  and/or  election  purposes.   are  guaranteed  one  seat  each.  (Section  11,  RA  7941)  
  3. Three-­‐seat   rule    -­‐  Qualified   parties   are   allowed   only   three  
  maximum   seats   regardless   of   number   of   votes   obtained.  
  This  is  to  prevent  dominance  of  one  party  in  Congress.    
What  sectors  may  be  included  for  representation?   4.  Proportional   representation   –   Additional   seats   for  
Section   5.   xxx   Provided,   That   the   sectors   shall   include   labor,   qualified   parties   shall   be   computed   in   proportion   to   the  
peasant,   fisherfolk,   urban   poor,   indigenous   cultural   communities,   number  of  votes  obtained.  
elderly,   handicapped,   women,   youth,   veterans,   overseas   workers,  
and  professionals.  
 
Section  6  Grounds  for  Refusal  or  Cancellation  of  Registration:  
The  COMELEC  may,  motu  propio  or  upon  verified  complaint  of  any  
interested  party,  refuse  or  cancel,  after  due  notice  and  hearing,  the  
registration   of   any   national,   regional   or   sectoral   party,   organization  
or  coalition  on  any  of  the  following  grounds:  
 
(1) It   is   a   religious   sect   or   denomination,   organization   or  
association,  organized  for  religious  purposes;  
(2) It  advocates  violence  or  unlawful  means  to  seek  its  goal;  
(3) It  is  a  foreign  party  or  organization;  
(4) It   is   receiving   support   from   any   foreign   government,  
foreign   political   party,   foundation,   organization,   whether  
directly   or   through   any   of   its   officers   or   members   or  
indirectly   through   third   parties   for   partisan   election  
purposes;  
(5) It   violates   or   fails   to   comply   with   laws,   rules   or  
regulations  relating  to  elections;  
(6) It  declares  untruthful  statements  in  its  petition;  
(7) It  has  ceased  to  exist  for  at  least  one  (1)  year;  or  
(8) It   fails   to   participate   in   the   last   two   (2)   preceding  
elections  or  fails  to  obtain  at  least  two  per  centum  (2%)  of  
the   votes   cast   under   the   party-­‐list   system   in   the   two   (2)  
preceding   elections   for   the   constituency   in   which   it   has  
registered.  
 

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   91  
 
GUIDELINES  IN  SCREENING  PARTY-­‐LIST  GROUPS     THE  PROCESS  IN  DETERMINING  SEATS  
(as  laid  down  in  Atong  Paglaum  v  COMELEC,  2013)   as  according  to  BANAT  v  COMELEC  
   
1. Three   different   groups   may   participate   in   the   party-­‐list   Step  One:  Determine  the  number  of  maximum  party-­‐list  seats.    
system:   (1)   national   parties   or   organizations,   (2)   regional    
parties   or   organizations,   and   (3)   sectoral   parties   or   𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟  𝑜𝑓  𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡  𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠
 x  .20   =  No. of  PL  reps  
organizations.   . 80
   
2. National   parties   or   organizations   and   regional   parties   or   During  the  2007  elections,  there  were  55  PL  seats.  
organizations   do   not   need   to   organize   along   sectoral   lines    
and   do   not   need   to   represent   any   "marginalized   and   Step   Two:   Rank   the   participating   parties   from   highest   to   lowest  
underrepresented"  sector.   based  on  the  number  of  votes.  (Section  11a,  RA  7941)  
   
3. Political   parties   can   participate   in   party-­‐list   elections   Step   Three:   First   round   of   seat   allocation.     Determine   the  
provided   they   register   under   the   party-­‐list   system   and   do   percentage  of  votes  the  parties  obtained.  Parties  that  obtain  at  least  
not   field   candidates   in   legislative   district   elections.   A   2%   of   the   votes   get   1   “guaranteed   seat.”   These   parties   are   called  
political   party,   whether   major   or   not,   that   fields   candidates   ‘qualified  parties’.  (BANAT  v  COMELEC)    
in   legislative   district   elections   can   participate   in   party-­‐list    
elections   only   through   its   sectoral   wing   that   can   separately   𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓  𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑠  𝑔𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑  𝑏𝑦  𝑡ℎ𝑒  𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑑  𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑦
  =  %  
register  under  the  party-­‐list  system.  The  sectoral  wing  is  by   𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙  𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟  𝑜𝑓  𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑑  𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑠  𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑡  𝑓𝑜𝑟  𝑡ℎ𝑒  𝑃𝐿  𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
itself   an   independent   sectoral   party,   and   is   linked   to   a    
political  party  through  a  coalition.   During   the   2007   elections,   only   17   parties   obtained   at  
  least  2%  of  the  votes  cast.    
4. Sectoral   parties   or   organizations   may   either   be    
"marginalized   and   underrepresented"   or   lacking   in   "well-­‐ Step   Four:   Determine  the  number  of  ‘additional  seats.’   Subtract  the  
defined   political   constituencies."   It   is   enough   that   their   number   of   seats   to   be   allocated   for   ‘qualified’   parties.     The  
principal   advocacy   pertains   to   the   special   interest   and   remaining  number  will  be  the  ‘additional  seats  to  be  allocated.  
concerns   of   their   sector.   The   sectors   that   are   "marginalized    
and   underrepresented"   include   labor,   peasant,   fisherfolk,   55   available   seats   –   17   guaranteed   seats   =   38   available  
urban   poor,   indigenous   cultural   communities,   handicapped,   addtl  seats  
veterans,  and  overseas  workers.  The  sectors  that  lack  "well-­‐  
defined   political   constituencies"   include   professionals,   the   Step   Five.   Second  round  of  seat  allocation.   Multiply   the   number   of  
elderly,  women,  and  the  youth.   remaining  seats  to  the  percentage  of  votes  the  party  obtained.  The  
  integer  is  the  number  of  additional  seats  to  be  assigned  to  the  party.  
5. A   majority   of   the   members   of   sectoral   parties   or   Apply  the  3-­‐seat  limit.  
organizations   that   represent   the   "marginalized   and    
underrepresented"   must   belong   to   the   "marginalized   and   Ex.   BUHAY   in   the   2007   elections   obtained   7.33%   of   the  
underrepresented"   sector   they   represent.   Similarly,   a   votes,  while  AKBAYAN  gets  2.92%.  
majority  of  the  members  of  sectoral  parties  or  organizations    
that  lack  "well-­‐defined  political  constituencies"  must  belong   For  BUHAY:  7.33%  x  38  available  additional  seats  =  2.79  
to   the   sector   they   represent.   The   nominees   of   sectoral   For   AKBAYAN:   2.92%   x   38   available   additional   seats   =  
parties   or   organizations   that   represent   the   "marginalized   1.11  
and   underrepresented,"   or   that   represent   those   who   lack    
"well-­‐defined  political  constituencies,"  either  must  belong  to   So,   BUHAY   is   entitled   to   2   additional   seats,   while  
their   respective   sectors,   or   must   have   a   track   record   of   AKBAYAN   is   entitled   to   only   1   additional   seat.   Disregard  
advocacy   for   their   respective   sectors.   The   nominees   of   the   .79   and   .11   as   RA   7941   prohibits   the   granting   of  
national  and  regional  parties  or  organizations  must  be  bona-­‐ fractional  seats.  
fide  members  of  such  parties  or  organizations.    
  Step  6.  Assign  one  seat  each  to  the  parties  next  in  rank,  even  if  they  
6. National,  regional,  and  sectoral  parties  or  organizations  shall   did  not  obtain  at  least  2%  of  the  votes  cast.    
not   be   disqualified   if   some   of   their   nominees   are   Ex.  AN  WARAY  obtained  2.02%  of  the  votes  cast.    
disqualified,   provided   that   they   have   at   least   one   nominee   2.02%  x  38  available  addiitonal  seats  =  0.76  
who  remains  qualified.   The   SC   still   assigned   them   1   seat,   and   did   so   for   all   the  
  other  parties  until  all  38  seats  were  filled  up.  
   
   
   
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   92  
 
CASE:  VETERANS  FEDERATION  PARTY  v  COMELEC     In  imposing  a  two  percent  threshold,  Congress  wanted  to  
G.R.  No.  136781.  October  6,  2000.*   ensure  that  only  those  parties,  organizations  and  coalitions  having  a  
VETERANS   FEDERATION   PARTY,   ALYANSANG   BAYANIHAN   NG   MGA   MAGSASAKA,  
MANGGAGAWANG   BUKID   AT   MANGINGISDA,   ADHIKAIN   AT   KILUSAN   NG   ORDINARYONG   TAO  
sufficient   number   of   constituents   deserving   of   representation   are  
PARA   SA   LUPA,   PABAHAY   AT   KAUNLARAN,   and   LUZON   FARMERS   PARTY,   petitioners,   vs.   actually  represented  in  Congress.  
COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   PAG-­‐ASA,   SENIOR   CITIZENS,   AKAP   AKSYON,   PINATUBO,   NUPA,  
PRP,   AMIN,   PAG-­‐ASA,   MAHARLIKA,   OCWUNIFIL,   PCCI,   AMMA-­‐KATIPUNAN,   KAMPIL,  
  The  two  percent  threshold  is  consistent  not  only  with  the  
BANTAYBAYAN,  AFW,  ANG  LAKAS  OCW,  WOMEN-­‐POWER,  INC.,  FEJODAP,  CUP,  VETERANS  CARE,   intent   of   the   framers   of   the   Constitution   and   the   law,   but   with   the  
4L,   AWATU,   PMP,   ATUCP,   NCWP,   ALU,   BIGAS,   COPRA,   GREEN,   ANAKBAYAN,   ARBA,   MINFA,  
AYOS,  ALL  COOP,  PDP-­‐LABAN,  KATIPUNAN,  ONEWAY  PRINT,  AABANTE  KA  PILIPINAS—All  Being  
very   essence   of   "representation."   Under   a   republican   or  
Party-­‐List  Parties/Organizations—and  Hon.  MANUEL  B.  VILLAR,  JR.  in  His  Capacity  as  Speaker  of  the   representative   state,   all   government   authority   emanates   from   the  
House  of  Representatives,  respondents.  
people,  but  is  exercised  by  representatives  chosen  by  them.    
 
  But   to   have   meaningful   representation,   the   elected  
FACTS:  
persons   must   have   the   mandate   of   a   sufficient   number   of  
• In   1995,   Congress   enacted   RA   7941   which   implemented   the  
people.   Otherwise,   in   a   legislature   that   features   the   party-­‐list  
Constitutional   mandate   of   instituting   a   party-­‐list   system.  
system,  the  result  might  be  the  proliferation  of  small  groups  which  
Pursuant   to   this,   COMELEC   promulgated   Resolution   2847,  
are   incapable   of   contributing   significant   legislation,   and   which  
prescribing   the   rules   governing   the   election   of   the   party-­‐list  
might   even   pose   a   threat   to   the   stability   of   Congress.   Thus,   even  
representatives.  
legislative   districts   are   apportioned   according   to   "the   number   of  
• On   11   May   1998,   the   first   election   for   PL   reps   was   held  
their   respective   inhabitants,   and   on   the   basis   of   a   uniform   and  
simultaneously  with  the  national  elections.  
progressive  ratio"to  ensure  meaningful  local  representation.  
• The   COMELEC   later   proclaimed   14   PL   reps   coming   from   13    
parties   which   had   obtianed   at   least   2%   of   the   total   number   of  
Basis   of   3-­‐seat   limit   is   to   limit   party   dominance;   not  
valid   votes   cast   for   the   party-­‐list   system.   2   of   these   reps   came  
unconstitutional  
from  APEC,  which  garnered  5.5%  of  the  votes.  
  Congress   set   the   seat-­‐limit   to   three   (3)   for   each   qualified  
• Following   this   proclamation,   PAG-­‐ASA   and   joined   by   other   party,   organization   or   coalition.   "Qualified"   means   having   hurdled  
parties,  claimed  that  the  20%  allocation  of  seats  was  mandatory.   the   two   percent   vote   threshold.   Such   three-­‐seat   limit   ensures   the  
It   further   claimed   that   the   literal   application   of   the   two   percent   entry   of   various   interest-­‐representations   into   the   legislature;   thus,  
vote  requirement  and  the  three-­‐seat  limit  under  RA  7941  would   no   single   group,   no   matter   how   large   its   membership,   would  
defeat  this  constitutional  provision,  for  only  25  nominees  would   dominate  the  party-­‐list  seats,  if  not  the  entire  House.  
be   declared   winners,   short   of   the   52   party-­‐list   representatives    
who  should  actually  sit  in  the  House.   The  3  STEP  PROCESS  of  allocating  additional  seats  
• The   COMELEC   2nd   Div   granted   their   petition   and   proclaimed   38   NOTE   THIS   PROCESS   IS   NOW   OBSOLETE   BASED   ON   THE  
other  reps  even  though  they  did  not  obtain  the  2%  of  the  votes.   RULING  IN  BANAT  
The   13   parties   earlier   proclaimed   objected   to   this.   The   COMELEC    
en  banc  affirmed  the  2nd  Division’s  Resolution.   STEP  ONE  -­‐  the  initial  step  is  to  rank   all   the   participating   party-­‐
• The   parties   who   had   obtianed   at   least   2%   of   the   votes   filed   list   groups,   organizations   and   coalitions   from   the   highest   to   the  
petition  for  certiorari,  mandamus  and  prohibition  with  the  SC.     lowest  based  on  the  number  of  votes  they  each  received.  Then  the  
  ratio   for   each   party   is   computed   by   dividing   its   votes   by   the   total  
ISSUE:  WON  the  20%  allocation  of  seats  is  mandatory.  NO   votes  cast  for  all  the  parties  participating  in  the  system.  All  parties  
WON  the  2%  threshold  requirement  and  3-­‐seat  limit  in  RA  7941  are   with  at  least  two  percent  of  the  total  votes  are  guaranteed  one  seat  
unconstitutional.  NO   each.   Only   these   parties   shall   be   considered   in   the   computation   of  
  additional   seats.   The   party   receiving   the   highest   number   of   votes  
HELD:   shall  thenceforth  be  referred  to  as  the  “first”  party.  
20  %  Allocation  not  mandatory;  merely  a  ceiling    
  Congress,   in   enacting   RA   7941   deemed   it   necessary   to   ! Parties   with   2%   automatically   get   a   seat   and   shall   be  
require   parties,   organizations   and   coalitions   participating   in   the   considered   in   the   computation   for   additional   seats.  
system  to  obtain  at  least  two  percent  of  the  total  votes  cast  for  the   Party  with  most  votes  is  called  the  ‘first’  party  
party-­‐list   system   in   order   to   be   entitled   to   a   party-­‐list   seat.   Those    
garnering  more  than  this  percentage  could  have  "additional  seats  in   STEP  TWO  -­‐  The  next  step  I’s  to  determine   the   number   of   seats  
proportion   to   their   total   number   of   votes.”   Furthermore,   no   the   first   party   is   entitled   to,  in  order  to  be  able  to  compute  that  
winning   party,   organization   or   coalition   can   have   more   than   three   for  the  other  parties.  Since  the  distribution  is  based  on  proportional  
seats   in   the   House   of   Representatives.   Considering   the   foregoing   representation,   the   number   of   seats   to   be   allotted   to   the   other  
statutory   requirements,   it   will   be   shown   presently   that   Section   5   parties   cannot   possibly   exceed   that   to   which   the   first   party   is  
(2),   Article   VI   of   the   Constitution   is   not   mandatory.   It   merely   entitled  by  virtue  of  its  obtaining  the  most  number  of  votes.  
provides  a  ceiling  for  party-­‐list  seats  in  Congress.    
  ! if  the  proportion  of  votes  gathered  by  the  first  party  is:  
Basis   of   2%   threshold   is     meaningful   representation;   not   • less  than  4%  -­‐  no  extra  seat  
unconstitutional   even   if   it   may   result   in   ‘mathematical   • more  than  4%  but  less  than  6%  -­‐  1  extra  seat  
impossibility’  
• at  least  6%  -­‐  2  extra  seata  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   93  
 
   
STEP  THREE  –  solve  for  the  number  of  additional  seats  that  the    
other   qualified   parties   are   entitled   to   based   on   proportional   FACTS:  
representation.   • In   March   2001,   the   COMELEC   issued   Resolution   N   3785,   which  
                                           (as   clarified   in   CIBAC   v   approved   the   participation   of   154   organizations   and   parties   fot  
COMELEC)   the  2001  party-­‐list  elections.    
  • The  COMELEC  also  issued  an  earlier  Resolution  (3426)  where  the  
If   the   resulting   number   is   less   than   1.00   then   the   party-­‐list  group  is   COMELEC   recognized   ‘the   fact   that   there   is   a   need   to   keep   the  
not   entitled   to   an   extra   seat.     Incidentally,   if   the   first   party   is   not   number  of  sectoral  parties,  organizations  and  coalitions,  down  to  
entitled  to  any  additional  seat,  then  the  ratio  of  the  number  of  votes   a   manageable   level’.   Thus   the   COMELEC   approved   only   the  
for  the  other  party  to  that  for  the  first  one  is  multiplied  by  zero.  The   applications  of  groups  which  substantially  comply  with  the  rules  
end   result   would   be   zero   additional   seat   for   each   of   the   other   and  regulations.    
qualified  parties  as  well.   • Later,   several   PL   groups   such   as   Akbayan,   Bayan-­‐Muna   filed  
  No  rounding  off  is  allowed.   before   the   COMELEC   petitions   to   have   certain   PL   groups  
  (respondents)   be   deleted/cancelled   from   the   list   of   eligible  
COMELEC   abused   discretion   in   declaring   seats   for   other   non-­‐ groups.    
qualifying  PL  groups   • Akbayan’s   petition   also   requested   that   alternatively,   the   votes  
  In   declaring   the   PL   groups   as   entitled   to   a   party-­‐list   seat,   cast   for   the   respondent   groups   to   not   be   counted,   nor   their  
the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   by   violating   two   requirements   of   candidates  be  proclaimed.  
RA   7941:   the   2%   threshold   and   the   mannder   of   proportional   • In  response  to  these  petitions,  the  COMELEC  merely  directed  the  
representation.   parties   to   submit   their   memoranda.   Ie   COMELEC   did   not   act   on  
  In   disregarding,   rejecting   and   circumventing   these   the  petitions  
statutory   provisions,   the   Comelec   effectively   arrogated   unto   itself   • Dissatisfied,   Ang   Bagong   Bayani   and   Bayan   Muna   filed   the  
what   the   Constitution   expressly   and   wholly   vested   in   the   present  petitions  assailing  Resolution  3785  under  Rule  65.  
legislature:   the   power   and   the   discretion   to   define   the   mechanics   • Ang   Bagong   Bayani   and   Bayan   Muna’s   main   contention   in  
for  the  enforcement  of  the  system.  The  wisdom  and  the  propriety  of   assailing  3785  is  that  it  included/allowed  major  political  parties  
these   impositions,   absent   any   clear   transgression   of   the   to   run   in   the   PL   elections,   which   they   claimed   went   against   the  
Constitution   or   grave   abuse   of   discretion   amounting   to   lack   or   very  spirit  of  the  PL  system.  
excess  of  jurisdiction,  are  beyond  judicial  review.    
  ISSUE:   WON   political   parties   may   run   under   the   party-­‐list   system.  
! COMELEC   proclamations   of   the   38   unqualified   PL   YES  
groups  were  nullified  and  set  aside    
 
HELD:  
  a. Political  parties  may  participate  as  long  as  their  nominees  
CASE:  ANG  BAGONG  BAYANI  v  COMELEC  (2001)   are  actual  members  of  the  sector  they  claim  to  represent.    
G.R.  No.  147589                        June  26,  2001     Section   5,   Article   VI   of   the   Constitution   provides   that  
ANG   BAGONG   BAYANI-­‐OFW   LABOR   PARTY  (under  the  acronym  OFW),  represented  
herein   by   its   secretary-­‐general,   MOHAMMAD   OMAR   FAJARDO,   petitioner,     vs.   members   of   the   House   of   Representatives   may   "be   elected  
ANG   BAGONG   BAYANI-­‐OFW   LABOR   PARTY   GO!   GO!   PHILIPPINES;   THE   TRUE   through  a  party-­‐list  system  of  registered  national,  regional,  and  
MARCOS   LOYALIST   ASSOCIATION   OF   THE   PHILIPPINES;   PHILIPPINE   LOCAL   sectoral   parties   or   organizations."   That   political   parties   may  
AUTONOMY;  CITIZENS  MOVEMENT  FOR  JUSTICE,  ECONOMY,  ENVIRONMENT  AND  
participate  in  the  party-­‐list  elections  does  not  mean,  however,  
PEACE;  CHAMBER  OF  REAL  ESTATE  BUILDERS  ASSOCIATION;  SPORTS  &  HEALTH  
ADVANCEMENT   FOUNDATION,   INC.;   ANG   LAKAS   NG   OVERSEAS   CONTRACT   that  any  political  party  -­‐-­‐  or  any  organization  or  group  for  that  
WORKERS   (OCW);   BAGONG   BAYANI   ORGANIZATION   and   others   under   matter   -­‐-­‐   may   do   so.   The   requisite   character   of   these   parties   or  
"Organizations/Coalitions"   of   Omnibus   Resolution   No.   3785;   PARTIDO   NG   organizations   must   be   consistent   with   the   purpose   of   the  
MASANG   PILIPINO;   LAKAS   NUCD-­‐UMDP;   NATIONALIST   PEOPLE'S   COALITION;  
LABAN   NG   DEMOKRATIKONG   PILIPINO;   AKSYON   DEMOKRATIKO;   PDP-­‐LABAN;   party-­‐list   system,   as   laid   down   in   the   Constitution   and   RA  
LIBERAL   PARTY;   NACIONALISTA   PARTY;   ANG   BUHAY   HAYAANG   YUMABONG;   and   7941.  
others  under  "Political  Parties"  of  Omnibus  Resolution  No.  3785.  respondents.     However,   it   is   not   enough   for   the   candidate   to   claim  
 
G.R.  No.  147613  June  26,  2001  
representation   of   the   marginalized   and   underrepresented,  
BAYAN   MUNA,   petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS;   NATIONALIST   because   representation   is   easy   to   claim   and   to   feign.   The  
PEOPLE'S   COALITION   (NPC);   LABAN   NG   DEMOKRATIKONG   PILIPINO   (LDP);   party-­‐list   organization   or   party   must   factually   and   truly  
PARTIDO   NG   MASANG   PILIPINO   (PMP);   LAKAS-­‐NUCD-­‐UMDP;   LIBERAL   PARTY;   represent   the   marginalized   and   underrepresented  
MAMAMAYANG   AYAW   SA   DROGA;   CREBA;   NATIONAL   FEDERATION   OF  
SUGARCANE  PLANTERS;  JEEP;  and  BAGONG  BAYANI  ORGANIZATION,  respondents.   constituencies   mentioned   in   Section   5.   Concurrently,   the  
  persons   nominated   by   the   party-­‐list   candidate-­‐organization  
Summary:     COMELEC   issued   a   Resolution   allowing   the   must   be   "Filipino   citizens   belonging   to   marginalized   and  
participation   of   154   partylist   groups.   The   petitioners   appealed   the   underrepresented  sectors,  organizations  and  parties."  
Resolution  with  the  SC,  alleging  that  many  of  the  groups  allowed  to   Note:   This  ruling  has  been  overturned  in  BANAT  v  COMELEC.  
participate  were  political  parties,  who  were  disqualified    under  RA   Political   parties,   major   or   minor,   are   not   allowed   to   participate  
7941.  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   94  
 
in   the   PL   elections   even   if   they   field   candidates   actually   from   2. who  lack  well-­‐defined  constituencies;  but  
that  sector.   3. who   could   contribute   to   the   formulation   and   enactment   of  
  appropriate   legislation   that   will   benefit   the   nation   as   a  
b. 8-­‐point  Guideline  for  screening  partylist  groups.   whole.  
1. the   political   party,   sector,   organization   or   coalition   must      
represent  the  marginalized  and  underrepresented  groups   Proportional   representation   -­‐   does  not  refer  to  the  number  
identified  in  Section  5  of  RA  7941   of   people   in   a   particular   district,   because   the   party-­‐list   election  
2. Second,   while   even   major   political   parties   are   expressly   is   national   in   scope.   Neither   does   it   allude   to   numerical  
allowed  by  RA  7941  and  the  Constitution  to  participate  in   strength  in  a  distressed  or  oppressed  group.  Rather,  it  refers  to  
the  party-­‐list  system,  they  must  comply  with  the  declared   the   representation   of   the   "marginalized   and  
statutory  policy  of  enabling  "Filipino  citizens  belonging  to   underrepresented"   as   exemplified   by   the   enumeration   in  
marginalized   and   underrepresented   sectors   x   x   x   to   be   Section  5  of  the  law;  namely,  "labor,  peasant,  fisherfolk,  urban  
elected  to  the  House  of  Representatives."   poor,   indigenous   cultural   communities,   elderly,   handicapped,  
3. the   religious   sector   may   not   be   represented   in   the   party-­‐ women,  youth,  veterans,  overseas  workers,  and  professionals."  
list  system.    
4. a  party  or  an  organization  must  not  be  disqualified  under   Marginalized   and   underrepresented   –   as   enumerated   in  
Section  6  of  RA  7941   Section  5  
5. the   party   or   organization   must   not   be   an   adjunct   of,   or   a   (later  clarified  in  the  2013  case  of  Atong  Paglaum)  
project   organized   or   an   entity   funded   or   assisted   by,   the    
government.   Well-­‐defined   constituencies   -­‐   refers   to   the   absence   of   a  
6. the  party  must  not  only  comply  with  the  requirements  of   traditionally   identifiable   electoral   group,   like   voters   of   a  
the  law;  its  nominees  must  likewise  do  so.   congressional   district   or   territorial   unit   of   government.   Rather,  
7. not   only   the   candidate   party   or   organization   must   it  points  again  to  those  with  disparate  interests  identified  with  
represent  marginalized  and  underrepresented  sectors;  so   the  "marginalized  or  underrepresented."  
also  must  its  nominees.    
8. While   lacking   a   well-­‐defined   political   constituency,   the   e. SOLGEN   contention   that   RA   7941   does   not   limit  
nominee   must   likewise   be   able   to   contribute   to   the   participation  to  marginalized  groups  is  wrong  
formulation  and  enactment  of  appropriate  legislation  that     The   policy   of   the   law   is   plain   and   clear:   RA   7941   was  
will  benefit  the  nation  as  a  whole.   enacted   o   enable   Filipino   citizens   belonging   to   marginalized  
Note:   these   parameters   have   been   modified   by   the   SC   in   the   and   underrepresented   sectors,   organizations   and   parties,   and  
Atong  Paglaum  2013  case   who   lack   well-­‐defined   political   constituencies   but   who   could  
  contribute   to   the   formulation   and   enactment   of   appropriate  
c. Petition   for   certiorari   proper   as   they   were   assailing   the   legislation   that   will   benefit   the   nation   as   a   whole,   to   become  
issuance   of   Res.   3785;   it   was   the   fastest   rcourse   since   members  of  the  House  of  Representatives."  
COMELEC  did  not  act  on  earlier  petitions     Clearly,  therefore,  the  Court  cannot  accept  the  submission  
  At   bottom,   petitioners   attack   the   validity   of   Comelec   that  the  party-­‐list  system  is,  without  any  qualification,  open  to  
Omnibus   Resolution   3785   for   having   been   issued   with   grave   all.  Such  position  does  not  only  weaken  the  electoral  chances  of  
abuse   of   discretion,   insofar   as   it   allowed   respondents   to   the   marginalized   and   underrepresented;   it   also   prejudices  
participate   in   the   party-­‐list   elections   of   2001.   Indeed,   under   them.   It   would   gut   the   substance   of   the   party-­‐list   system.  
both   the   Constitution  2and   the   Rules   of   Court,   such   challenge   Instead  of  generating  hope,  it  would  create  a  mirage.  Instead  of  
may   be   brought   before   this   Court   in   a   verified   petition   for   enabling   the   marginalized,   it   would   further   weaken   them   and  
certiorari  under  Rule  65.   aggravate  their  marginalization.  
  Bayan   Muna   had   filed   before   the   Comelec   a   Petition   for    
Cancellation   of   Registration   and   Nomination   against   some   of   >   the   case   was   remanded   back   to   the   COMELEC,   who   was  
herein  respondents.    The  Comelec,  however,  did  not  act  on  that   ordered  to  conduct  hearings  on  the  qualifications  of  the  party-­‐
Petition.   In   view   of   the   pendency   of   the   elections,   Petitioner   list   groups   as   regards   the   8pt.   guideline;   and   to   refrain   from  
Bayan   Muna   sought   succor   from   this   Court,   for   there   was   no   proclaiming  winners  before  submitting  Compliance  Reports  to  
other  adequate  recourse  at  the  time.   the  SC  
   
d. Some  clarificatory  definitions  on  terms  used  in  RA  7941:    
Section   2   of   RA   7941   mandates   a   state   policy   of   promoting  
proportional   representation   by   means   of   the   Filipino-­‐style  
party-­‐list   system,   which   will   "enable"   the   election   to   the   House  
of  Representatives  of  Filipino  citizens:    
 
1. who   belong   to   marginalized   and   underrepresented  
sectors,  organizations  and  parties;  and  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   95  
 
CASE:  ANG  BAGONG  BAYANI  v  COMELEC  (2003)   b. 2%  threshold  not  unconstitutional,  even  if  it  may  result  in  
  a  ‘mathematical  impossibility’.    
Summary:     The   second   partylist   elections   were   held   in   2003.   In   this   case,   The   2%   threshold   was   imposed   to   ensure   that   only   those  
the  court  ordered  COMELEC  to  present  a  list  of  the  qualified  and  disqualified   parties   that   have   sufficient   number   of   constituents   will   be  
partylist   groups   (Dqed   according   to   the   8pt   guideline).     In   the   end   only   42   represented   in   Congress.   The   setting   of   the   limit   is   within  
partylist   groups   were   qualified,   but   only   12   groups   garnered   the   requisite   Congress’  prerogative  to  change  or  amend  as  it  sees  fit.  
2%  votes  to  obtain  a  seat.  
 
 
c. Rulings   in   Labo   v   COMELEC   and   Grego   v   COMELEC   not  
FACTS:  
applicable  for  several  reasons  
• This   is   the   sequel   to     the   2001   case,   same   GR   number   and  
Labo   –   votes   for   an   ineligible   or   disqualified   vote   cannot   be  
everything.  
considered  stray  and  will  still  be  counted  
• Recall   that   by   the   end   of   the   first   case,   the   SC   ordered   the  
Grego  –  votes  cast  for  a  notoiourly  disqualified  candidate  may  
COMELEC   to   determine   who   among   the   154   PL   groups   who  
be   considered   stray   if   the   electorate   will   still   vote   for   a  
participated  in  the  election  were  qualified  
candidate  who  they  all  know  was  previously  disqualified  
• After  the  COMELEC  submitted  their  first  compliance  reports,  the    
SC   lifted   their   TROs   in   order   that   candidates   from   Bayan   Muna,   The   rulings   in   those   cases   were   not   applied   in   Bayan  because  
Akbayan,  Butil,  APEC  and  CIBAC  may  be  proclaimed.   those   decisions   referred   to   regular   elections   for   local   offices  
• In   their   next   compliance   reports,   the   COMELEC   recommended   and   involved   the   interpretation   of   RA   6466.   They   were   not  
the   qualifications   of   44   partylist   groups,   and   recommended   the   meant   to   cover   party-­‐list   elections,   which   are   specifically  
disqualification  of  many  others  for  failing  to  comply  with  the  8pt   governed  by  RA  7941.    
guideline  presented  in  the  earlier  Bagong  Bayani  case.      
• BUHAY   and   COCOFED   were   among   those   recommended   to   be   Another   reason   for   not   applying   Labo   and   Grego   is   that   these  
disquaified.  BUHAY  was  allegedly  an  offshoot  of  El  Shaddai,  while   cases   involve   single   elective   posts,   while   the   present  
COCOFED   was   allegedly   an   adjunct   of   the   government   as   the   controversy   pertains   to   the   acquisition   of   a   number   of  
Chairman  of  the  PHILCOA  was  a  member  of  COCOFED’s  board.   congressional  seats  depending  on  the  total  election  results.  
• The  SC  ruled  here  that  the  grounds  for  disqualifying  BUHAY  and    
COCOFED   were   unfounded,   and   thus   deemed   both   parties   d. Since   the   number   of   valid   votes   were   adjusted,   there   is  
qualified.     also   a   need   to   reclaculate   the   winners   and   their   entitled  
• In  the  end,  only  44  party-­‐list  groups  were  deemed  qualified.   seats   according   to   the   3   STEP   PROCESS   described   in  
• The   question   now   was   that   since   only   46   groups   were   qualified   Veterans  
out  of  the  154  groups  which  were  voted  on  by  the  people  during   This  process  is  now  obsolete  (BANAT  v  COMELEC)  
2001,   what   would   happen   to   the   votes   cast   for   the   disqualified    
groups?   The  number  of  votes  for  the  DQed  parties  was  8.595million.    
• Because  of  the  subsequent  disqualifications,  the  SC  took  the  rest   Subtract   that   from   the   total   number   of   votes   (15.1m)   and   we  
of  the  decision  to  figure  out  who  really  won  in  the  2001  party-­‐list   get  the  new  total  =  6.5m  
elections.    
  FIRST   STEP:   rank   the   parties   who   garnered   at   least   2%,   and  
ISSUE:   WON   the   votes   cast   for   the   disqualified   parties   should   be   find  the  ‘first  party,’  which  in  this  case,  was  Bayan  Muna  with  
counted  among  the  ‘total  votes  cast.’  NO   26%  of  the  votes  cast  
   
HELD:   SECOND  STEP:  figure  out  how  many  extra  seats  the  first  party  
a. The   votes   cast   for   the   disqualified   parties   should   not   be   gets.   Since   Bayan   got   more   than   26%   of   the   votes,   which   is  
counted  for  the  purposes  of  ‘total  votes  cast;’  may  even  be   more  than  6%,  Bayan  is  entitled  to  2  extra  seats,  or  3  total  
beneficial  to  the  parties    
  Subtracting   the   votes   garnered   by   these   disqualified   THIRD   STEP:   Figure   out   how   may   extra   seats   for   the   other  
party-­‐list  groups  from  the  total  votes  cast  under  the  party-­‐list   parties  are  entitled.    
system   will   reduce   the   base   figure   to   6,523,185.   This   means  
that  the   two-­‐percent   threshold   can   be   more   easily   attained  
by   the   qualified   marginalized   and   under-­‐represented  
groups.   Hence,   disregarding   the   votes   of   disqualified   party-­‐list  
participants   will   increase   and   broaden   the   number   of  
representatives   from   these   sectors.   Doing   so   will   further    
concretize  and  give  flesh  to  the  policy  declaration  in  RA  7941.   Note:   This   is   the   called   the   Bagong   Bayani   formula.   This  
  It   is   also   further   provided   for   in   Section   10   of   RA   7941   formula   is   different   from   the   formula   used   in   Veterans.   Sa  
that   the   votes   cast   for   a   party,   a   sectoral   organization   or   a   Veterans,  yung  ginamit  na  multiplier  is  “number  of  additional  
coalition  "not  entitled  to  be  voted  for  shall  not  be  counted."   seats   alloted   for   the   first   party,’   dito   ginamit   nila   ‘total  
    number  of  seats/  allotted  seats  for  the  first  party’  Nagkamali  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   96  
 
ang  Supreme  Court.  This  was  later  corrected  in  the  CIBAC  2007   WON  CIBAC  is  entitled  to  an  extra  seat.  NO  
case.  ☺    
  HELD:  
In   the   end   of   the   case,   the   SC   outlined   all   the   winners   of   the   2001   The  Court  applied  the  wrong  multiplier  in  Bagong  Bayani  
partylist   elections   and   declared   the   number   of   seats   they   are     From   a   scrutiny   of   the   Veterans   and   Ang   Bagong   Bayani  
entitled.   The   SC   said   that   by   the   end   of   Bagong   Bayani,   the   and   Bayan   Muna   formulae   in   determining   the   additional   seats   for  
determination   of   the   winners   can   truly   be   made   much   more   party-­‐list   representatives,   it   is   readily   apparent   that   the   Veterans  
expeditiously  in  the  future.   formula   is   materially   different   from   the   one   used   in   Ang  
  Bagong  Bayani  and  Bayan  Muna.  
The  SC’s  closing  words     In   Veterans,   the   multiplier   used   was   "the   [number]   of  
“In   closing,   the   Court   hopes   that,   with   each   bit   of   wisdom   they   additional   seats   allocated   to   the   first   party,"   while   in   the   Ang  
learned   and   after   the   arduous   journey   they   experienced   in   our   one-­‐ Bagong   Bayani   and   Bayan   Muna   formula,   the   multiplier   "allotted  
of-­‐a-­‐kind   Philippine-­‐style   party-­‐list   system,   the   marginalized   and   seats  for  first  party"  was  applied.  
under-­‐represented   sectors   of   our   country   will   be   accorded   ever-­‐   The  disparity  is  material,  substantial,  and  significant  since  
widening   opportunities   to   participate   in   nation-­‐building,   so   that   the   multiplier   prescribed   in   the   Veterans   formula   pertains   to   a  
they   can   help   develop   -­‐-­‐   in   peace   and   harmony   -­‐-­‐   a   society   that   is   multiplier  of  two  (2)  seats,  while  the  multiplier  in  Ang  Bagong  
just,  humane,  progressive  and  free.”   Bayani   and   Bayan   Muna   formula   can   mean   a   multiplier   of  
  maximum   three   (3)   seats,   since   the   first   party   can   garner   a  
  maximum  of  three  (3)  seats.  
CASE:  CIBAC  v  COMELEC  (2007)    
G.R.  No.  172103                          April  13,  2007   Bagong  Bayani  did  not  modify  Veterans  
CITIZENS’   BATTLE   AGAINST   CORRUPTION   (CIBAC),   Petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION     The  phrase  "applying  the  relevant  formula  in  Veterans  to  
ON   ELECTIONS   GARCIA,   (COMELEC),   represented   by   CHAIRMAN   BENJAMIN   BUHAY"  (in  the  Bagong  Bayani  case)  admits  of  no  other  conclusion  
ABALOS,  SR.,  Respondent.    
 
than   that   the   Court   merely   applied   the   Veterans   formula   to   Ang  
Summary:   CIBAC   argues   that   after   applying   the   formula   for   Bagong   Bayani   and   Bayan   Muna   in   resolving   the   additional   seats   by  
additional  seats  in  Bagong  Bayani,  it  is  qualified  for  an  extra  seat.   the  other  qualified  party-­‐list  groups.  Moreover,  footnote  37  of  Ang  
  Bagong  Bayani  and  Bayan  Muna  states  that  "for  a  discussion  of  how  
FACTS:   to  compute  additional  nominees  for  parties  other  than  the  first,  see  
Veterans  x  x  x."  
• In   1994,   the   COMELEC   en   banc   issued   Resolution   NBC   04-­‐004  
which   proclaimed   CIBAC   to   occupy   a   seat   in   Congress   since   it    
garnered  at  least  2%  of  the  votes  cast.   Applying  the  correct  multipler  to  CIBAC,  it  is  found  that  they  do  
not  qualify  for  an  extra  seat  
• Later,   CIBAC   and   some   other   groups   filed   with   the   COMELEC   a  
  If   the   Bagong   Bayani   formula   was   used,   CIBAC   would   be  
Joint  Motion  for  Immediate  Proclamation.  They  claimed  that  if  the  
entitled   to   an   extra   seat.     Unfortunately,   it   is   the   Veterans   formula  
Bagong  Bayani  formula  was  applied  to  their  case,  they  would  be  
that  is  sanctioned  by  the  Court  and  not  the  Ang  Bagong  Bayani  and  
entitled  to  an  extra  seat.  
Bayan  Muna  formula  that  petitioner  alleges.  
• However,   the   COMELEC   en   banc   issued   Resolution   06-­‐0248   in  
  Since  CIBAC  got  a  result  of  0.82304986  only,  which  is  less  
which  they    adopted  a  simplified   formula   to  determine  WON  a  
than   one   (1),   then   it   did   not   obtain   or   reach   a   whole   number.  
party  deserves  extra  seats.  
Petitioner   has   not   convinced   us   to   deviate   from   our   ruling   in  
• This  simplified  formula  merely  subtracted  the  requisite  2%  from  
Veterans   that   "in   order   to   be   entitled   to   one   additional   seat,   an  
the   percentage   of   votes   that   the   party   got.   Applying   the  
exact   whole   number   is   necessary."   Clearly,   petitioner   is   not   entitled  
COMELEC’s  simplified  formula  to  CIBAC:  
to  an  additional  seat.  
CIBAC  got  5.86%  of  the  votes  
 
  5.86  –  2%  =  3.86  
COMELEC   committed   GAOD   when   it   applied   a   ‘simplified  
Since   the   number   is   below   4%,   they   did   not   qualify   for   an   extra  
formula’  
seat.    
  The   Court   laments   the   fact   that   the   COMELEC   insisted   in  
                                       (Please   refer   to  
using   a   simplified   formula   when   it   is   fully   aware   of   the   ruling   in   the  
Veterans)  
Veterans   case.   The   application   of   the   simplified   formula   was   an  
 
isolated  case,  and  it  should  be  now  abandoned.    
• CIBAC  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  with  the  SC,  claiming  that  the     The   Court   has   consistently   reminded   the   COMELEC   of   its  
COMELEC  committed  GAOD  is  applying  their  somplified  formula,  
"function  to  enforce  and  administer  all  laws  and  regulations  relative  
instead  of  applying  the  formula  in  Bagong  Bayani.  
to  the  conduct  of  an  election."  As  judicial  decisions  form  part  of  the  
• CIBAC   further   argued   that   the   Bagong   Bayani   ruling   in   effect,   law   of   the   land,   the  COMELEC  cannot  just  ignore  or  be  oblivious  
modified  the  formula  used  in  Veterans.   Thus,  the  Bagong  Bayani   to   the   rulings   issued   by   the   Court.   Basic   is   the   rule   that   lower  
should  be  controlling.   courts   and   quasi-­‐judicial   tribunals   must   bow   to   the   decisions   and  
  resolutions  of  the  highest  court  of  the  land.  The  COMELEC  is  not  an  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   in   applying   a   exception.  It  cannot  do  otherwise.  
‘simplified  formula’  YES  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   97  
 
  • Pimentel  was  later  joined  by  5  partylist  groups  to  strengthen  his  
  cause.  
CASE:  PIMENTEL  v  HRET     • The  SG  contends  that  Pimentel  et  al’s  action  was  premature.  
G.R.  No.  141489                          November  29,  2002    
SENATOR   AQUILINO   Q.   PIMENTEL,   JR.,   REPRESENTATIVES   MELVYN   D.   EBALLE,   ISSUE:  WON  it  is  mandatory  that  the  HRET  and  CA  be  reconstituted  
LEONARDO   Q.   MONTEMAYOR,   CRESENTE   C.   PAEZ,   LORETTA   ANN   P.   ROSALES   and  
PATRICIA  M.  SARENAS,  petitioners,    vs.  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  ELECTORAL   to  include  party-­‐list  representatives.  NO,  not  mandatory  
TRIBUNAL,   JUSTICES   JOSE   A.R.   MELO,   VICENTE   V.   MENDOZA   and   JOSE   C.   VITUG,    
and   REPRESENTATIVES   ASANI   S.   TAMMANG,   RAUL   M.   GONZALES,   DIDAGEN   P.   HELD:  
DILANGALEN,   DANTON   Q.   BUESER,1   NAPOLEON   R.   BERATIO,   SIMEON   E.   GARCIA  
a. Reconstitution  of  HRET  to  admit  Partylist  reps  prerogative  
and  SPEAKER  MANUEL  B.  VILLAR,  JR.,  respondents.  
  of  the  legislative;  Court  may  not  interfere  nor  speculate.  
Summary:   Pimentel   et   al   requested   the   Senate   President   and     The   Constitution   expressly   grants   to   the   House   of  
Justice   Melo   to   reconstitute   the   membership   of   the   HRET   and   the   Representatives   the   prerogative,   within   constitutionally  
CA.   According   to   Pimentel   et   al,   the   HRET   should   have   at   least   1   defined  limits,  to  choose  from  among  its  district  and  party-­‐list  
partylist   rep,   and   the   CA,   at   least   2   to   be   consistent   with   the   representatives  those  who  may  occupy  the  seats  allotted  to  the  
Constitution.     House  in  the  HRET  and  the  CA.  
    The  discretion  of  the  House  to  choose  its  members  to  the  
FACTS:   HRET   and   the   CA   is   not   absolute,   being   subject   to   the  
• In   1998,   in   accordance   with   the   Party-­‐List   System   Act,   the   mandatory  constitutional  rule  on  proportional  representation.    
national  elections  were  held  which  included  the  PL  groups.     However,   under   the   doctrine   of   separation   of   powers,   the  
• Subsequently,   the   HREP   elected   their   representatives   to   the   Court  may  not  interfere  with  the  exercise  by  the  House  of  this  
HRET  and  Commission  on  Appointments  contingent.  The  winning   constitutionally  mandated  duty,  absent  a  clear  violation  of  the  
partylist   groups   did   not   participate   I   nthe   nominations,   so   that   Constitution  or  grave  abuse  of  discretion  amounting  to  lack  or  
the   the   House   contingents   to   the   HRET   and   the   CA   were   excess  of  jurisdiction.  
composed   solely   of   district   representatives   belonging   to   the    
different  political  parties.    
• Pimentel  later  wrote  to  the  Chairperson  of  the  HRET  and  the  CA,   b. PL   groups   were   not   prevented   from   participating   in   the  
requesting   them   to   restructure   the   CA   and   HRET   to   include   the   election  of  HRET/CA  reps  
partylist   representatives   to   conform   to   the   ff   Constitutional     Pimentel   et   al   do   not   claim   that   the   PL   groups   were  
provisions:   prevented  the  party-­‐list  groups  in  the  House  from  participating  
  in   the   election   of   members   of   the   HRET   and   the   CA.   Neither  
Section   17,   Art   6:     xxx     Each   Electoral   Tribunal   shall   be   does   it   appear   that   after   the   May   11,   1998   elections,   the   House  
composed   of   nine   Members,   three   of   whom   shall   be   barred   the   party-­‐list   representatives   from   seeking  
Justices   of   the   Supreme   Court   to   be   designated   by   the   membership  in  the  HRET  or  the  CA.  Rather,  it  appears  from  the  
Chief  Justice,  and  the  remaining  six   shall   be   Members   of   available   facts   that   the   party-­‐list   groups   in   the   House   at   that  
the   Senate   or   the   House   of   Representatives,   as   the   time   simply   refrained   from   participating   in   the   election  
case   may   be,   who   shall   be   chosen   on   the   basis   of   process.  
proportional  representation  from  the  political  parties    
and  the  parties  or  organizations  registered  under  the   c. Proper   recourse:   go   to   the   HREP;   filing   of   certiorari   with  
party-­‐list  system  represented  therein.   the  SC  premature.  
    The   primary   recourse   rests   with   the   House   of  
Section   18,   Art.   6:   There   shall   be   a   Commission   on   Representatives  and  not  with  this  Court.  Under  Sections  17  and  
Appointments   consisting   of   the   President   of   the   Senate,   as   18,   Article   VI   of   the   Constitution,   party-­‐list   representatives  
ex  officio  Chairman,  twelve  Senators,  and  twelve  Members   must   first   show   to   the   House   that   they   possess   the   required  
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  elected  by  each  House  on   numerical  strength  to  be  entitled  to  seats  in  the  HRET  and  the  
the   basis   of   proportional   representation   from   the   CA.    
political   parties   and   parties   or   organizations     Only  if  the  House  fails  to  comply  with  the  directive  of  the  
registered   under   the   party-­‐list   system   represented   Constitution   on   proportional   representation   of   political   parties  
therein.   in  the  HRET  and  the  CA  can  the  party-­‐list  representatives  seek  
  recourse  to  this  Court  under  its  power  of  judicial  review.  Under  
the   doctrine   of   primary   jurisdiction,   prior   recourse   to   the  
• The   HRET   met   to   discuss   the   possible   restructring.   However,  
House   is   necessary   before   petitioners   may   bring   the   instant  
Pimentel   et   al   immediately   filed   a   Petition   for   Prohibition,  
case  to  the  court.  Consequently,  petitioners’  direct  recourse  to  
Mandamu,  Preliminary  Injunction  with  the  SC.    
this  Court  is  premature.  
• They   claim   that   under   the   Constitution   and   the   Party-­‐List   System  
 
Act,  party-­‐list  representatives  should  have  1.2  or  at  least  1  seat  in  
d. Petitioners  have  no  locus  standi.  
the   HRET,14   and   2.4   seats   in   the   CA.   They   further   claim   that   the  
  The   five   party-­‐list   representatives   who   are   petitioners   in  
respondent  Chairs  of  both  tribunals  committed  GAOD  when  they  
the  instant  case  have  not  alleged  that  they  are  entitled  to,  and  
failed  to  act  positively  on  Pimentel’s  letter.    
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   98  
 
have  been  unlawfully  deprived  of,  seats  in  the  HRET  or  the  CA.   • The  COMELEC  further  claimed  that  the  case  was  filed  out  of  time;  
Neither   have   they   claimed   that   they   have   been   nominated   by   and  that  the  failure  of  both  parties  to  file  for  an  MFR  was  fatal  to  
the   party-­‐list   groups   in   the   House   to   the   HRET   or   the   CA.   As   their  cause.  
such,  they  do  not  possess  the  personal  and  substantial  interest    
required  to  confer  them  with  locus  standi.     ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   can   be   compelled   by   mandamus   to  
  apply  the  formula  to  determine  the  number  of  additional  seats.  YES  
e. Issue  already  moot  and  academic.   WON  PM  and  BUTIL  are  entitled  to  additional  seats.  NO  
  On   May   14,   2001,   a   new   set   of   district   and   party-­‐list    
representatives   were   elected   to   the   House.   The   Court   cannot   HELD:  
now   resolve   the   issue   of   proportional   representation   in   the   a. Applying   the   formula   to   votes   obtained   by   the   partylist  
HRET   and   the   CA   based   on   the   "present   composition"   of   the   groups  is  ministerial  and  therefore  the  proper  subject  for  
House   of   Representatives   as   presented   by   petitioners   and   the   a  petition  for  mandamus.    
Solicitor  General.     Under   the   Constitution,   this   Court   has   original   jurisdiction  
  over   petitions   for   certiorari,   prohibition   and   mandamus.   We  
  have  consistently  ruled  that  where  the  duty  of  the  respondent  
CASE:  PM  &  BUTIL  v  COMELEC   Commission   is   ministerial,   mandamus   lies   to   compel   its  
G.R.  No.  164702                          March  15,  2006   performance.  A   purely   ministerial   act,   as   distinguished   from   a  
PARTIDO   NG   MANGGAGAWA   (PM)   and   BUTIL   FARMERS   PARTY   (BUTIL),   discretionary  act,  is  one  which  an  officer  or  tribunal  performs  
Petitioners,    vs.  The  HON.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS  (COMELEC),  represented  by   in  a  given  state  of  facts,  in  a  prescribed  manner,  in  obedience  to  
its  HON.  CHAIRMAN  BENJAMIN  ABALOS,  SR.,  Respondent.  
  the   mandate   of   legal   authority,   without   regard   to   or   the  
Note:  this  was  decided  before  CIBAC   exercise   of   his   own   judgment   upon   the   propriety   or  
Summary:   Partylist   groups   PM   and   Butil,   after   applying   the   Bagong   impropriety  of  the  act  done.  
Bayani   formula   to   their   votes,   seemed   to   qualify   for   an   extra   seat.     The   case   at   bar   is   one   of   mandamus   over   which   this   Court  
They  filed  a  Motion  for  Immediate  Proclamation  with  the  COMELEC   has   jurisdiction   for   it   is   COMELEC’s   ministerial   duty   to   apply  
en  banc.  The  COMELEC  en  banc  failed  to  act   on   their   petition.   PM   &   the   formula   as   decided   by   this   Court   after   interpreting   the  
Butil   then   filed   a   petition   for   mandamus   to   compel   COMELEC   to   existing   law   on   party-­‐list   representation.   It   is   given   that   this  
reconvene   as   BOC   for   the   partylist   elections,   apply   the   formula   to   Court   has   the   ultimate   authority   to   interpret   laws   and   the  
their  votes,  and  subsequently  proclaim  them.     Constitution.   COMELEC   has   no   discretion   to   refuse  
  enforcement   of   any   decision   of   this   Court   under   any   guise   or  
FACTS:   guile.  
• Prior   to   the   2004   national   elections,   several   PL   groups   asked    
COMELEC   the   proper   formula   to   be   used   in   determining   the   b. Resolution   6835   was   issued   not   in   the   exercise   of  
additional  seats  for  qualifying  parties.   COMELEC’s  QJ  powers  but  rather  its  administrative  powers    
  Resolution   No.   6835   was   not   rendered   in   the   exercise   of  
• COMELEC  then  issued  Resolution  6835  wherein  they  adopted  the  
simplified   formula  in  determining  the  extra  seats.  This  formula   respondent   COMELEC's   quasi-­‐judicial   powers.   Its   issuance   was  
granted  1  extra  seat  per  extra  2%  votes  that  the  party  gets.   not   brought   about   by   a   matter   or   case   filed   before   the  
respondent   Commission.   Rather,   it   was   issued   by   the  
• The   COMELEC’s   basis   for   the   simplified   formula   was   the   decision  
respondent   Commission   in   the   exercise   of   its   administrative  
of  the  Supreme  Court  in  BUHAY  partylist’s  MFR.  In  this  decision,  
function   to   enforce   and   administer   election   laws   to   ensure   an  
the   SC   granted   BUHAY   one   extra   seat   because   it   garnered   at   least  
orderly  election.    
4%  of  the  votes.    
   
• In   2004,   PL   groups   PM   and   BUTIL   filed   a   Joint   Motion   for  
c. That   PM   and   Butil   did   not   file   an   MFR   prior   to   filing   the  
Immediate  Proclamation  with  the  COMELEC  en  banc.  They  prayed  
petition  for  mandamus  is  not  fatal;  not  filed  out  of  time  
that   they   be   declared   entitled   to   1   extra   seat   each   based   on   the  
  Under   Rule   13,   Section   1(d)   of   the   COMELEC   Rules   of  
formula  in  Bagong  Bayani.    
Procedure,   a   motion   for   reconsideration   of   an   en   banc   ruling,  
Note:  in  their  calculations,  PM  and  BUTIL  used  3  as  multiplier.  
order  or  decision  of  the  respondent  Commission  is  not  allowed.  
As  we  know  from  CIBAC,  this  is  the  wrong  multiplier  to  use  
Moreover,  the  issue  of  what  formula  applies  in  determining  the  
• In   response,   the   COMELEC   en   banc   reiterated   their   reliance   on  
additional   seats   to   be   allocated   to   party-­‐list   winners   is   a   pure  
the  simplified  formula.  The  COMELEC  ordered  that  the  votes  for  
question   of   law   that   is   a   recognized   exception   to   the   rule   on  
PM,  BUTIL  et  al  be  re-­‐tabulated.  In  the  end,  the  COMELEC   failed  
exhaustion  of  administrative  remedies.  
to  resolve  the  issues  brought  by  the  parties.  
 
• PM   and   BUTIL   then   filed   a   petition   for   mandamus   with   the   SC,   d. Further   discussion   on   the   ‘simplified   formula;’   Veterans  
seeking   to   compel   the   COMELEC   to   apply   the   Bagong   Bayani  
formula  prevails  
formula  and  declare  their  entitlement  to  extra  seats.  
  As   mentioned,   the   simplified   formula   was   applied   to   grant  
• The   COMELEC   claimed   that   the   duty   to   proclaim   winners   in   the   BUHAY  an  extra  seat.  However,    in  that  ruling,  the  SC  explicitly  
PL  election  was  a  discretionary  function  and  was  thus  not  subject   mentioned   that   the   application   was   pro   hac   vice,   which   is   a  
to  mandamus.     Latin  term  meaning  "for  this  one  particular  occasion."    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   99  
 
  A   ruling   expressly   qualified   as   pro   hac   vice   cannot   be   HELD:  
relied   upon   as   a   precedent   to   govern   other   cases.   It   was   a. Section  6  (8)  provides  for  2  separate  reasons  for  delisting.  
therefore   erroneous   for   the   COMELEC   to   apply   the   November   The  grounds  in  the  said  provision  are:  
20,  2003  Resolution  and  rule  that  the  formula  in  Veterans  has   1. it  fails  to  participate  in  the  last  2  preceding  elections  or  
been  abandoned.   2. it   fails   to   obtain   at   least   2%   of   the   votes   cast   under   the  
  In   this   case,   the   SC   reiterated   that   it   is   the   formula   in   partylist   system   in   the   two   preceding   elections   for   the  
VETERANS  formula  which  controls.   constituency  in  which  it  has  registered.    
   
e. PM  &  Butil  applied  the  wrong  formula,  in  the  end  failed  to    The  disjunctive  ‘or’  is  very  clear.  The  two  grounds  are  separate  
get  an  extra  seat.  ☺     reasons   for   delisting.   These   grounds   cannot   be   mixed   or  
See  Cibac  v  COMELEC.  After  applying  the  proper  multiplier,  PM   combined.    
and  Butil’s  proportional  votes  to  the  votes  obtained  by  the  first     A   delisting   based   on   a   mixture   or   fusion   of   these   two  
party  is  below  the  requisite  1%.     different   and   separate   grounds   for   delisting   is   therefore   a  
  strained   application   of   the   law  –   in   jurisdictional   terms,   it   is   an  
  interpretation   not   within   the   contemplation   of   the   framers   of  
CASE:  PHIL.  GUARDIANS  v  COMELEC   the   law   and   hence   is   a   gravely   abusive   interpretation   of   the  
G.R.  No.  190529,     April  29,  2010     law.  
PHILIPPINE   GUARDIANS   BROTHERHOOD,   INC.   (PGBI),   REPRESENTED   BY   ITS    
SECRETARY-­‐GENERAL   GEORGE   "FGBF   GEORGE"   DULDULAO,   PETITIONER,   VS.  
COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  RESPONDENT.  
b. Maam   Valencia   wants   us   to   note   that   a  
  Refusal/Cancellation  of  Partylist  Registration  may  be  done  
Summary:   The   COMELEC   disqualified   PGBI   because   1)   it   did   not   motu  propio  (by  the  COMELEC)  or  upon  verified  motion.  
participate  in  the  2007  elections  AND  PGBI  failed  to  get  2%  of  the   This   case   is   an   illustration   of   the   COMELEC   motu   proprio  
votes  when  it  last  ran  in  2004.  COMELEC  contends  that  since  PGBI   withdrawing/cancelling  a  PL  group’s  registration.  
did  not  participate  in  the  2007  elections,  it  also  failed  to  garner  the    
2%   requirement   for   that   year.   This   alleged   failure   of   PGBI   to   obtain    
2%  of  votes  for  two  years  in  a  row  was  a  ground  for  delisting  PGBI   c. PGBI’s  right  to  due  process  was  not  violated  
as  a  registered  partylist  group.       On   the   due   process   issue,   we   agree   with   the   COMELEC  
  that  PGBI’s  right  to  due  process  was  not  violated  for  PGBI  was  
FACTS:   given  an  opportunity  to  seek,  as  it  did  seek,  a  reconsideration  
• In   preparation   for   the   2010   elections,   the   COMELEC   en   banc   of  Resolution  No.  8679.    
issued  Resolution  8679  which  deleted  several  PL  groups  from  the     The   essence   of   due   process,   we   have   consistently   held,   is  
list  of  eligible  parties.   simply   the   opportunity   to   be   heard;   as   applied   to  
• PGBI  was  one  of  these  parties.  It  was  delisted  on  the  ground  that   administrative   proceedings,   due   process   is   the   opportunity   to  
it   failed   to   get   2%   of   the   votes   cast   in   2004   AND   it   did   not   explain   one’s   side   or   the   opportunity   to   seek   a   reconsideration  
participate  in  the  2007  elections  –  which,  the  COMELEC  claimed,   of  the  action  or  ruling  complained  of.  
 
meant  that  PGBI  necessarily  failed  to  get  at  least  two  per  centum  
(2%)  of  the  votes  cast  in  the  two  preceding  elections.  This  was  a    
ground  for  disqualification  under  Section  6  (8)  in  RA  7941:   CASE:  ABAYON  V  HRET  
  G.R.  No.  189466,       February  11,  2010    
DARYL  GRACE  J.  ABAYON,  PETITIONER,  PRESENT:  VS.  THE  HONORABLE  HOUSE  OF  
(8)  It  fails  to  participate  in  the  last  two  (2)  preceding  elections   REPRESENTATIVES   ELECTORAL   TRIBUNAL,   PERFECTO   C.   LUCABAN,   JR.,   RONYL   S.  
OR   fails   to   obtain   at   least   two   per   centum   (2%)   of   the   votes   DE  LA  CRUZ  AND  AGUSTIN  C.  DOROGA,  RESPONDENTS.  
cast   under   the   party-­‐list   system   in   the   two   (2)   preceding    
G.R.  No.  189506  
elections  for  the  constituency  in  which  it  has  registered.  
CONGRESSMAN   JOVITO   S.   PALPARAN,   JR.,   PETITIONER,   VS.   HOUSE   OF  
  REPRESENTATIVES   ELECTORAL   TRIBUNAL   (HRET),   DR.   REYNALDO   LESACA,   JR.,  
• The  COMELEC  refused  to  grant  PGBI’s  petition.  PGBI  then  filed  a   CRISTINA   PALABAY,   RENATO   M.   REYES,   JR.,   ERLINDA   CADAPAN,   ANTONIO  
petition  for  certiorari  with  the  SC.     FLORES  AND  JOSELITO  USTAREZ,  RESPONDENTS.  
 
• PGBI  contended  that  Section  6(8)  does  not  apply  to  its  situation,  
Summary:   This   is   a   consolidated   case   where   in   Abayon   and  
as  it  is  obvious  that  it  failed  to  participate  in  only  one  (1)  of  the  
Palparan   won   seats   in   Congress   through   the   partylist   system.   Quo  
two  (2)  preceding  elections.  It  further  claimed  that  it  was  denied  
warranto   proceedings   against   both   were   filed   with   the   HRET,   as  
due  process.  
both   were   allegedly   not   members   of   the   sectors   they   claimed   to  
 
represent.  Abayon  and  Palparan  both  assailed  the  jurisdiction  of  the  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   correctly   applied   Section   6   (8)   in  
HRET,   claiming   the   COMELEC   has   jurisdiction   as   the   respondents  
disqualifying  PGBI.  NO  
are   assailing   the   validity   of   the   party   of   which   they   are   only  
 
nominees.  
 
 

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   100  
 
FACTS:    
• During   the   2007   elections,   Abayon   and   Palparan’s   party-­‐list   b. Contention:   PL   group   has   the   authority   to   determine  
groups   garnered   at   least   2%   of   the   votes.   The   petitioners   were   nominee’s  eligibility  is  only  true  at  the  start  
the  first  nominee  of  their  respective  parties.  Abayon  for  ‘AANGAT     Abayon   and   Palparan   point   out   that   the   authority   to  
TAYO”  and  Palparan  for  “BANTAY”   determine  the  qualifications  of  a  party-­‐list  nominee  belongs  to  
• Petitions  of  quo  warranto  were  filed  against  both  nominees  with   the   party   or   organization   that   nominated   him.   This   is   true,  
the  HRET.     initially.  The  right  to  examine  the  fitness  of  aspiring  nominees  
• It  was  alleged  that    AANGAT  TAYO  was  not  an  eligible  PL  since  it   and,   eventually,   to   choose   five   from   among   them   after   all  
did   not   represent   marginalized   and   underrepresented   sectors.   belongs  to  the  party  or  organization  that  nominates  them.    
Abayon  was  also  claimed  to  be  disqualified  to  sit  in  the  House  as     But   where   an   allegation   is   made   that   the   party   or  
he   did   not   really   belong   to   the   M   and   U   sectors,   as   she   was   the   organization  had  chosen  and  allowed  a  disqualified  nominee  to  
wife   of   an   incumbent   congressman.   She   also   participated   in   the   become   its   party-­‐list   representative   in   the   lower   House   and  
preceding   partylist   election   under   a   different   party   (An   Waray)   enjoy   the   secured   tenure   that   goes   with   the   position,   the  
but  lost.   resolution   of   the   dispute   is   taken   out   of   its   hand   and   into   the  
! Abayon’s  defense:  COMELEC  already  certified  AANGAT   proper  tribunal.  
TAYO’s  status  which  is  within  COMELEC’s  jurisdiction.        
That  she  belonged  in  the  women’s  sector  for  AANGAT   c. HRET’s  functions  and  why  it  has  jurisdiction  
TAYO,  and  that  she  was  An-­‐Waray’s  second  nominee     Section  17,  Article  VI  of  the  Constitution  provides  that  the  
•  As  to  Palparan,  similar  claims  were  raised.  He  was  not  qualified   HRET  shall  be  the  sole  judge  of  all  contests  relating  to,  among  
to  sit  as  he  did  not  belong  to  the  M  and  U  sectors  represented  by   other  things,  the  qualifications  of  the  members  of  the  House  of  
BANTAY:  he  victims  of  communist  rebels,  Civilian  Armed  Forces   Representatives.   Since,   as   pointed   out   above,   party-­‐list  
Geographical   Units   (CAFGUs),   former   rebels,   and   security   guards.   nominees   are   "elected   members"   of   the   House   of  
Petitioners   against   Palparan   also   stressed   that   Palparan   even   Representatives   no   less   than   the   district   representatives   are,  
committed  human  rights  violations  against  M  &  U  sectors.     the   HRET   has   jurisdiction   to   hear   and   pass   upon   their  
• Both   nominees   claimed   that   the   HRET   had   no   jurisdiction   over   qualifications.    
them,  since  it  was  their  party-­‐list  groups  which  nominated  them.     By  analogy  with  the  cases  of  district  representatives,  once  
Thus,   any   question   involving   their   eligibility   were   internal   the   party   or   organization   of   the   party-­‐list   nominee   has   been  
matters  that  were  not  subject  to  HRET’s  jurisdiction.     proclaimed   and   the   nominee   has   taken   his   oath   and   assumed  
• The  HRET  dismissed  the  petitions  against  the  party-­‐list  groups.  It   office   as   member   of   the   House   of   Representatives,   the  
however,   retained   its   jurisdiction   over   the   qualifications   of   COMELEC’s   jurisdiction   over   election   contests   relating   to   his  
Abayon  and  Palparan.   qualifications  ends  and  the  HRET’s  own  jurisdiction  begins.  
   
ISSUE:   WON   the   HRET   has   jurisdiction   over   the   qualification   of   ! the  SC  thus  ruled  that  the  HRET  did  not  commit  GAOD  
Abayon  and  Palparan,  being  partylist  nominees.  YES   when   it   dismissed   the   petitions   for   quo   warranto  
  against   the   party-­‐lists   but   upheld   its   jurisdiction   over  
HELD:   the  petitioners’  qualifications  
a. The   partylist   representatives     are,   in   every   sense,   an    
elected   member   of   the   HREP   –   as   they,   not   their   parties,    
are  elected  into  the  House   CASE:  LOKIN  JR  V  COMELEC  (2010)  
  The  Constitution  itself  identifies  the  2  kinds  of  members   G.R.  Nos.  179431-­‐32                              June  22,  2010  
of  the  House  of  Representatives:     LUIS   K.   LOKIN,   JR.,   as   the   second   nominee   of   CITIZENS   BATTLE   AGAINST  
CORRUPTION  (CIBAC),  Petitioner,    vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS  and  the  HOUSE  
1. those  who  shall  be  elected  from  legislative  districts   OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  Respondents.  
2. those  who  shall  be  elected  through  a  partylist  system    
of   registered   national,   regional,   and   sectoral   parties   Summary:   CIBAC   submitted   a   list   of   partylist   to   COMELEC.   After  
or  organizations   the   list   was   published,   CIBAC   wrote   COMELEC   again   letting   them  
Thus,   although   the   vote   cast   in   a   party-­‐list   election   is   a   vote   for   know   that   the   nomination   of   Lokin   was   being   withdrawn   and  
a   party,   such   vote,   in   the   end,   would   be   a   vote   for   its   nominees,   subsituted.   COMELEC   issued   Resolution   7804   which   allowed   the  
who,   in   appropriate   cases,   would   eventually   sit   in   the   House   of   President  of  parties  to  withdraw  candidates  on  their  behalf,  which  
Representatives.     was   essentially   an   amendment   to   Section   8   of   RA   7941   which  
  Once   elected,   both   the   district   representatives   and   the   enumerates  the  only  times  a  candidate’s  name  may  be  withdrawn.  
party-­‐list   representatives   are   treated   in   like   manner.   They   Lokin’s   replacement   was   proclaimed.   Lokin   filed   a   petition   for  
have   the   same   deliberative   rights,   salaries,   and   emoluments.   certiorari.  
They   can   participate   in   the   making   of   laws   that   will   directly    
benefit   their   legislative   districts   or   sectors.   They   are   also   FACTS:  
subject   to   the   same   term   limitation   of   three   years   for   a   • The   CIBAC   PL   group   manifested   its   intent   to   participate   in   the  
maximum  of  three  consecutive  terms.   2007   elections.   Thus,   its   President,   Emmanuel   Villanueva,  
 
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   101  
 
submitted  a  list  of  5  nominees  on  March  2007.  Villanueva  himself   determine   who   between   them   has   actually   obtained   the  
was  the  first  nominee,  while  Luis  Lokin  was  the  second.     majority  of  the  legal  votes  cast  and  is  entitled  to  hold  the  
• This   list   was   later   published   in   2   newspapers   of   general   office.  It  can  only  be  filed  by  a  candidate  who  has  duly  filed  
circulation.   a   certificate   of   candidacy   and   has   been   voted   for   in   the  
• However,   a   few   days   before   the   elections,   CIBAC   through   preceding  elections.  
Villanueva   filed   a   certificate   of   nomination,   subsitution   and     A  special   civil   action   for   quo   warranto  refers  
amendment   of   the   list   of   nominees   with   the   COMELEC   where   it   to  questions  of  disloyalty  to  the  State,  or  of  ineligibility  of  
withdrew   3   names   (Lokin   included)   and   subsituted   another   the   winning   candidate.   The   objective   of   the   action   is   to  
nominee  in  their  place.   unseat   the   ineligible   person   from   the   office,   but   not   to  
• After  the  elections,  Villanueva  sent  a  letter  to  COMELEC  affirming   install   the   petitioner   in   his   place.   Any   voter   may   initiate  
the  withdrawal  of  Lokin,  Tugna  and  Galang  (who  had  decided  to   the  action,  which  is,  strictly  speaking,  not  a  contest  where  
focus  on  his  family  life,  apparently,  good  for  him).     the   parties   strive   for   supremacy   because   the   petitioner  
• However,  the  counsel  of  CIBAC  later  sought  for  the  proclamation   will  not  be  seated  even  if  the  respondent  may  be  unseated.  
of  Lokin  as  CIBAC’s  second  nominee.      
• Later,  the  COMELEC  en  banc  declared  that  CIBAC  was  among  the     The   controversy   involving   Lokin   is   neither   an   election  
parties   who   had   garnered   enough   votes   to   qualify   for   an   protest   nor   an   action   for   quo  warranto,  for   it   concerns   a   very  
additional   seat.   The   COMELEC,   however,   held   in   abeyance   the   peculiar  situation  in  which  Lokin  is  seeking  to  be  seated  as  the  
proclamation  of  candidates  of  groups  with  pending  disputes,  such   second  nominee  of  CIBAC.     Although   an   election   protest  
as  CIBAC  and  Lokin.   may   properly   be   available   to   one   party-­‐list   organization  
• In   September,   the   COMELEC   issued   a   Resolution   wherein   it   seeking  to  unseat  another  party-­‐list  organization  to  determine  
declared   that   CIBAC’s   withdrawal   and   subtitution   of   the   which   between   the   defeated   and   the   winning   party-­‐list  
nominees   were   valid   acts   of   its   President,   Villanueva.   The   organizations  actually  obtained  the  majority  of  the  legal  votes,  
COMELEC   en   banc   proclaimed   Cruz-­‐Gonzales   as   CIBAC’s   second   Lokin’s   case   is   not   one   in   which   a   nominee   of   a   particular  
candidate.   party-­‐list   organization   thereby   wants   to   unseat   another  
• The   COMELEC   also   grounded   their   upholding   of   CIBAC’s   nominee  of  the  same  party-­‐list  organization.    
withdrawal   on   Section   13   of   Resolution   7804,   where   the     Neither   does   an   action   for   quo   warranto   lie,   considering  
COMELEC  stated  that  a  party-­‐list  nominee  may  be  withdrawn  by   that  the  case  does  not  involve  the  ineligibility  and  disloyalty  of  
the  party.   Cruz-­‐Gonzales  to  the  Republic  of  the  Philippines,  or  some  other  
• Lokin  later  filed  several  actions  before  the  Supreme  Court.  First,   cause  of  disqualification  for  her.  
he   filed   an   action   for   mandamus   to   compel   the   COMELEC   to      
declare  him  as  CIBAC’s  second  nominee.     b. Instances  where  a  party  may  change  its  nominees  or  alter  
their  order  is  exclusive.    
• He  also  assailed  the  constitutionality  of  Section  13  of  Resolution  
According  to  Section  8  of  RA  7941:    
7804,  claiming  that  the  COMELEC  added  a  fourth  instance  where  
1. when  the  nominee  dies  
withdrawal   of   party   nominees   may   be   valid,   where   the   law  
2. the  nominee  withdraws  in  writing  his  nomination  
enumerates  only  three.  
3. nominee  becomes  incapacitated.    
• The   COMELEC   claims   that   Lokin’s   remedy   should   have   been   an  
 
election   protest   before   the   HRET.   CIBAC   claims   that   Lokin   was  
c. Resolution   amending   RA   7941   in   excess   of   delegated  
forum-­‐shopping   in   filing   petitions   for   mandamus   and   certiorari,  
power,  and  therefore  null  and  void.  
where   both   actions   have   the   same   effect   of   having   him   declared  
  Recall  the  requisites  for  a  valid  administrative  IRR:  
as  CIBAC’s  second  nominee.  
1. Its   promulgation   must   be   authorized   by   the  
 
Legislature;  
ISSUE:   WON   CIBAC   may   validly   withdraw   its   nominations   of  
2. It  must  be  within  the  scope  of  the  authority  given  by  
candidates  after  the  submitted  list  has  also  been  published.  NO  
the  Legislature;  
WON  Section  13  of  Resolution  7804  was  contrary  to  law.  YES  
3. It   must   be   promulgated   in   accordance   with   the  
 
prescribed  procedure;  and  
HELD:  
4. It  must  be  reasonable.    
a. Certiorari   is   proper,   as   Lokin’s   action   is   not   an   election  
   
protest/quo   warranto   since   he   is   a   party   list   nominee  
  COMELEC’s   promulgation   satsifies   all   but   the   second   and  
seeking  to  unseat  another  nominee.    
fourth   requisite.   The   delegated   authority   must   be   properly  
  CIBAC   alleges   that   certiorari   is   not   the   proper   remedy,  
exercised.    
which   should   be   an   election   protest/quo   warranto   with   the  
  Section  8  is  very  clear.  The  Legislature  deprived  the  party-­‐
HRET,  since  his  substitute  had  already  been  proclaimed.    
list  organization  of  the  right  to  change  its  nominees  or  to  alter  
 
the   order   of   nominees   once   the   list   is   submitted   to   the  
  An   election   protest   proposes   to   oust   the  
COMELEC,   except   in   the   aforementioned   three   instances.  
winning   candidate   from   office.   It   is   strictly   a   contest  
Accordingly,  an   administrative   agency   tasked   to   implement  
between   the   defeated   and   the   winning   candidates,   based  
a   statute   may   not   construe   it   by   expanding   its   meaning  
on   the   grounds   of   electoral   frauds   and   irregularities,   to  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   102  
 
where  its  provisions  are  clear  and  unambiguous.   CIBAC   group   2   –  headed  by  Tugna  and  Cruz-­‐Gonzales  (the  
  Section   8   does   not   unduly   deprive   the   party-­‐list   repsondents  in  this  case.  
organization   of   its   right   to   choose   its   nominees,   but   merely   • CIBAC  group  1  submitted  a  list  of  nominees  which  included  Lokin  
divests   it   of   the   right   to   change   its   nominees   or   to   alter   the   and   Planas   (petitioners).   CIBAC   group   2,   who   submitted   their  
order  in  the  list  of  its  nominees’  names  after  submission  of  the   own   list,   claimed   that   Lokin   and   Planas’   nominations   were  
list  to  the  COMELEC.   unauthorized.   Group   2   filed   a   Petition   to   Expunge   and/or   for  
  Disqualification.  
d. Purpose  for  the  prohibition:  transparency   • The   COMELEC   1st   Div   issued   a   Resolution   expunging   Derla’s   list  
  The  prohibition  is  not  arbitrary  or  capricious.  After  the  list   and  declared  CIBAC  2’s  nominations  as  the  true  nominations.  The  
is   submitted   to   the   COMELEC,   he   names   of   the   nominees   will   COMELEC  1st  Div  based  their  ruling  on  the  fact  that  Derla  was  not  
be   published   in   newspapers   of   general   circulation.   Although   not   able   to   prove   her   authority   to   file   the   Certificate   of  
the  people  vote  for  the  party-­‐list  organization  itself  in  a  party-­‐ Nomination.   Whereas   the   nomination   of   group   2   was   presented  
list   system   of   election,   not   for   the   individual   nominees,   they   with   overwhelming   evidence   that   Vilanueva   (who   filed   the  
still  have  the  right  to  know  who  the  nominees  of  any  particular   nominations)  was  acting  with  CIBAC’s  authority.  
party-­‐list   organization   are.   The   publication   of   the   list   of   the   • Lokin   and   Planas   filed   a   MFR   with   the   en   banc,   who   ruled   against  
party-­‐list   nominees   in   newspapers   of   general   circulation   them.  Lokin  and  Planas  received  the  Resolution  on  September  1,  
serves   that   right   of   the   people,   enabling   the   voters   to   make   2010.    
intelligent  and  informed  choices.     • They   filed   this   petition   with   the   SC   under   Rules   64   and   65   on  
  In   contrast,   allowing   the   party-­‐list   organization   to   October  1,  2010.  They  claim  that  the  COMELEC  committed  GAOD  
change   its   nominees   through   withdrawal   of   their   when   it   took   cognizance   of   Group   2’s   Petition   since   the   matter  
nominations,   or   to   alter   the   order   of   the   nominations   after   was  an  intra-­‐corporate  dispute.    
the   submission   of   the   list   of   nominees   circumvents   the   • Lokin   claims   that   the   CIBAC   which   ran   in   2004   and   2007   was  
voters’   demand   for   transparency.  The  lawmakers’  exclusion   now   defunct,   and   that   CIBAC   Foundation,   Inc   is   the   party   which  
of   such   arbitrary   withdrawal   has   eliminated   the   possibility   of   intends  to  run  for  the  2010  elections.  CIBAC  Foundation  Inc  was  
such  circumvention.   a   corporation   registered   with   the   SEC.   The   controversy   was  
! the   SC   nullified   the   COMELEC   Resolution   approving   therefore   a   corporate   dispute   over   which   the   COMELEC   had   no  
the   withdrawal   of   CIBAC’s   nominees,   as   well   as   Cruz-­‐ jurisdiction.  
Gonzales’  proclamation  as  second  nominee.   • Meanwhile,   group   2   contends   that   CIBAC   Foundation     was  
! The  COMELEC  was  ordered  to  proclaim  Lokin   constituted  merely  as  CIBAC’s  legal  and  financial  arm.  
! Section   13   of   Resolution   7804   was   struck   down   for    
being  contrary  to  law   ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   has   jurisdiction   to   resolve   disputes  
  regarding  party-­‐list  groups’  nominees.  YES  
   
CASE:  LOKIN  JR  V  COMELEC  (2012)   HELD:  
G.R.  No.  193808                              June  26,  2012   a. Jurisprudence   has   already   established   the   COMELEC’s  
LUIS   K.   LOKIN,   JR.   and   TERESITA   F.   PLANAS,   Petitioners,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   power  to  participate  in  intra-­‐party  disputes  
ELECTIONS   (COMELEC),   CITIZENS’   BATTLE   AGAINST   CORRUPTION   PARTY   LIST     The   COMELEC’s   jurisdiction   over   intra-­‐party   leadership  
represented   by   VIRGINIA   S.   JOSE   SHERWIN   N.   TUGNA,   and   CINCHONA   CRUZ-­‐
GONZALES,  Respondents,  
disputes  has  already  been  settled  by  the  Court.  The  Court  ruled  
  in   Kalaw   v.   Commission   on   Elections   that   the   COMELEC’s  
FACTS:   powers   and   functions   under   Section   2,   Article   IX-­‐C   of   the  
  Constitution,   "include   the   ascertainment   of   the   identity   of   the  
Short   version:   It   seems   that   two   representatives   for   CIBAC   political   party   and   its   legitimate   officers   responsible   for   its  
submitted   two   different   lists   of   nominees   for   the   2010   elections.   acts."    
The   COMELEC   ruled   in   favor   of   one   group.   The   defeated   group     The   Court   also   declared   in   another   case   that   the  
(Lokin’s   group)   challenged   the   COMELEC’s   authority   to   decide   COMELEC’s   power   to   register   political   parties   necessarily  
intra-­‐party  disputes.   involved  the  determination  of  the  persons  who  must  act  on  its  
  behalf.   Thus,   the   COMELEC   may   resolve   an   intra-­‐party  
• The   2010   elections   were   fast   approaching.   Thus,   the   CIBAC,   leadership   dispute,   in   a   proper   case   brought   before   it,   as   an  
having   participated   and   won   in   the   last   3   party-­‐list   elections,   incident  of  its  power  to  register  political  parties.    
manifested  their  intention  to  participate  for  the  2010  elections.     The   COMELEC   is   also   tasked   to   "register,   alter   sufficient  
• However,   there   were   two   groups   who   claimed   to   represent   publication,  political  parties,  organizations,  or  coalitions  which,  
CIBAC:   in  addition  to  other  requirements,  must  present  their  platform  
For  purposes  of  discussion:   or   program   of   government.”   The   power   of   the   COMELEC   to  
CIBAC   group   1   –   purportedly   headed   by   Pia   Derla     who   settle   struggles   for   party   leadership   has   already   been   decided  
claimed   to   be   the   acting   SecGen.     Derla   claims   she   was   in  LDP  v  COMELEC.    
authorized  by  the  BoT  of  ‘CIBAC  Foundation,  Inc.’    
b. On  the  contention  that  CIBAC  Foundation  Inc  has  authority    
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   103  
 
  Contrary   to   petitioners’   allegations,   the   National   Council   Since   CIBAC   is   a   multi-­‐sectoral   party,   Villanueva   claims   the  
of   CIBAC   has   not   become   defunct,   and   has   certainly   not   been   age  requirement  did  not  apply  to  him.  
replaced  by  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  SEC-­‐registered  entity.    
  The   COMELEC   carefully   perused   the   documents   of   the   As   to   his   affiliation   shift:   mere   denial,   claims   he   has   been  
organization  and  outlined  the  process  followed  by  the  National   part   of   the   OFW   and   families   sector   years   before   the   2007  
Council  before  it  complied  with  its  task  of  choosing  the  party’s   election  
nominees.    
  • The   COMELEC   dismissed   Amores’   petition   for   quo   warranto   for  
c. CIBAC   Foundation   is   estopped   from   contesting   COMELEC   being  filed  out  of  time.  
jurisdiction    
  Lokin   et   al   cannot   claims   as   a   defense   that   CIBAC   ISSUE:   WON   Villanueva   should   be   disqualified   on   the   grounds  
Foundation   Inc   is   a   SEC-­‐registered   corporation.   For   one,   they   raised  by  Amores.  YES  
submitted  their  Certificate  of  Nomination  and  Manifestation  of    
Intent   to   participate   in   the   party-­‐list   elections.   Precisely,   HELD:  
petitioners   were   seeking   the   COMELEC’s   approval   of   their   Note:   the   issue   was   already   moot   and   academic   since   the   term   of  
eligibility  to  participate  in  the  upcoming  party-­‐list  elections.  In   those  elected  in  the  2007  elections  was  to  expire  on  June  30  2010.  
effect,   they   invoke   its   authority   under   the   Party-­‐List   System   But  the  SC  decided  the  case  anyway  for  its  ‘practical  value.’  
Act.    
  Contrary   to   their   stance   that   the   present   dispute   stemmed   a. Petition   for   quo   warranto   not   filed   out   time;   in   fact,   it  
from   an   intra-­‐corporate   matter,   their   submissions   even   could  have  been  filed  at  any  time  during  Vilanueva’s  term  
recognize  the  COMELEC’s  constitutional  power  to  enforce  and     Since   there   were   no   records   which   disclosed   the   exact  
administer   all   laws   relative   to   the   conduct   of   an   election,   date   Villanueva   was   proclaimed,   the   Court   overlooked   the  
plebiscite,  initiative,  referendum,  and  recall.   technicality.    
  More  specifically,  as  one  of  its  constitutional  functions,  the     Alternatively,   since   Amores’   challenge   goes   into  
COMELEC   is   also   tasked   to   "register,   after   sufficient   Villanueva’s  qualifications,  it  may  be  filed  at  anytime  during  his  
publication,  political  parties,  organizations,  or  coalitions  which,   term.  
in  addition  to  other  requirements,  must  present  their  platform     Qualifications   for   public   office   are   continuing  
or  program  of  government.   requirements   and   must   be   possessed   not   only   at   the   time   of  
  appointment  or  election  or  assumption  of  office  but  during  the  
  officer's   entire   tenure.   Once   any   of   the   required   qualifications  
CASE:  AMORES  v  HRET     is  lost,  his  title  may  be  seasonably  challenged.  
G.R.  No.  189600                              June  29,  2010    
MILAGROS   E.   AMORES,   Petitioner,     vs.   HOUSE   OF   REPRESENTATIVES   ELECTORAL   b. Age  requirement  applies  to  Villanueva  
TRIBUNAL  and  EMMANUEL  JOEL  J.  VILLANUEVA,  Respondents.     Section   9   of   RA   7941   states   that   a   nominee   of   the   youth  
  sector   must   be   at   least   25   years   old   but   not   more   than   30   on  
FACTS:   the    day  of  the  election.    
• Milagros   Amores   filed   a   petition   for   Quo   Warranto   against     The   Court   found   no   textual   support   for   Villanueva’s  
Emmanuel   Villanueva   (who     assumed   office   as   CIBAC   party-­‐list   interpretation   that   Section   9   applied   only   to   those   nominated  
group’s  representative)  on  the  following  grounds:   during  the  first  three  congressional  terms  after  the  ratification  
1. The   he   assumed   office   without   a   formal   proclamation   of   the   Constitution   or   until   1998,   unless   a   sectoral   party   is  
by  the  COMELEC   thereafter   registered   exclusively   as   representing   the   youth  
2. He   was   disqualified   to   be   anominee   of   the   Youth   sector.  
sector   of   CIBAC   since   he   was   already   31yo   when   he     As   the   law   states   in   unequivocal   terms   that   a   nominee   of  
filed   his   Certificate   of   Nomination   and   Acceptance;   the  youth  sector  must  at  least  be  twenty-­‐five  (25)  but  not  more  
contrary   to   law   which   states   that   youth   sector   than   thirty   (30)   years   of   age   on   the   day   of   the   election,   so   it  
representatives   must   not   be   older   than   30   years   old   must  be  that  a  candidate  who  is  more  than  30  on  election  day  
on  the  day  of  the  election.   is   not   qualified   to   be   a   youth   sector   nominee.   Since   this  
3. That   he   shifted   his   affiliation   from   CIBAC’s   youth   mandate   is   contained   in   RA   No.   7941,   the   Party-­‐List  
sector   to   its   OFW   sector   only   2   months   before   the   System  Act,  it  covers  ALL  youth  sector  nominees  vying  for  
2007  elections.  Under  the  law,  a  change  of  affiliation   party-­‐list   representative   seats,   regardless   of   WON   they   are  
must   be   effected   at   least   six   months   before   the   exclusively  representing  the  youth.  
elections.     The   records   disclose   that   Villanueva   was   already   more  
  than   30   years   of   age   in   May,   2007,   it   being   stipulated   that   he  
• Villanueva’s  defenses   was  born  in  August,  1975.  He  is  thus  disqualified  under  Section  
As   to   his   age:   He  claims  that  it  only  applies  to  parties  which   9.  
are   registered   exclusively   as   representing   the   youth   sector.    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   104  
 
c. Change   of   affiliation   in   Section   covers   both   political   party   • In  2004,  the  COMELEC  arrived  at  a  decision  to  split  the  party  into  
and  sectoral  affiliation.   two  wings:  the  Angara  Wing  and  the  Aquino  Wing,  and  devised  a  
Section  15  of  RA  7941  also  provides:     system  in  which  both  wings  might  co-­‐exist  within  the  party.  
   
Section  15.  Change  of  Affiliation;  Effect.  Any  elected  party-­‐ ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC’s   ‘resolution’   to   LDP’s   dilemma   was  
list   representative   who   changes   his   political   party   or   proper.  NO.  
sectoral  affiliation  during  his  term  of  office  shall  forfeit  his    
seat:   Provided,   That   if   he   changes   his   political   party   or   HELD:  
sectoral   affiliation   within   six   (6)   months   before   an   COMELEC  has  power  to  ascertain  leaders  of  political  parties  to  
election,   he   shall   not   be   eligible   for   nomination   as   party-­‐ prevent  electorate  confusion  
list  representative  under  his  new  party  or  organization.       The  COMELEC  correctly  stated  that  “the  ascertainment  of  
  the   identity   of   [a]   political   party   and   its   legitimate   officers”   is   a  
What  is  clear  is  that  the  wording  of  Section  15  covers  changes   matter   that   is   well   within   its   authority.   The   source   of   this  
in   both   political   party   and   sectoral   affiliation.   And   the   latter   authority   is   no   other   than   the   fundamental   law   itself,   which  
may  occur  within  the  same  party  since  multi-­‐sectoral  party-­‐list   vests  upon  the  COMELEC  the  power  and  function  to  enforce  and  
organizations   are   qualified   to   participate   in   the   Philippine   administer   all   laws   and   regulations   relative   to   the   conduct   of  
party-­‐list   system.   Hence,   a   nominee   who   changes   his   sectoral   an   election.   In   the   exercise   of   such   power   and   in   the   discharge   of  
affiliation   within   the   same   party   will   only   be   eligible   for   such   function,   the   Commission   is   endowed   with   ample  
nomination   under   the   new   sectoral   affiliation   if   the   change   has   “wherewithal”   and   “considerable   latitude   in   adopting   means   and  
been  effected  at  least  six  months  before  the  elections.     methods   that   will   ensure   the   accomplishment   of   the   great  
  Again,   since   the   statute   is   clear   and   free   from   ambiguity,   it   objectives   for   which   it   was   created   to   promote   free,   orderly   and  
must   be   given   its   literal   meaning   and   applied   without   honest  elections.  
attempted  interpretation.     In   Kalaw  v  Commission,  the   Court   said   that   the   COMELEC  
  Villanueva   did   not   change   his   sectoral   affiliation   at   least   powers   include   the   determination   of   the   conflicting   claims   which  
six   months   before   May   2007.   Under   Section   15,   Villanueva   is   are  likely  to  cause  confusion  among  the  electorate  if  not  resolved.    
also  disqualified.       Additionally,   the   COMELEC   is   mandated   by   the   Election  
  Code  to  inter  alia  require  candidates  to  specify  their  political  party  
! since   the   issue   is   moot   and   academic,   Villanueva   is   affiliation   in   their   certificates   of   candidacy,   allow   political   parties   to  
entitled   to   keep   the   compensation   and   emoluments   appoint   watchers,   limit   the   expenditures   of   each   political   party,  
provided   by   law   for   the   position   until   he   is   properly   determine   whether   or   not   a   political   party   shall   retain   its  
declared  ineligible  to  hold  the  same.   registration   on   the   basis   of   its   showing   in   the   preceding   elections,  
  etc.   These   matters   include   the   ascertainment   of   the   identity   of   the  
  political  party  and  its  legitimate  officers  responsible  for  its  acts.  
   
CASE:  LABAN  NG  DEMOKRATIKONG  PILIPINO  v   In  general,  party  business  is  outside  COMELEC  jurisdiction  
COMELEC       Political   parties   are   generally   free   to   conduct   their  
G.R.  No.  161265.  February  24,  2004.*   internal   affairs   free   from   judicial   supervision;   this   common   law  
LABAN   NG   DEMOKRATIKONG   PILIPINO,   represented   by   its   principle   of   judicial   restraint,   rooted   in   the   constitutionally  
Chairman   EDGARDO   J.   ANGARA,   petitioner,   vs.   THE   protected   right   of   free   association,   serves   the   public   interest   by  
COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   AGAPITO   A.   AQUINO,   allowing   the   political   processes   to   operate   without   undue  
respondents.   interference.  
    In   the   case   at   bar,   the   Party   Chairman,   purporting   to  
FACTS:   represent  the  LDP,  contends  that  under  the  Party  Constitution  only  
he   or   his   representative,   to   the   exclusion   of   the   Secretary   General,  
• This   case   is   an   inter-­‐party   dispute   in   the   LDP.   In   2003,   the   LDP  
has   the   authority   to   endorse   and   sign,   party   nominations.   The  
informed   the   COMELEC   that   only   the   Party   Chairman,   then   Sen.  
Secretary  General  vigorously  disputes  this  claim  and  maintains  his  
Edgardo   Angara,   may   endorse   the   COC   of   the   party’s   official  
own   authority.   Clearly,   the   question   of   party   identity   or  
candidates.   The   same   manifestation   by   the   LDP   informed   the  
leadership   has   to   be   resolved   if   the   COMELEC   is   to   ascertain  
COMELEC  that  Angara  had  placed  LDP  Secretary  Butz  Aquino  on  
whether  the  candidates  are  legitimate  party  standard  bearers  
forced  leave.  
or  not.  
• Meanwhile,  then  SecGen  of  the  LDP  Rep.  Butz  Aquino  replied  that  
 
there  was  no  basis  in  claiming  that  only  Angara  can  endorse  the  
Limit   of   COMELEC   interference   in   party   disputes:   only   those  
party’s  official  candidates.    
necessary  in  its  enforcement  powers  
• Later,   it   seemed   that   Aquino   had   suspended   Angara   as   well,  
  To   resolve   the   simple   issue   of   determining   who   as  
leading  to  a  confusing  mess  of  ‘who  suspended  whom.’  
between   the   Party   Chairman   and   the   Secretary   General   has   the  
• In   short,   Aquino   and   Angara   were   quarreling   over   who   gets   to   authority  to  sign  certificates  of  candidacy  of  the  official  candidates  
sign  and  endorse  LDP  candidates’  COCs.     of   the   party,   the   COMELEC   need   only   to   turn   to   the   Party  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   105  
 
Constitution–it   need   not   go   so   far   as   to   resolve   the   root   of   the   COMELEC  found  Aklat  to  be  a  business  lobby  group  which  seeks  
conflict  between  the  party  officials.   the  promotion  and  protection  of  the  book  publishing  industry.  
  The   only   issue   in   this   case,   as   defined   by   the   COMELEC   • After   its   DQ,   Aklat   claimed   to   have   ‘re-­‐organized   itself’   so   as   to  
itself,   is   who   as   between   the   Party   Chairman   and   the   Secretary   comply  with  the  guidelines.  Thus,  on  November   20,   2003,  they  
General   has   the   authority   to   sign   certificates   of   candidacy   of   the   filed   a   petition   for   declaration   of   re-­‐qualification   so   it   can  
official   candidates   of   the   party.   Indeed,   the   petitioners’   participate  in  the  2004  elections.  
Manifestation   and   Petition   before   the   COMELEC   merely   asked   the   • The   COMELEC   dismissed   their   petition,   stating   that   it   was   still  
Commission  to  recognize  only  those  certificates  of  candidacy  signed   impossible   to   identify   which   particular   sectors   of   the  
by   petitioner   Sen.   Angara   or   his   authorized   representative,   and   no   marginalized   and   underrepresented   Aklat   claimed   to   represent.  
other.  To  resolve  this  simple  issue,  the  COMELEC  need  only  to  turn   Aklat  filed  a  MFR.    
to   the   Party   Constitution.   It   need   not   go   so   far   as   to   resolve   the   root   • The   COMELEC   denied   the   MFR.   The   COMELEC   stated   that  
of  the  conflict  between  the  party  officials.  It  need  only  resolve  such   AKLAT’s   petition   for   re-­‐qualification   was   improper   as   it   was  
questions   as   may   be   necessary   in   the   exercise   of   its   enforcement   never  a  registered  PL  organization;  and  that  Aklat’s  petition  was  
powers.   filed  out  of  time  based  on  COMELEC  Resolution  6320.  
  • Resolution   6320   mandated   that   all   petitions   for   registration   to  
The   philosophy   behind   political   parties   is   that   they   perform   participate  in  the  2004  elections  be  filed  on  or  before  September  
the   function   of   articulating   the   interests   and   aspirations   of   a   30,   2003.   Resolution   6320   also   mandated   that   PL   groups   must  
substantial   segment   of   the   citizenry.   Any   COMELEC   action   re:   have  existed  at  least  one  year  prior  to  the  filing  of  the  petition.;  as  
political  parties  should  advance  this  philosophy.       well  as  mandating  the  submission  of  documents  to  prove  that  the  
  Government   derives   its   strength   from   the   support,   active   majority   of   its   members   belonged   to   the   sector   it   claimed   to  
or   passive,   of   a   coalition   of   elements   of   society.   In   modern   times   represent.    
the   political   party   has   become   the   instrument   for   the   • Aklat   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   before   the   SC,   claiming   that  
organization  of  societies.  This  is  predicated  on  the  doctrine  that   Resolution   6320   was   null   and   void   as   it   amended   Section   5   of   RA  
government   exists   with   the   consent   of   the   governed.   Political   7941.  Aklat  claims  that  under  RA  7941,  it  had  until  February  10,  
parties   perform   an   "essential   function   in   the   management   of   2003  to  file  its  petition.    
succession   to   power,   as   well   as   in   the   process   of   obtaining   Sec.  5.  Registration.—Any  organized  group  of  persons  may  
popular  consent  to  the  course  of  public  policy.   register  as  a  party,  organization  or  coalition  for  purposes  
  The   assailed   COMELEC   Resolution   does   not   advance,   but   of   the   party-­‐list   system   by   filing   with   the   COMELEC   not  
subverts,  this  philosophy  behind  political  parties.   later  than  ninety  (90)  days  before  the  election  a  petition  
  verified   by   its   president   or   secretary   stating   its   desire   to  
The  COMELEC  cannot  invoke  the  constitutional  policy  towards   participate  in  the  party-­‐list  system…  
a  free  and  open  system  in  splitting  LDP.       • The   COMELEC   and   the   OSG   claims   that   the   COMELEC   did   not  
When   the   Constitution   speaks   of   a   multi-­‐party   system,   it   does   commit   GAOD   in   issuing   Res.   6320   as   setting   the   deadline   was  
not  contemplate  the  COMELEC  splitting  parties  into  two.  LOL   within   the   scope   of   authority   granted   to   the   COMELEC.   This  
  deadline  was  germane  to  the  object  of  the  law,  as  it  allowed  the  
Importance   of   COMELEC   power   to   settle   cases   over   party   COMELEC   sufficient   time   to   evaluate   the   petitions     and   to   give  
leadership:   allowance  to  possible  oppositions.    
A   candidate   misrepresenting   himself   or   herself   to   be   a   party's   • Furthermore,  the  OSG  found  that  AKLAT  was  only  registered  with  
candidate,   therefore,   not   only   misappropriates   (he   party's   name   the   SEC   1   month   before   it   filed   its   petition   for   re-­‐qualification;  
and   prestige   but   foists   a   deception   upon   the   electorate,   who   and   that   it   did   not   submit   the   list   of   members   and   officers   as  
may   unwittingly   cast   its   ballot   for   him   or   her   on   the   mistaken   required  in  Resolution  6320.  
belief  that  he  or  she  stands  for  the  party's  principles.  To  prevent    
this   occurrence,   the   COMELEC   has   the   power   and   the   duty   to   ISSUE:   WON   Resolution   6320   is   null   and   void   for   ‘amending’   RA  
step   in   and   enforce   the   law   not   only   to   protect   the   party   but,   7941.  NO  
more  importantly,  the  electorate,  in  line  with  the  Commission's   WON  Aklat  deserves  re-­‐qualification/registration.  NO  
broad  constitutional  mandate  to  ensure  orderly  elections.    
  HELD:  
  The   90   day   period   in   RA   7941   may   be   ‘protracted’   by   the  
CASE:  AKLAT  v  COMELEC  (2004)   COMELEC  
G.R.  No.  162203                          April  14,  2004     The  period  stated  therein  refers  to  the  prohibitive  period  
AKLAT-­‐ASOSASYON   PARA   SA   KAUNLARAN   NG   LIPUNAN   AT   beyond   which   petitions   for   registration   should   no   longer   be   filed  
ADHIKAIN   PARA   SA   TAO,   INC.,   petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   nor  entertained.  It  is  simply  the  minimum  countback  period  which  
ELECTIONS  (COMELEC),  respondent.     is   not   subject   to   reduction   since   it   is   prescribed   by   law,   but   it   is  
  susceptible   of   protraction   on   account   of   administrative   necessities  
FACTS:   and  other  exigencies  perceived  by  the  poll  body.  
• Aklat   was   one   of   the   parties   disqualified   by   the   COMELEC   for     Verily,   the   Comelec   has   the   power   to   promulgate   the  
failing   to   comply   with   the   8pt   guideline   in   Bagong   Bayani.   The   necessary  rules  and  regulations  to  enforce  and  administer  election  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   106  
 
laws.  This  power  includes  the  determination,  within  the  parameters   CASE:  BA-­‐RA  v  COMELEC  (2004)  
fixed   by   law,   of   appropriate   periods   for   the   accomplishment   of   G.R.  No.  177271                          May  4,  2007  
certain   pre-­‐election   acts   like   filing   petitions   for   registration   under   BANTAY  REPUBLIC  ACT  OR  BA-­‐RA  7941,  represented  by  MR.  AMEURFINO  E.  CINCO,  Chairman,  
AND   URBAN   POOR   FOR   LEGAL   REFORMS   (UP-­‐LR),   represented   by   MRS.   MYRNA   P.   PORCARE,  
the  party-­‐list  system.  This  is  exactly  what  the  Comelec  did  when  it   Secretary-­‐General,  Petitioners,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   BIYAHENG   PINOY,   KAPATIRAN  
issued  its  Resolution  No.  6320  declaring  September  30,  2003,  as  the   NG  MGA  NAKAKULONG  NA  WALANG  SALA  (KAKUSA),  BARANGAY  ASSOCIATION  FOR  NATIONAL  
ADVANCEMENT   AND   TRANSPARENCY   (BANAT),   AHON   PINOY,   AGRICULTURAL   SECTOR  
deadline   for   filing   petitions   for   registration   under   the   party-­‐list   ALLIANCE   OF   THE   PHILIPPINES,   INC.   (AGAP),   PUWERSA   NG   BAYANING   ATLETA   (PBA),  
system.   ALYANSA   NG   MGA   GRUPONG   HALIGI   NG   AGHAM   AT   TEKNOLOHIYA   PARA   SA   MAMAMAYAN,  
INC.   (AGHAM),   BABAE   PARA   SA   KAUNLARAN   (BABAE   KA),   AKSYON   SAMBAYANAN   (AKSA),  
  ALAY   SA   BAYAN   NG   MALAYANG   PROPESYUNAL   AT   REPORMANG   KALAKAL   (ABAY-­‐PARAK),  
Aklat  failed  to  prove  which  sectors  it  represented   AGBIAG  TIMPUYOG  ILOCANO,  INC.  (AGBIAG!),  ABANTE  ILONGGO,  INC.  (ABA  ILONGGO),  AANGAT  
TAYO  (AT),  AANGAT  ANG  KABUHAYAN  (ANAK),  BAGO  NATIONAL  CULTURAL  SOCIETY  OF  THE  
  The   documents   submitted   by   Aklat   (its   Articles   of   PHILIPPINES   (BAGO),   ANGAT   ANTAS-­‐KABUHAYAN   PILIPINO   MOVEMENT   (AANGAT   KA  
Incorporation,   etc)   merely   contained   general   statements   that   it   PILIPINO),   ARTS   BUSINESS   AND   SCIENCE   PROFESSIONAL   (ABS),   ASSOSASYON   NG   MGA  
MALILIIT   NA   NEGOSYANTENG   GUMAGANAP   INC.   (AMANG),   SULONG   BARANGAY   MOVEMENT,  
supposedly   represents   marginalized   groups   such   as   the   youth,   KASOSYO   PRODUCERS   CONSUMER   EXCHANGE   ASSOCIATION,   INC.   (KASOSYO),   UNITED  
indigenous  communities,  urban  poor  and  farmers/fisherfolk.  These   MOVEMENT   AGAINST   DRUGS   (UNI-­‐MAD),   PARENTS   ENABLING   PARENTS   (PEP),   ALLIANCE   OF  
NEO-­‐CONSERVATIVES   (ANC),   FILIPINOS   FOR   PEACE,   JUSTICE   AND   PROGRESS   MOVEMENT  
general   statements   do   not   measure   up   to   the   first   guideline   set   by   (FPJPM),   BIGKIS   PINOY   MOVEMENT   (BIGKIS),   1-­‐UNITED   TRANSPORT   KOALISYON   (1-­‐UNTAK),  
the  Bagong  Bayani  case  for  screening  party-­‐list  participants.     ALLIANCE   FOR   BARANGAY   CONCERNS   (ABC),   BIYAYANG   BUKID,   INC.,   ALLIANCE   FOR  
NATIONALISM   AND   DEMOCRACY   (ANAD),   AKBAY   PINOY   OFW-­‐NATIONAL   INC.,   (APOI),  
  In   other   words,   it   must   show—through   its   constitution,   ALLIANCE  TRANSPORT  SECTOR  (ATS),  KALAHI  SECTORAL  PARTY  (ADVOCATES  FOR  OVERSEAS  
articles   of   incorporation,   bylaws,   history,   platform   of   government   FILIPINO)   AND   ASSOCIATION   OF   ADMINISTRATORS,   PROFESSIONALS   AND   SENIORS   (AAPS),  
Respondents.  
and   track   record—that   it   represents   and   seeks   to   uplift    
marginalized   and   underrepresented   sectors.   Verily,   majority   of   its   G.R.  No.  177314                          May  4,  2007  
REP.   LORETTA   ANN   P.   ROSALES,   KILOSBAYAN   FOUNDATION,   BANTAY   KATARUNGAN  
membership   should   belong   to   the   marginalized   and   FOUNDATION,  Petitioners,    vs.  THE  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  Respondent.  
underrepresented.   And   it   must   demonstrate   that   in   a   conflict   of    
interests,   it   has   chosen   or   is   likely   to   choose   the   interest   of   such   FACTS:  
sectors."   Also  BA-­‐RA  is  an  NGO  
  In   this   regard,   the   Court   notes   with   approval   the   OSG’s    
contention   that   Aklat   has   no   track   record   to   speak   of   concerning   its   Summary:  The  situation  in  this  case  is  that  the  COMELEC  published  
representation   of   marginalized   and   underrepresented   the   list   of   the   qualified   PL   groups,   but   not   the   names   of   their  
constituencies   considering   that   it   has   been   in   existence   for   only   a   nominees.   Various   groups   demanded   that   COMELEC   publish   the  
month  prior  to  the  filing  of  its  petition  for  re-­‐qualification.   same,   invoking   their   right   to   information.   The   COMELEC   denied,  
  citing   Section   7   of   RA   7941.The   SC   ruled   in   this   case   that   the  
AKLAT’s  alleged  reorganization  a  mere  ‘window-­‐dressing’   citizen’s  right  to  information  is  more  important  than  Section  7  of  RA  
The   Court   also   found   that   Aklat   and   A.K.L.A.T   had   the   same   7941.  
incorporators.   This   substantial   similarity   is   hard   to   ignore   and    
bolsters   the   conclusion   that   the   supposed   re-­‐organization   • In   preparation   for   the   2007   PL   elections,   the   COMELEC   issued  
undertaken   by   Aklat   is   plain   window-­‐dressing   as   it   has   not   really   Resolution   7804   which   prescribed   rules   as   to   the   filing   of  
changed  its  character  as  a  business  interest  of  persons  in  the  book   manifestation  of  intent  to  participate  …  under  the  PL  system.    
publishing  industry.   • Among  the  groups  who  submitted  their  manifestations  were  the  
  14   respondents   in   this   case.   They   were   subsequently   accredited  
  by  the  COMELEC.  
• BA-­‐RA   7941   and   UP-­‐LR   assailed   the   resolutions   accrediting   the  
respondent   parties.   They   further   prayed   that   the   33   PRs   be  
declared   unqualified   for   failure   to   comply   with   the   Bagong  
Bayani  guidelines.  
• Meanwhile,   Congresswoman   Rosales   wrote   a   letter   to   the  
COMELEC   Law   Dept   to   request   a   list   of   the   nominees   of   the   14  
parties.   The   COMELEC   and   its   Law   Dept.   did   not   respond   to  
Rosales’   letter.   However,   the   COMELEC   en   banc   later   issued   a  
resolution   which   virtually   declared   the   nominees’   names  
confidential.  
• Meanwhile,  the  Manila  Bulletin  ran  the  story  that  COMELEC  was  
refusing  to  release  the  list  of  the  groups’  nominees.    
• Then   Chairman   Abalos   was   also   quoted   that   he   and   the   other  
Commissioners   believed   that   the   partylist   elections   must   not   be  
personality-­‐oriented.   Abaloas   further   claims   that   there   is   no  
provision  in  RA  7941  that  mandates  the  COMELEC  to  dislose  the  
names  of  the  nominees;  and  that  under  the  PL  system,  the  people  
vote  for  the  parties,  not  their  nominees.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   107  
 
• Thus,  both  parties  filed  petitions  for  certiorari  with  the  SC.  BA-­‐RA   Mandate  in  Secion  7  vs  the  constitutional  right  to  information  
et   al   prayed   that   the   SC   cancel   the   accreditation   granted   to   the     Section  7,  Article  III  and  Section  28,  Article  II  of  the  1987  
parties.     Both   parties   also   filed   a   petition   for   mandamus   to   Constitution   provide   the   right   to   information   and   the   policy   of  full  
compel   the   COMELEC   to   disclose   or   publish   the   names   of   the   disclosure  and  transparency  in  Government.  Like  all  constitutional  
groups’  nominees.   guarantees,   however,   the   right   to   information   and   its   companion  
  right  of  access  to  official  records  are  not  absolute.  As  articulated  in  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   may   be   compelled   by   mandamus   to   Legaspi,   supra,   the   people’s   right   to   know   is   limited   to   "matters  of  
publish  the  list  of  PL  groups’  nominees.  YES   public  concern"   and   is   further   subject   to   such   limitation   as   may   be  
WON   the   14   PL   groups’   accreditations   should   be   cancelled   by   the   provided  by  law.  Similarly,  the  policy  of  full  disclosure  is  confined  to  
SC.  NO   transactions  involving  "public   interest"  and  is  subject  to  reasonable  
WON  the  COMELEC  must  ascertain  the  qualifications  of  the  party’s   conditions   prescribed   by   law.   Too,   there   is   also   the   need   of  
nominees  at  the  time  of  accreditation.  NO   preserving   a   measure   of   confidentiality   on   some   matters,   such   as  
  military,   trade,   banking   and   diplomatic   secrets   or   those   affecting  
  national  security.  
HELD:     In   Legaspi,   the   information   requested   was   WON   the  
The   ‘certified   list’   mentioned   in   Section   7   refers   to   the   official   sanitarians  employed  were  civil  service  eligibles.  Thus,  the  SC  held  
list   of   candidates   to   be   used   on   election   day.   There   is   no   that  the  names  of  candidates  in  the  PL  system  also  come  within  the  
provision   which   prohibits   the   COMELEC   from   publishing   the   ambit   of   public   interest   and   matters   of   public   concern.   As   may   be  
list  prior  to  the  elections   noted,   no   national   security   or   like   concerns   is   involved   in   the  
  The   last   sentence   of   Section   7   of   R.A.   7941   reading:   "[T]he   disclosure  of  the  names  of  the  nominees  of  the  party-­‐list  groups  in  
names  of  the  party-­‐list  nominees  shall  not  be  shown  on  the  certified   question.   Doubtless,   the   Comelec   committed   grave   abuse   of  
list"   is   certainly   not   a   justifying   card   for   the   Comelec   to   deny   the   discretion  in  refusing  the  legitimate  demands  of  the  petitioners  for  
requested   disclosure.   To   us,   the   prohibition   imposed   on   the   a   list   of   the   nominees   of   the   party-­‐list   groups   subject   of   their  
Comelec  under  said  Section  7  is  limited  in  scope  and  duration,   respective  petitions.  Mandamus,  therefore,  lies.  
meaning,   that   it   extends   only   to   the   certified   list   which   the      
same   provision   requires   to   be   posted   in   the   polling   places   on   COMELEC   cannot   use   Section   7   of   RA   7941   as   an   absolute   bar  
election   day.   To   stretch   the   coverage   of   the   prohibition   to   the   against  the  constitutional  right  to  information  
absolute  is  to  read  into  the  law  something  that  is  not  intended.     The  reason  for  the  COMELEC’s  refusal  to  share  the  names  
   As   it   were,   there   is   absolutely   nothing   in   R.A.   No.   7941   to  the  public  is  apparent  in  Abalos’  comments  that  they  believe  the  
that   prohibits   the   Comelec   from   disclosing   or   even   publishing   PL   elections   must   not   be   personality-­‐driven.   This   is   true,   up   to   a  
through   mediums   other   than   the   "Certified   List"   the   names   of   the   point.   It   has   been   repeatedly   said   in   various   contexts   that   the  
party-­‐list   nominees.   The   Comelec   obviously   misread   the   limited   people   have   the   right   to   elect   their   representatives   on   the   basis   of  
non-­‐disclosure  aspect  of  the  provision  as  an  absolute  bar  to  public   an   informed   judgment.   Hence   the   need   for   voters   to   be   informed  
disclosure   before   the   May   2007   elections.   The   interpretation   thus   about  matters  that  have  a  bearing  on  their  choice.  The  ideal  cannot  
given  by  the  Comelec  virtually  tacks  an  unconstitutional  dimension   be   achieved   in   a   system   of   blind   voting.     The   SC   frowns   upon   any  
on  the  last  sentence  of  Section  7  of  R.A.  No.  7941.   interpretation  of  the  law  or  rules  that  would  hinder  in  any  way  the  
  free  and  intelligent  casting  of  the  votes  in  an  election.  
Section  7  of  RA  7941  and  its  mandates    
  While   the   Comelec   did   not   explicitly   say   so,   it   based   its   Court   cannot   grant   BA-­‐RA’s   request   to   cancel   the   parties’  
refusal   to   disclose   the   names   of   the   nominees   of   subject   party-­‐list   accreditations  as  it  would  entail  a  factual  investigation  
groups  on  Section  7  of  R.A.  7941.  This  provision,  while  commanding     The  Court  is  unable  to  grant  the  desired  plea  of  petitioners  
the   publication   and   the   posting   in   polling   places   of   a   certified   list   of   BA-­‐RA   7941   and   UP-­‐LR   for   cancellation   of   accreditation   on   the  
party-­‐list   system   participating   groups,   nonetheless   tells   the   grounds  thus  advanced  in  their  petition.  For,  such  course  of  action  
Comelec   not   to   show   or   include   the   names   of   the   party-­‐list   would  entail  going  over  and  evaluating  the  qualities  of  the  sectoral  
nominees  in  said  certified  list.  Thus:   groups   or   parties   in   question,   particularly   whether   or   not   they  
SEC.  7.  Certified  List  of  Registered  Parties.-­‐  The  COMELEC   indeed   represent   marginalized/underrepresented   groups.   The  
shall,   not   later   than   sixty   (60)   days   before   election,   exercise  would  require  the  Court  to  make  a  factual  determination,  a  
prepare   a   certified   list   of   national,   regional,   or   sectoral   matter   which   is   outside   the   office   of   judicial   review   by   way   of  
parties,  organizations  or  coalitions  which  have  applied  or   special   civil   action   for   certiorari.   In   certiorari   proceedings,   the  
who  have  manifested  their  desire  to  participate  under  the   Court  is  not  called  upon  to  decide  factual  issues  and  the  case  must  
party-­‐list   system   and   distribute   copies   thereof   to   all   be  decided  on  the  undisputed  facts  on  record.  
precincts  for  posting  in  the  polling  places  on  election  day.    
The   names   of   the   party-­‐list   nominees   shall   not   be   No   provision   in   RA   7941   mandating   determination   of  
shown  on  the  certified  list.  (Emphasis  added.)     qualifications   of   nominees   at   the   time   of   accreditation   of   the  
  party  
 
 

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   108  
 
  Nowhere  in  R.A.  No.  7941  is  there  a  requirement  that  the   • In  en  banc  Resolution  07-­‐88,  the  COMELEC  deemed  that  BANAT’s  
qualification  of  a  party-­‐list  nominee  be  determined  simultaneously   petition   was   now   moot   and   academic   as   it   had   decided   to   use   the  
with  the  accreditation  of  an  organization.     formula  in  Veterans  to  calculate  the  additional  seats.    
  And   as   aptly   pointed   out   by   private   respondent   Babae   • BANAT  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari.  
Para   sa   Kaunlaran   (Babae   Ka),   Section   4   of   R.A.   No.   7941   requires   a    
petition  for  registration  of  a  party-­‐list  organization  to  be  filed  with   BAYAN  et  al’s  actions  
the   Comelec   "not   later   than   ninety   (90)   days   before   the   election"   • Meanwhile,   BAYAN   et   al   asked   the   COMELEC   to   reconsider   the  
whereas   the   succeeding   Section   8   requires   the   submission   "not   usage   of   the   Veterans   formulas   as   it   was   violative   of   the  
later   than   forty-­‐five   (45)   days   before   the   election"   of   the   list   of   Constitution  because:  
names  whence  party-­‐list  representatives  shall  be  chosen.     1. the   2-­‐4-­‐6   Formula   used   by   the   First   Party   Rule   in  
  allocating  additional  seats  for  the  "First  Party"  violates  the  
! The  SC  denied  the  petitions  as  to  their  prayer  to  nullify  the   principle  of  proportional  representation  under  RA  7941.  
accreditation   of   the   parties,   but   ordered   the   COMELEC   to   2. The   use   of   two   formulas   in   the   allocation   of   additional  
disclose   and   publish   the   requested   names   and   report   seats,   one   for   the   "First   Party"   and   another   for   the  
compliance  within  5  days   qualifying  parties,  violates  Section  11(b)  of  RA  7941.  
  3. The  proportional  relationships  under  the  First  Party  Rule  
  (the   submission   of   nominees   may   come   later   than   are  different  from  those  required  under  RA  7941;
accreditation)    
  ISSUE:   WON  the  20%  allocation  of  PL  reps  mandatory.   NO,   it   is   a  
  ceiling.  
CASE:  BANAT  v  COMELEC  (2009)   WON  the  3-­‐seat  limit  is  unconstitutional.  NO  
G.R.  No.  179271                              April  21,  2009   WON   the   2%   threshold   and   ‘qualifier’   votes   presribed   by   RA   7941  
BARANGAY  ASSOCIATION  FOR  NATIONAL  ADVANCEMENT  AND   unconstitutional.  YES  
TRANSPARENCY   (BANAT),   Petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON    
ELECTIONS   (sitting   as   the   National   Board   of   Canvassers),   HELD:  
Respondent.   20%  is  still  a  ceiling  
    Neither   the   Constitution   nor   R.A.   No.   7941   mandates   the  
G.R.  No.  179295                              April  21,  2009   filling-­‐up   of   the   entire   20%   allocation   of   party-­‐list   representatives  
BAYAN   MUNA,   ADVOCACY   FOR   TEACHER   EMPOWERMENT   found  in  the  Constitution.  The  Constitution,  in  paragraph  1,  Section  
THROUGH   ACTION,   COOPERATION   AND   HARMONY   TOWARDS   5  of  Article  VI,  left  the  determination  of  the  number  of  the  members  
EDUCATIONAL   REFORMS,   INC.,   and   ABONO,   Petitioners,     vs.   of   the   House   of   Representatives   to   Congress:   "The   House   of  
COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  Respondent.   Representatives   shall   be   composed   of   not   more   than   two   hundred  
  and  fifty  members,  unless  otherwise  fixed  by  law,  x  x  x."  
FACTS:     The  20%  allocation  of  party-­‐list  representatives  is  merely  
BANAT’s  actions   a  ceiling;  party-­‐list  representatives  cannot  be  more  than  20%  of  the  
• In   2007,   15.95   million   votes   were   cast   for   the   PL   elections.   93   PL   members  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  
groups  participated.    
• In  July,  the  COMELEC,  acting  as  the  National  Board  of  Canvassers,   The  2%  threshold  as  applied  to  the  computation  of  additional  
promulgated   NBC   Resolution   07-­‐60   which   made   a   partial   seats   is   unconstitutional   as   it   systematically   prevent   the  
proclamation  of  the  13  parties  which  obtained  at  least  2%  of  the   constitutionally  allocated  20%  party-­‐list  representatives  from  
votes  cast.     being  filled  
In   computing   the   allocation   of   additional   seats,   the   continued  
• The   Resolution   applied   the   formula   cited   in   Veterans   to  
operation   of   the   two   percent   threshold   for   the   distribution   of   the  
determine   the   total   number   of   seats   to   be   awarded   for   each  
additional   seats   as   found   in   the   second   clause   of   Section   11(b)   of  
qualified   party   (the   additional   seats   are   to   be   computed   in  
R.A.  No.  7941  is  unconstitutional.    
relation   to   the   votes   received   by   the   first   party,   aka   THE   FIRST  
  The   SC   found   that   the   two   percent   threshold   makes   it  
PARTY  RULE)  .      
mathematically   impossible   to   achieve   the   maximum   number   of  
• BANAT   then   filed   a   petition   to   proclaim   the   full   number   of   PL  
available   party   list   seats   when   the   number   of   available   party   list  
representatives  provided  by  the  Constitution  with  the  COMELEC.    
seats   exceeds   50.   The   continued   operation   of   the   two   percent  
• BANAT’s   petition   also   included   two   proposals   as   to   how   the  
threshold   in   the   distribution   of   the   additional   seats   frustrates   the  
additional  seats  would  be  computed:  
attainment   of   the   permissive   ceiling   that   20%   of   the   members   of  
1. To   calculate   the   number   of   seats   in   proportion   to   the  
the   House   of   Representatives   shall   consist   of   party-­‐list  
percentage   of   votes   obtained   by   each   party   in   relation   to  
representatives.  
the  total  number  of  votes  cast  
  Ex.    
2. Or   to   declare   Section   11   of   RA   7941   as   unconstitutional  
There   are   55   available   party-­‐list   seats.   Suppose   there   are  
and  implement  Section  12  instead  
50  million  votes  cast  for  the  100  participants  in  the  party  
list   elections.   A   party   that   has   two   percent   of   the   votes  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   109  
 
cast,   or   one   million   votes,   gets   a   guaranteed   seat.   Let   us   CASE:  ANG  LADLAD  PARTY-­‐LIST  v  COMELEC    
further  assume  that  the  first  50  parties  all  get  one  million   G.R.  No.  190582                              April  8,  2010  
votes.  Only  50  parties  get  a  seat  despite  the  availability  of   ANG   LADLAD   LGBT   PARTY   represented   herein   by   its   Chair,  
55   seats.   Because   of   the   operation   of   the   two   percent   DANTON   REMOTO,   Petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS  
threshold,   this   situation   will   repeat   itself   even   if   we   Respondent.  
increase   the   available   party-­‐list   seats   to   60   seats   and   even    
if   we   increase   the   votes   cast   to   100   million.   Thus,   even   if   FACTS:  
the   maximum   number   of   parties   get   two   percent   of   the   • Ang   Ladlad   is   an   organization   composed   of   men   and   women   who  
votes   for   every   party,   it   is   always   impossible   for   the   identify   themselves   as   lesbians,   gays,   bisexuals,   or   trans-­‐
number  of  occupied  party-­‐list  seats  to  exceed  50  seats  as   gendered  individuals  (LGBTs).  It  was  incorporated  in  2003.  
long  as  the  two  percent  threshold  is  present.   • In   2006,   Ladlad   applied   with   the   COMELEC   to   register   as   a   party-­‐
  list   group.   The   application   for   accreditation   was   denied   on   the  
The  new  guidelines  for  allocating  the  additional  seats   ground   that   the   organization   had   no   substantial   membership  
1. The   parties,   organizations,   and   coalitions   shall   be   ranked   base.  
from   the   highest   to   the   lowest   based   on   the   number   of   • In  2009,  Ladlad  tried  again.  It  argued  that:  
votes  they  garnered  during  the  elections.   1. the   LGBT   community   is   a   marginalized   and   under-­‐
2. The  parties,  organizations,  and  coalitions  receiving  at  least   represented   sector   that   is   particularly   disadvantaged  
two   percent   (2%)   of   the   total   votes   cast   for   the   party-­‐list   because  of  their  sexual  orientation  and  gender  identity  
system  shall  be  entitled  to  one  guaranteed  seat  each.   2. that   LGBTs   are   victims   of   exclusion,   discrimination,   and  
3. Those   garnering   sufficient   number   of   votes,   according   to   violence  
the   ranking   in   paragraph   1,   shall   be   entitled   to   additional   3. that   it   complied   with   the   8-­‐point   guideline   established   in  
seats   in   proportion   to   their   total   number   of   votes   until   all   Bagong  Bayani  
the  additional  seats  are  allocated.   4. that   it   had   a   substantial   national   membership   base  
4.  Each   party,   organization,   or   coalition   shall   be   entitled   to   consisting  of  individuals  and  partner  organizations  
not  more  than  three  (3)  seats.   5. that  it  had  outlined  its  platform  for  governance  
  (please  refer  to  the  outlined  process  at  the  start  of  this  set)  
• The   COMELEC   2nd   Div.   dismissed   their   petition   on   moral  
  grounds.  The  COMELEC  claimed  that  Ladlad  tolerates  immorality  
3-­‐seat  limit  constitutional  as  it  prevents  party  dominance   which   offends   religious   beliefs   as   they   advocated   deviant   sexual  
  Congress,   in   enacting   R.A.   No.   7941,   put   the   three-­‐seat   cap   orientations.  
to   prevent   any   party   from   dominating   the   party-­‐list   elections.   The  
• The  COMELEC  further  dismissed  the  petition  on  the  ground  that  
three-­‐seat  cap,  as  a  limitation  to  the  number  of  seats  that  a  qualified  
it   advocated   sexual   immorality   and   that   Ladlad   was   a  
party-­‐list  organization  may  occupy,  remains  a  valid  statutory  device  
nuisance,   and  thus  violated  the  provisions  of  the  Civil  Code  and  
that  prevents  any  party  from  dominating  the  party-­‐list  elections.  
the  Revised  Penal  Code.  
 
Article  695  Civil  Code  defines  nuisance  
Political   parties   are   not   allowed   to   participate   in   the   PL  
Article   1306   states   that   contracts   contrary   to   morals   and  
elections  
good  customs  are  void  ab  initio.  
  The   Court   said   in   this   case   that   while   neither   the  
Article   201   of   the   RPC   punishes   immoral   doctrines,  
Constitution   nor   R.A.   No.   7941   prohibits   major   political   parties  
obscene  publications  and  indecent  shows.  
from   participating   in   the   party-­‐list   system,   the   Court   nevertheless  
• The   COMELEC   further   dismissed   the   petition   by   claiming   that  
voted   to   prohibit   them   from   participating.     Justice   Puno   in   his  
granting  the  petition  would  expose  the  PHL  youth  to  the  threat  of  
dissent  explained:  
homosexuality.    
• limiting   the   party-­‐list   system   to   the   marginalized   and  
• On   Ladlad’s   MFR,   the   en   banc   voted   to   uphold   the   denial   of  
excluding  the  major  political  parties  from  participating  in  
Ladlad’s   accreditation.     The   COMELEC   said   further   that   Ladlad  
the   election   of   their   representatives   is   aligned   with   the  
would   not   be   able   to   contribute   legislation   that   would   be  
many   constitutional   mandates   relating   to   the   rights   of  
beneficial   to   the   nation   as   a   whole;   ay,   and   that   the   party-­‐list  
women,  labor,  teachers,  indigenous  communities,  etc  
system   is   ‘not   a   tool   to   advocate   acceptance   of   misunderstood  
• party-­‐list   parties   are   no   match   to   our   traditional   political  
persons.’    
parties  in  the  political  arena,  as  evidenced  by  the  results  of  
• In   2010,   Ladlad   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   assailing   the   two  
the   2001   party-­‐list   elections   where   7   major   political  
Resolutions   of   the   COMELEC   and   prayed   that   their   petition   for  
parties  made  it  into  the  Top  50  
accreditation  be  granted.  The  OSG  surprisingly  sided  with  Ladlad.  
• to  allow  major  political  parties  to  participate  in  the  party-­‐
• Ladlad  claimed  that  COMELEC’s  denial  of  its  petition  on  religious  
list   system   electoral   process,   we   will   surely   suffocate   the  
grounds   was   violative   of   the   constitutional   guarantees   against  
voice   of   the   marginalized,   frustrate   their   sovereignty   and  
the   establishment   of   religion.   Ladlad   also   cried   discrimination  
betray  the  democratic  spirit  of  the  Constitution  
and  violations  of  its  right  to  privacy,  freedom  of  speech  and  equal  
 
protection  of  the  laws.  
Note:  this  ruling  has  been  overturned  in  Atong  Paglaum  
 

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   110  
 
• The   OSG   in   support   of   Ladlad   said   that   LGBTs   have   their   own   Debunking   COMELEC’s   claims:   Civil   Code   and   RPC   cannot   be  
special   interests   and   concerns   that   warranted   special   grounds  if  there  is  no  judicial  determination  of  guilt  
classification,   and   that   there   was   no   basis   for   COMELEC’s     The   SC   said   that   under   the   provisions   of   nuisance,   the  
dismissal  of  the  petition  on  moral  grounds.   remedies  available  are  criminal  prosecutions  under  the  RPC  or  lcoal  
• In   its   defense,   the   COMELEC   also   stated   that   Ladlad   made   ordinance,   a   civil   action   or   extra-­‐judicial   abatement.   A   violation   of  
untruthful  statements  in  its  petition  that  warranted  the  dismissal.   Article  201  of  the  Revised  Penal  Code,  on  the  other  hand,  requires  
Acording   to   the   COMELEC’s   field   offices,   LADLAD   ‘did   not   exist   in   proof  beyond  reasonable  doubt  to  support  a  criminal  conviction.  It  
almost   all   provinces’   in   the   PHL.   This   was   the   first   time   this   hardly  needs  to  be  emphasized  that  mere   allegation   of   violation  
ground  was  raised.     of   laws   is   not   proof,   and   a   mere   blanket   invocation   of   public  
  morals   cannot   replace   the   institution   of   civil   or   criminal  
ISSUE:   WON   Ang   Ladlad   should   be   allowed   to   register   and   be   proceedings  and  a  judicial  determination  of  liability  or  culpability.  
accredited.  YES    
  Debunking   COMELEC’s   claims:   Ladlad     should   be   afforded  
HELD:   equal  protection;  SolGen  wrong  when  it  claimed  that  LGBTs  are  
Debunking  COMELEC’s  claims:  as  to  ‘untruthful  statements’   a  special  class  of  their  own  
The   Court   noted   that   this   ground   was   raised   as   a   mere   afterthought     The  equal  protection  clause  guarantees  that  no  person  or  
and  was  a  change  in  the  COMELEC’s  theory,  thus  violated  Ladlad’s   class   of   persons   shall   be   deprived   of   the   same   protection   of   laws  
right   to   due   process.   Furthermore   the   SC   found   that   there   was   no   which   is   enjoyed   by   other   persons   or   other   classes   in   the   same  
misrepresentation  on  the  part  of  Ladlad,  as  it  never  claimed  to  exist   place  and  in  like  circumstances.  
in   each   province   of   the   PHL.   Rather,   Ladlad   claimed   the   LGBT     The   COMELEC   posits   that   the   majority   of   the   Philippine  
community   in   the   Philippines   was   estimated   to   constitute   at   least   population   considers   homosexual   conduct   as   immoral   and  
670,000  persons;  that  it  had  16,100  affiliates  and  members  around   unacceptable,  and  this  constitutes  sufficient  reason  to  disqualify  the  
the  country,  and  4,044  members  in  its  electronic  discussion  group.   petitioner.   Unfortunately   for   the   respondent,   the   Philippine  
Ladlad   also   furnished   a   list   of   its   30+   partner   organizations   electorate  has  expressed  no  such  belief.  No  law  exists  to  criminalize  
operating  in  Metro  Manila  to  Zamboanga  City.   homosexual   behavior   or   expressions   or   parties   about   homosexual  
  behavior.  
COMELEC  violated  constitutional  prohibition  on  establishment     From   the   standpoint   of   the   political   process,   LGBTs   have  
of   religion   when   it   used   the   Bible   and   the   Koran   to   justify   the   same   interest   in   participating   in   the   party-­‐list   system   on   the  
LADLAD’s  dismissal   same  basis  as  other  political  parties  similarly  situated.  Hence,  laws  
  The   1987   Constitution   provides   in   Article   III,   Section   5   of  general  application  should  apply  with  equal  force  to  LGBTs,  and  
that  "no  law  shall  be  made  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,   they   deserve   to   participate   in   the   party-­‐list   system   on   the   same  
or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof."  At  bottom,  what  our  non-­‐ basis  as  other  marginalized  and  under-­‐represented  sectors.    
establishment   clause   calls   for   is   "government   neutrality   in   religious     The   SC   said   that   there   was   no   evidence   to   the   SolGen’s  
matters.   Otherwise   stated,   the   government   must   act   for   secular   declaration   that   LGBTs   are   deserving   of   special   or   differentiated  
purposes  and  in  ways  that  have  primarily  secular  effects.     treatment.  Even  LADLAD  merely  prays  that  it  be  recognized  under  
  Recognizing   the   religious   nature   of   the   Filipinos   and   the   the  same  basis  as  all  other  groups  similarly  situated.  
elevating   influence   of   religion   in   society,   however,   the   Philippine    
constitution's   religion   clauses   prescribe   not   a   strict   but   a   Debunking   COMELEC’s   claims:   COMELEC   violated   Ladlad’s  
benevolent   neutrality.   Benevolent   neutrality   recognizes   that   rights   to   freedom   of   expression   and   association;   public  
government   must   pursue   its   secular   goals   and   interests   but   at   the   perception  cannot  be  substituted  for  law  
same   time   strive   to   uphold   religious   liberty   to   the   greatest   extent     Freedom   of   expression   constitutes   one   of   the   essential  
possible   within   flexible   constitutional   limits.   Thus,   although   the   foundations   of   a   democratic   society,   and   this   freedom   applies   not  
morality   contemplated   by   laws   is   secular,   benevolent   neutrality   only   to   those   that   are   favorably   received   but   also   to   those   that  
could   allow   for   accommodation   of   morality   based   on   religion,   offend,   shock,   or   disturb.   Any   restriction   imposed   in   this   sphere  
provided  it  does  not  offend  compelling  state  interests.   must   be   proportionate   to   the   legitimate   aim   pursued.   Absent   any  
  compelling   state   interest,   it   is   not   for   the   COMELEC   or   this  
Debunking  COMELEC’s  claims:  on  the  issue  of  public  morality   Court  to  impose  its  views  on  the  populace.  Otherwise  stated,  the  
  The   COMELEC   has   failed   to   explain   what   societal   ills   are   COMELEC  is  certainly  not  free  to  interfere  with  speech  for  no  better  
sought   to   be   prevented,   or   why   special   protection   is   required   for   reason   than   promoting   an   approved   message   or   discouraging   a  
the   youth.   Neither   has   the   COMELEC   condescended   to   justify   its   disfavored  one.  
position   that   petitioner’s   admission   into   the   party-­‐list   system     This   position   gains   even   more   force   if   one   considers   that  
would   be   so   harmful   as   to   irreparably   damage   the   moral   fabric   of   homosexual   conduct   is   not   illegal   in   this   country.   It   follows   that  
society.   Clearly   then,   the   bare   invocation   of   morality   will   not   both   expressions   concerning   one’s   homosexuality   and   the   activity  
remove  an  issue  from  our  scrutiny.   of  forming  a  political  association  that  supports  LGBT  individuals  are  
  protected  as  well.  
    The   SC   also   cited   that   the   Human   Rights   Court   in   Europe  
stated  that  a  political  party  may  campaign  for  a  change  in  the  law  or  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   111  
 
the   constitutional   structures   of   a   state   if   it   uses   legal   and   ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   in   applying   the  
democratic  means  and  the  changes  it  proposes  are  consistent  with   Bagong  Bayani  guidelines.  NO  
democratic   principles.   Only   if   a   political   party   incites   violence   or   WON   the   parties   should   have   been   DQed   based   on   the   grounds  
puts  forward  policies  that  are  incompatible  with  democracy  does  it   provided.   NO.   Thus   the   SC   laid   down   new   guidelines   for  
fall  outside  the  protection  of  the  freedom  of  association  guarantee.   screening  PL  groups,  effectively  modifying  the  8pt  guideline  in  
  Bagong  Bayani.  
! the   SC   said   that   there   was   prior   restraint   on   the   part   of    
COMELEC   when   it   denied   Ladlad’s   petition,   effectively   HELD:  
precluding  Ladlad  from  campaigning  its  views   The  party-­‐list  system  was  not  meant  for  underrepresented  and  
  marginalized   sectors   only;   PL   system   is   also   open   to   non-­‐
Debunking  COMELEC’s  claims:  using  IHL   sectoral  parties  
  For   individuals   and   groups   struggling   with   inadequate     The   SC   looked   at   the   deliberations   of   the   drafters   of   the  
structural   and   governmental   support,   international   human   rights   1987  Constitution  and  found  that  the  framers  expressly  rejected  the  
norms   are   particularly   significant,   and   should   be   effectively   proposal   to   make   the   party-­‐list   system   exclusively   for   sectoral  
enforced  in  domestic  legal  systems  so  that  such  norms  may  become   parties  only,  and  that  they  clearly  intended  the  party-­‐list  system  to  
actual,  rather  than  ideal,  standards  of  conduct.  Under  the  Universal   include  both  sectoral  and  non-­‐sectoral  parties.    
Declaration   of   Human   Rights   (UDHR)   and   the   ICCPR,   there   is   a     The   common   denominator   between   sectoral   and   non-­‐
principle  of  non-­‐discrimination  as  it  relates  to  the  right  to  electoral   sectoral   parties   is   that   they   cannot   expect   to   win   in   legislative  
participation.     district   elections   but   they   can   garner,   in   nationwide   elections,   at  
  least  the  same  number  of  votes  that  winning  candidates  can  garner  
! The  SC  set  aside  the  COMELEC  resolutions  and  directed  it   in   legislative   district   elections.   The   party-­‐list   system   will   be   the  
to  grant  LADLAD’s  application  for  accreditation.     entry  point  to  membership  in  the  House  of  Representatives  for  both  
  these   non-­‐traditional   parties   that   could   not   compete   in   legislative  
  district  elections.  
CASE:  ATONG  PAGLAUM  v  COMELEC  (2013)     Section  5(1),  Article  VI  of  the  Constitution  is  crystal-­‐clear  
that   there   shall   be   "a   party-­‐list   system   of   registered   national,  
G.R.  No.  203766                              April  2,  2013  
regional,   and   sectoral   parties   or   organizations."   The   commas  
ATONG   PAGLAUM,   INC.,   represented   by   its   President,   Mr.   Alan  
after   the   words   "national,"   and   "regional,"   separate   national   and  
Igot,  Petitioner,  vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  Respondent.  
regional  parties  from  sectoral  parties.  Had  the  framers  of  the  1987  
 
Constitution   intended   national   and   regional   parties   to   be   at   the  
FACTS:  
same   time   sectoral,   they   would   have   stated   "national   and   regional  
• Prior   to   the   2013   PL   elections,   the   COMELEC   issued   Resolution  
sectoral   parties."   They   did   not   intend   to   make   the   party-­‐list  
9513   which   mandated   an   automatic   review   by   the   COMELEC   en  
system  exclusively  sectoral.  
banc  of:  
 
a. Pending  petitions  for  registration  of  PL  groups  
The  three  groups  composing  the  PL  system  
b. The   accrediated   parties   and   groups   which   have  
The  Court  said  that  the  PL  system  was  composed  of  3  groups:  
manifested  their  intent  to  participate  in  the  2013  elections  
1. national  parties  or  organization  
• Thus,   pursuant   to   Resolution   9513,   the   COMELEC   required   the  
2. regional  parties  or  organizations  
aforementioned   parties   to   present   evidence   to   establish   their  
3. sectoral  parties  or  organizations  
continuing  compliance  with  the  requirements  set  forth  under  R.A.  
 
No.   7941   and   the   guidelines   in   Ang   Bagong   Bayani-­‐OFW   Labor  
National   and   regional   parties   or   organizations   need   not   be  
Party  v.  COMELEC.  
organized   along   sectoral   lines   and   need   not   represent   any  
• In  the  end,  the  COMELEC  disqualified/denied  the  registration  and   particular  sector.  
accreditation  of  52  party-­‐list  groups.  The  COMELEC  relied  on  the    
8pt  guideline  stated  in  the  case  of  Bagong  Bayani.     RA   7941   provides   different   definitions   for   ‘party,’   ‘political   party,’  
• The  parties  were  disqualified  mainly  on  these  grounds:   and   ‘sectoral   party.’   Thus,   R.A.   No.   7941   does   not   require  
-­‐ The   sector   did   not   belong   to   the   marginalized   and   national   and   regional   parties   or   organizations   to   represent   the  
underrepresented  (many  of  the  parties  Dqed  belonged  to  PL   "marginalized   and   underrepresented"   sectors.   To   require   all  
groups  constituted  by  professionals)   national   and   regional   parties   under   the   party-­‐list   system   to  
-­‐ The   nominees   did   not   belong   to   the   sector   they   sought   to   represent   the   "marginalized   and   underrepresented"   is   to   deprive  
represent,  even  though  they  had  track  record  of  advocacy  for   and   exclude,   by   judicial   fiat,   ideology-­‐based   and   cause-­‐oriented  
their  sector   parties  from  the  party-­‐list  system.  It  is  sufficient  that  the  political  
-­‐ Nominees  of  non-­‐sectoral  parties  were  disqualified  because   party   consists   of   citizens   who   advocate   the   same   ideology   or  
they  did  not  belong  to  ay  sector   platform,   or   the   same   governance   principles   and   policies,  
-­‐ Parties   whose   nominees   failed   to   qualify   were   disqualified   regardless  of  their  economic  status  as  citizens.  
even  though  they  had  at  least  one  qualifying  nominee    
 

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   112  
 
‘Marginalized   and   underrepresented’   applies   only   to   specific   officers   and   members,   a   majority   of   whom   must   belong   to   the  
sectors  enumerated  in  Section  5   sector   represented.   The   sectoral   wing   is   in   itself   an   independent  
  Section   5   of   R.A.   No.   7941   states   that   "the   sectors   shall   sectoral   party,   and   is   linked   to   a   major   political   party   through   a  
include   labor,   peasant,   fisherfolk,   urban   poor,   indigenous   cultural   coalition.   This   linkage   is   allowed   by   Section   3   of   R.A.   No.   7941,  
communities,   elderly,   handicapped,   women,   youth,   veterans,   which   provides   that   "component   parties   or   organizations   of   a  
overseas  workers,  and  professionals."   coalition   may   participate   independently   (in   party-­‐list   elections)  
  The  sectors  mentioned  in  Section  5  are  not  all  necessarily   provided  the  coalition  of  which  they  form  part  does  not  participate  
"marginalized  and  underrepresented."  For  sure,  "professionals"  are   in  the  party-­‐list  system."  
not   by   definition   "marginalized   and   underrepresented,"   not   even    
the   elderly,   women,   and   the   youth.   However,   professionals,   the   ! Thus,  the  SC  concluded  that  the  Bagong  Bayani  guidelines  
elderly,   women,   and   the   youth   may   "lack   well-­‐defined   political   should   be   revisited   as   the   newer   guidelines   would   be  
constituencies,"   and   can   thus   organize   themselves   into   sectoral   more  in  harmony  with  the  intent  of  the  1987  Constitution  
parties   in   advocacy   of   the   special   interests   and   concerns   of   their   and  RA  7941.    
respective  sectors.    
  The   phrase   "marginalized   and   underrepresented"   The  new  guidelines  for  screening  PL  groups  
should   refer   only   to   the   sectors   in   Section   5   that   are,   by   their   1. Three  different  groups  may  participate  in  the  party-­‐list  system:  
nature,   economically   "marginalized   and   underrepresented."   (1)   national   parties   or   organizations,   (2)   regional   parties   or  
These  sectors  are:  labor,  peasant,  fisherfolk,  urban  poor,  indigenous   organizations,  and  (3)  sectoral  parties  or  organizations.  
cultural   communities,   handicapped,   veterans,   overseas   workers,    
and   other   similar   sectors.   For   these   sectors,   a   majority   of   the   2. National   parties   or   organizations   and   regional   parties   or  
members   of   the   sectoral   party   must   belong   to   the   organizations  do  not  need  to  organize  along  sectoral  lines  and  
"marginalized   and   underrepresented."   The   nominees   of   the   do   not   need   to   represent   any   "marginalized   and  
sectoral  party  either  must  belong  to  the  sector,  or  must  have  a   underrepresented"  sector.  
track  record  of  advocacy  for  the  sector  represented.  Belonging    
to   the   "marginalized   and   underrepresented"   sector   does   not   mean   3. Political  parties  can  participate  in  party-­‐list  elections  provided  
one   must   "wallow   in   poverty,   destitution   or   infirmity."   It   is   they   register   under   the   party-­‐list   system   and   do   not   field  
sufficient   that   one,   or   his   or   her   sector,   is   below   the   middle   class.   candidates   in   legislative   district   elections.   A   political   party,  
More   specifically,   the   economically   "marginalized   and   whether   major   or   not,   that   fields   candidates   in   legislative  
underrepresented"   are   those   who   fall   in   the   low   income   group   as   district   elections   can   participate   in   party-­‐list   elections   only  
classified  by  the  National  Statistical  Coordination  Board.   through  its  sectoral  wing  that  can  separately  register  under  the  
  party-­‐list  system.  The  sectoral  wing  is  by  itself  an  independent  
Ruling   in   Banat   re:   political   parties   abandoned;   Political   sectoral   party,   and   is   linked   to   a   political   party   through   a  
parties  may  run  under  the  PL  system  subject  to  limitations   coalition.  
  Section  11  of  R.A.  No.  7941  expressly  prohibited  the  "first    
five  (5)  major  political  parties  on  the  basis  of  party  representation   4. Sectoral   parties   or   organizations   may   either   be   "marginalized  
in  the  House  of  Representatives  at  the  start  of  the  Tenth  Congress"   and   underrepresented"   or   lacking   in   "well-­‐defined   political  
from  participating  in  the  May  1988  party-­‐list  elections.  Thus,  major   constituencies."   It   is   enough   that   their   principal   advocacy  
political   parties   can   participate   in   subsequent   party-­‐list   elections   pertains   to   the   special   interest   and   concerns   of   their   sector.  
since   the   prohibition   is   expressly   limited   only   to   the   1988   party-­‐list   The   sectors   that   are   "marginalized   and   underrepresented"  
elections.     include   labor,   peasant,   fisherfolk,   urban   poor,   indigenous  
  However,   major   political   parties   should   participate   in   cultural   communities,   handicapped,   veterans,   and   overseas  
party-­‐list   elections   only   through   their   sectoral   wings.   The   workers.   The   sectors   that   lack   "well-­‐defined   political  
participation   of   major   political   parties   through   their   sectoral   wings,   constituencies"  include  professionals,  the  elderly,  women,  and  
a   majority   of   whose   members   are   "marginalized   and   the  youth.  
underrepresented"   or   lacking   in   "well-­‐defined   political    
constituencies,"   will   facilitate   the   entry   of   the   "marginalized   and   5. A  majority  of  the  members  of  sectoral  parties  or  organizations  
underrepresented"   and   those   who   "lack   well-­‐defined   political   that  represent  the  "marginalized  and  underrepresented"  must  
constituencies"  as  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives.   belong  to  the  "marginalized  and  underrepresented"  sector  they  
  represent.   Similarly,   a   majority   of   the   members   of   sectoral  
Political  parties  and  their  sectoral  wings:  requirements   parties   or   organizations   that   lack   "well-­‐defined   political  
  To   participate   party-­‐list   elections,   a   major   political   party   constituencies"   must   belong   to   the   sector   they   represent.   The  
that   fields   candidates   in   the   legislative   district   elections   must   nominees   of   sectoral   parties   or   organizations   that   represent  
organize   a   sectoral   wing,   like   a   labor,   peasant,   fisherfolk,   urban   the   "marginalized   and   underrepresented,"   or   that   represent  
poor,   professional,   women   or   youth   wing,   that   can   register   under   those   who   lack   "well-­‐defined   political   constituencies,"   either  
the  party-­‐list  system.   must   belong   to   their   respective   sectors,   or   must   have   a   track  
  Such  sectoral  wing  of  a  major  political  party  must  have  its   record   of   advocacy   for   their   respective   sectors.   The   nominees  
own   constitution,   by-­‐laws,   platform   or   program   of   government,  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   113  
 
of  national  and  regional  parties  or  organizations  must  be  bona-­‐ Constitution  itself  –  on  a  level  higher  than  statutory  administrative  
fide  members  of  such  parties  or  organizations.   organs.   The   COMELEC   has   broad   powers   to   ascertain   the   true  
  results  of  the  election  by  means  available  to  it.  For  the  attainment  of  
6. National,   regional,   and   sectoral   parties   or   organizations   shall   that  end,  it  is  not  strictly  bound  by  the  rules  of  evidence.  
not   be   disqualified   if   some   of   their   nominees   are   disqualified,      
provided   that   they   have   at   least   one   nominee   who   remains   ANAD’s   right   to   due   process   was   not   violated   as   it   was   given  
qualified.   the   benefit   of   hearing;   ANAD   not   entitled   to   a   second   hearing  
  post-­‐Atong  
! The   present   petitions   were   remanded   back   to   the     It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  ANAD  was  already  afforded  
COMELEC   to   determine   their   eligibility   under   the   new   a  summary  hearing  on23  August  2012,  during  which  Mr.  Domingo  
guidelines   M.   Balang,   ANAD’s   president,   authenticated   documents   and  
  answered   questions   from   the   members   of   the   COMELEC   pertinent  
  to  ANAD’s  qualifications.  
CASE:  ANAD  v  COMELEC  (2013)     ANAD   claims   that   the   COMELEC   should   have   called   for  
another   summary   hearing   after   the  Atong  case.   In   order   to   evaluate  
G.R.  No.  206987                              September  10,  2013  
ANAD’s  qualifications  under  the  new  guidelines,  the  COMELEC  need  
ALLIANCE   FOR   NATIONALISM   AND   DEMOCRACY   (ANAD),  
not  have  called  another  summary  hearing.  The   Comelec   could,   as  
Petitioner,    vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  Respondent.  
in   fact   it   did,   readily   resort   to   documents   and   other   pieces   of  
 
evidence  previously  submitted  by  petitioners  in  re-­‐appraising  
FACTS:  
ANAD’s   qualifications.   After   all,   it   can   be   presumed   that   the  
• ANAD  is  one  of  the  parties  who  petitioned  against  the  COMELEC  
qualifications,   or   lack   thereof,   which   were   established   during   the  
in  the  Atong  Paglaum  case.    
summary   hearing   of   23   August   2012   continued   until   election   day  
• Their   registration   and   accreditation   were   cancelled   by   the  
and  even  there  after.  
COMELEC  on  the  following  grounds:  
 
1. Failed  to  represent  an  identifiable  M  and  U  sector  
ANAD’s   submission   of   only   3   nominees   did   not   comply   with   RA  
2. Only   three   nominees   were   submitted   (instead   of   5   as  
7941  
mandated  by  RA  7941)  
  As   found   by   the   COMELEC,   ANAD,   for   unknown   reasons,  
3. Failed   to   submit   its   Statement   of   Contributions   and  
submitted  only  three  nominees  instead  of  five,  in  violation  of  Sec.  8  
Expenditures   for   the   2007   Elections   (as   required   by   RA  
of  R.A.  No.  7941.  Such  factual  finding  of  the  COMELEC  was  based  on  
7166)  
the  Certificate  of  Nomination  presented  by  ANAD  during  the  22  and  
• ANAD’s  petition  was  remanded  to  the  COMELEC    pursuant  to  the   23  August  2012  summary  hearings.  
Atong  ruling,  however,  the  COMELEC  affirmed  the  cancellation  of     The  reasons  cited  in  Lokin  were  again  mentioned,  that  the  
ANAD’s  certificate  of  registration  and  DQed  ANAD.   submission   of   the   nominees   was   to   inform   the   voting   public.   The  
• ANAD  then  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  with  an  urgent  prayer  for   publication   of   the   list   of   the   party-­‐list   nominees   in   newspapers   of  
the   issuance   of   TRO,   claiming   that   the   COMELEC   committed   general   circulation   serves   that   right   of   the   people,   enabling   the  
GAOD   when   it   did   not   grant   ANAD   another   summary   hearing   voters  to  make  intelligent  and  informed  choices.  
after  the  Atong  case.      
• ANAD  also  filed  a  petition  for  mandamus,  seeking  to  compel  the   ANAD  failed  to  submit  required  documents  
COMELEC   to   canvass   the   votes   cast   for   ANAD   during   the     As   found   by   the   COMELEC,   ANAD   mainly   presented   a   list  
elections.   of   total   contributions   from   other   persons,   a   list   of   official   receipts  
  and   amounts   without   corresponding   receipts,   and   a   list   of  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   in   cancelling   ANAD’s   expenditures   based   on   order   slips   and   donations   without  
certificate  of  registration/accreditation.  NO   distinction   as   to   whether   the   amounts   listed   were   advanced   subject  
  to  reimbursement  or  donated.  
HELD:     Thus,   ANAD’s   failure   to   submit   a   proper   Statement   of  
COMELEC   exercised   its   authority   in   cancelling   ANAD’s   Contributions  and  Expenditures  for  the  2007  Elections,  in  violation  
certificate   of  COMELEC  Resolution  No.  9476.    
  As   empowered   by   law,   the   COMELEC   may   motu   proprio    
cancel,   after   due   notice   and   hearing,   the   registration   of   any   party-­‐ ! Finally  the  Court  noted  that  ANAD  failed  to  obtain  at  least  
list   organization   if   it   violates   or   fails   to   comply   with   laws,   rules   or   2%  of  the  votes  anyway    
regulations  relating  to  elections.    
  Factual   findings   of   administrative   bodies   will   not   be  
 
disturbed   by   the   courts   of   justice   except   when   there   is   absolutely  
no  evidence  or  no  substantial  evidence  in  support  of  such  findings  
should   be   applied   with   greater   force   when   it   concerns   the  
COMELEC,  as  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  intended  to  place  the  
COMELEC   –   created   and   explicitly   made   independent   by   the  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   114  
 
CASE:  LIBERAL  PARTY  v  COMELEC  (2010)   jurisdiction.  It  further  held  that  the  registration  of  coalitions  is  a  
G.R.  No.  191771                              May  6,  2010   mere  formality  of  the  ‘operative  fact’  of  the  political  alliance.  
LIBERAL  PARTY,  represented  by  its  President  Manuel  A.  Roxas   • Finally  the  en  banc  claimed  that  NP-­‐NPC’s  petition  was  not  filed  
II  and  Secretary  General  Joseph  Emilio  A.  Abaya,   Petitioner,     vs.   out  of  time,  as  the  August  19,  2009  deadline  set  in  Res  No  8646  
COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   NACIONALISTA   PARTY,   applied  only  to  political  parties  and  not  to  coalitions.  
represented   by   its   President   Manuel   B.   Villar   and   • Commissioner   Sarmiento   dissented   the   registration   on   the  
NATIONALIST   PEOPLE'S   COALITION,   allegedly   represented   by   following  grounds:  
its  Chairman  Faustino  S.  Dy,  Jr.,  Respondents.   1. The   en   banc   has   no   jurisdiction   as   under   Rule   32,   a  
  Division  has  jurisdiction  over  special  proceedings  
Summary:  COMELEC  promulgated  resolutions  which  governed  the   2. There   was   no   valid   coalition   between   NP   and   NPC   as   the  
rules   on   registration   and   accreditation.   The   COMELEC   set   a   merger   was   lacking   the   authority   from   the   parties’  
deadline   for   registration   but   allowed   NP-­‐NPC   to   register   as   a   respective  National  Conventions    
coalition,   claiming   that   the   deadline   only   applied   to   ‘political   3. NP-­‐NPC  cannot  be  accredited  since  at  the  time  of  filing,  it  
parties’  and  not  coalitions.     was   not   yet   registered   as   a   coalition.   Res.   No   8752  
  explicitly   stated   that   only   registered   parties   may   apply   for  
FACTS:   accreditation)  
• In  2009,  the  COMELEC  promulgated  several  resolutions  which:   • The   LP   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   with   the   SC,   assailing   the  
-­‐ set   the   deadline   for   the   last   day   of   petitions   for   Resolution   which   granted   the   registration   of   NP-­‐NPC.   They  
registration  of  political  parties:  August  17,  2009  (Res  No.   further   prayed   for   prohibition   to   enjoin   the   COMELEC   from  
8646)   accrediting  a  coalition  that  was  not  yet  registered  .  
-­‐ rules   for   the   filing   of   petitions   for   accreditation   for   the   • NP-­‐NPC   claimed   that   LP’s   petition   is   premature,   since   the  
determination   of   the   dominant   majority   party,   dominant   COMELEC  has  not  yet  ruled  on  the  accreditation  aspect.  
minority   party,   10   major   national   parties,   and   2   major    
local  parties  (Res  No.  8752)   ISSUE:   WON   the   en   banc   can   take   cognizance   of   registration   of  
-­‐ set   the   deadline   for   petitions   for   accreditation:   Feb   12   coalitions  at  the  first  instance.  The  Court  did  not  answer  
2010   WON   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   when   it   approved   a   petition  
-­‐ required   accreditation   applicants   to   be   registered   for  registration  filed  out  of  time  on  the  grounds  of  ‘mere  formality.’  
political  parties,  organization,  or  coalitions   YES  
• The   Liberal   Party   (LP)   filed   a   petition   for   accreditation   as   a    
dominant  minority  party.    (DMIP  for  digest  brevity)   HELD:  
• On   the   same   date,   the   Nacionalista   Party   (NP)   and   the   Nationalist   a. Accreditation  and  registration  distinguished  
People’s   Coalition   (NPC)   filed   a   petition   for   registration   as   a   The   registration   of   a   coalition   and   the   accreditation   of   a  
coalition   (NP-­‐NPC)   and   asked   the   COMELEC   to   recognize   and   dominant   minority   party   are   two   separate   matters   that   are  
accredit   NP-­‐NPC   as   the   DMIP.   The   NP-­‐NPC’s   petition   was   substantively  distinct  from  each  other.  
docketed  as  an  accreditation  case  (SPP  DM).    
Thus:  NP-­‐NPC  filed  two  petitions  at  the  same  time:  one   REGISTRATION   -­‐   is   the   act   that   bestows   juridical   personality  
for  registration  and  for  accreditation  as  DMIP.     for  purposes  of  our  election  laws;  
• The  LP  opposed  the  NP-­‐NPC’s  petition  and  asked  for  its  dismissal    
on  the  following  grounds:   ACCREDITATION   -­‐   relates   to   the   privileged   participation   that  
1. that   the   NP-­‐NPC   was   not   a   duly   registered   coalition   of   our  election  laws  grant  to  qualified  registered  parties.  
political  parties  at  the  time  of  the  filing  of  their  petition  for    
accreditation   Accreditation   can   only   be   granted   to   a   registered   political  
2. that   the   en   banc   has   no   jurisdiction   to   entertain   the   party,   organization   or   coalition;   stated   otherwise,   a  
petition   for   registration   as   a   coalition   as   it   should   have   registration   must   first   take   place   before   a   request   for  
been  brought  before  a  Division  first   accreditation  can  be  made.  Once  registration  has  been  carried  
3. it  was  filed  out  of  time  (filed  2010  when  the  deadline  was   out,  accreditation  is  the  next  natural  step  to  follow.  
2009)  and  at  the  proper  venue  (it  was  filed  with  the  Clerk    
of  Court  instead  of  the  Law  Dept.)   b. Issue   is   not   premature   the   Court   can   rule   on   the   issue   of  
4. a   former   member   of   the   NPC   also   testified   that   the   NPC   registration   without   the   COMELEC’s   ruling   as   to   the  
National  Convention  did  not  authorize  the  merger  with  NP   accreditation  
(a  requirement  set  forth  in  the  Constitution  and  By-­‐laws  of     The   en   banc   resolved   the   petition   for   registration   by   the  
both  parties)   NP-­‐NPC.     A   MFR   of   an   en   banc   resolution   is   a   prohibited  
• The   COMELEC   en   banc   granted   the   NP-­‐NPC’s   registration   as   a   pleading   under   Rule   13.   Thus,   after   the   en   banc   issued   the  
coalition.  However,  it  did  not  rule  on  the  accreditation  of  NP-­‐ assailed   Resolution   resolving   the   NP-­‐NPC’s   application   for  
NPC  as  DMIP.   registration   as   a   coalition,   the   COMELEC’s   part   in   the  
• The   COMELEC   stated   that   since   the   registration   od   coalitions   registration   process   was   brought   to   a   close,   rendering   the  
involves   administrative   functions   only,   the   en   banc   has   Resolution  ripe  for  review  by  this  Court.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   115  
 
  f. SC   did   not   answer   the   question   of   WON   registration   of  
c. Petition   for   registration   filed   out   of   time;   COMELEC   coalitions   may   be   brought   before   the   en   banc   at   the   first  
committed  GAOD  in  giving  it  due  course   instance  
  COMELEC   argues   that   the   deadline   set   in   Res.   8646     The  Court  said  that  the  questions  raised  in  this  case  would  
applied   only   to   political   parties,   and   not   to   coalitions.     In   the   have   been   fertile   areas   for   discussion   in   exploring   the   limits  
absence   of   any   note,   explanation   or   reason   why   the   deadline   and   parameters   of   COMELEC   authority   on   the   registration   of  
only   mentions   political   parties,   the   term   "political   parties"   coalitions.  However  the  Court  boted  that  since  the  election  was  
should  be  understood  in  its  generic  sense  that  covers  political   only  1  week  away  from  the  promulgation  of  the  decision,  they  
organizations   and   political   coalitions   as   well.   There   is   no   “reserve   for   another   case   and   another   time   the   answers   to  
substantial  distinction  between  them  to  justify  the  setting   these  no  less  important  questions.”  
of   different   deadlines.   Furthermore,   no   such   distinction    
exists  in  the  Constitution  or  in  the  COMELEC  Rules.   >  The  SC  found  COMELEC  committed  GAOD  in  disregarding  its  
  deadline.   It   nullified   the   Resolution   and   barred   the   COMELEC  
d. Deadline   set   by   COMELEC   is   mandatory   as   registration   is   from  granting  accreditation  to  NP-­‐NPC.  
only   the   first   step   in   many   electoral   activities   to   be    
participated  by  the  parties    
  We   note   in   this   regard   that   the   registration   of   parties   is   CASE:  COCOFED  v  COMELEC  (2013)  
the  first  in  a  list  of  election-­‐related  activities  that  peaks  in  the  
G.R.  No.  207026                              August  6,  2013  
voting  on  May  10,  2010.  These  activities  include:  the  selection  
COCOFED-­‐PHILIPPINE   COCONUT   PRODUCERS   FEDERATION,  
and   nomination   of   candidates,   the   filing   of   COCs,   the  
INC.,  Petitioner,    vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  Respondent.  
examination   of   the   AES   machines,   the   nomination   of   poll  
 
watchers,   the   appointment   of   watchers   during   the   printing,  
Summary:  COCOFED  was  previously  registered  with  the  COMELEC.  
storage   and   distribution   of   ballots.   Of   course,   registered  
For   the   2013   elections,   however,   they   only   submitted   3   nominees.  
political  parties  have  very  significant  participation  on  election  
Thus  the  COMELEC  cancelled  their  registration  for  failing  to  comply  
day,   during   the   voting   and   thereafter;   the   COMELEC   needs   to  
with  the  ‘at  least  5  nominees’  rule  in  RA  7941.  COCOFED  claims  that  
receive  advance  information  and  make  arrangements  on  which  
such  provision  is  not  mandatory.  
ones   are   the   registered   political   parties,   organizations   and  
 
coalitions.  
FACTS:  
  All   these   are   related   to   show   that   the   COMELEC   deadline  
• COCOFED  is  an  organization  and  sectoral  party  composed  of  the  
cannot  but  be  mandatory;  the   whole   electoral   exercise   may  
peasant   sector   (coconut   farmers   and   producers.)   COCOFED   had  
fail   or   at   least   suffer   disruptions,   if   the   deadlines   are   not  
previously  registered  with  the  COMELEC  as  a  sectoral  party.  
observed.  
  • They  manifested  their  intent  to  participate  in  the  2013  elections  
with   the   COMELEC.   However,   in   their   manifestation,   they   only  
e. COMELEC:   ‘Registration   a   mere   ministerial   formality   of  
provided  two  nominees.  
operative   fact’   untenable;   registration   is   actually   a  
discretionary  and  quasi-­‐judicial  function  of  the  COMELEC   • After   conducting   the   summary   hearing,   the   COMELEC   cancelled  
  The  freedom  to  coalesce  or  to  work  together  in  an  election   COCOFED’s   registration   and   accreditation   on   the   ground   that   it  
to   secure   the   vote   for   chosen   candidates   is   different   from   the   failed   to   comply   with   Section   8   of   RA   7941,   which   requires   the  
formal   recognition   the   Constitution   requires   for   a   political   party  to  submit  a  list  of  not  less  than  5  nominees.  
party,   organization   or   coalition   to   be   entitled   to   full   and   • During   this   time,   COCOFED   subsituted   one   of   their   previous  
meaningful   participation   in   the   elections   and   to   the   benefits   nominees   and   added   a   third   nominee.   Total   number   of  
that   proceed   from   formal   recognition.   Registration   and   the   nominees:  3.    
formal   recognition   that   accompanies   it   are   required   because   of   • COCOFED   was   one   of   the   parties   in   the   Atong   Paglaum   case   in  
the   Constitution’s   concern   about   the   character   of   the   2013.  Thus,  COCOFED’s  petition  was  remanded  to  the  COMELEC  
organizations  officially  participating  in  the  elections.  Thus,  the   for  adjudication.  
Constitution  specifies  religious  and  ideological  limitations,  and   • However,   in   a   Resolution,   the   COMELEC   maintained   its   earlier  
in   clear   terms   bars   alien   participation   and   influence   in   our   finding   that   COCOFED’s   registration   should   be   cancelled   on   the  
elections.     same  ground.  They  later  issued  another  resolution  declaring  the  
  This   constitutional   concern   serves   as   a   reason   why   cancellation  final  and  executory.  
registration   is   not   simply   a   checklist   exercise,   but   one   that   • COCOFED   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   with   a   prayer   for   tRO  
requires  the  exercise  of  profound  discretion  and  quasi-­‐judicial   assailing   both   Resolutions.   They   claim   that   their   right   to   due  
adjudication   by   the   COMELEC.   Registration   must   be   process   was   violated   since   the   COMELEC   did   not   grant   them  
undertaken,   too,   under   the   strict   formalities   of   the   law,   another  hearing  after  the  remanding  of  the  case  pursuant  to  the  
including   the   time   limits   and   deadlines   set   by   the   proper   Atong  Paglaum  case.  
authorities.   • COCOFED   further   claimed   that   their   failure   to   submit   at   least   5  
  names  was  done  in  good  faith,  thnking  that  it  could  be  cured  by  
submitting  additional  nominees  later.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   116  
 
• Meanwhile,   COCOFED   was   included   in   the   ballot   for   the   2013   accreditation  is  cancelled,  they  need  to  re-­‐register  first  if  they  
elections.  They  only  received  .83%  of  votes.   want  to  participate  in  the  next  election.  
• Thus,   the   COMELEC   claimed   that   COCOFED’s   petition   was   moot    
and   academic   since   the   COMELEC   canvassed   the   votes   cast   for   c. Exact   compliance   with   ‘due   notice   and   hearing’   not  
them.  (All  reliefs  prayed  for  already  performed)   necessary  as  the  registration  of  a  partylist  group  involves  
  an  exercise  of  COMELEC’s  administrative  power  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   committed   GAOD   when   it   cancelled     Section  6  of  RA  No.  7941  requires  the  COMELEC  to  afford  
COCOFED’s  registration  and  accreditation.  NO   "due   notice   and   hearing"   before   refusing   or   cancelling   the  
WON   the   requirement   in   Section   8   to   submit   a   list   of   at   least   5   registration  of  a  partylist  group  as  a  matter  of  procedural  due  
nominees  is  mandatory.  YES   process.   The   Court   would   have   demanded   an   exacting  
WON  the  issue  is  moot  and  academic.  NO   compliance   with   this   requirement   if   the   registration   or  
  continuing   compliance   proceeding   were   strictly   in   the   nature  
HELD:   of  a  judicial  or  quasi-­‐judicial  proceeding.  
a. Requirement   of   5   nominees   is   mandatory   even   if   the   party    
has  been  previously  registered  with  the  COMELEC   d. Why   does   the   law   require   at   least   5   nominees   when   PL  
  First,   the   language   of   Section   8   of   RA   No.   7941   does   not   groups   are   entitled   to   a   max   of   3   seats?   To   account   for  
only   use   the   word   "shall"   in   connection   with   the   requirement   contingencies  such  as  vacancies  
of   submitting   a   list   of   nominees;   it   uses   this   mandatory   term   in     Even   if   a   party-­‐list   group   can   only   have   a   maximum   of  
conjunction  with  the  number  of  names  to  be  submitted  that  is   three   seats,   the   requirement   of   additional   two   nominees  
couched   negatively,   i.e.,   "not   less   than   five."   The   use   of   these   actually   addresses   the   contingencies   that   may   happen   during  
terms  together  is  a  plain  indication  of  legislative  intent  to  make   the  term  of  these  party-­‐list  representatives.  If  the  entire  list  is  
the   statutory   requirement   mandatory   for   the   party   to   exhausted   (all   5+   nominees),   that   is   the   only   time   that   a   PL  
undertake.   group  may  submit  additional  nominees  after  the  election.  
  The  requirement  of  submission  of  a  list  of  five  nominees  is    
primarily   a   statutory   requirement   for   the   registration   of   party-­‐ e. COCOFED  has  no  excuse  why  it  wasn’t  able  to  comply  
list  groups  and  the  submission  of  this  list  is  part  of  a  registered     If   the   party   cannot   even   come   up   with   a   complete   list   of  
party’s   continuing   compliance   with   the   law   to   maintain   its   five  names  out  of  a  purported  more  than  one  million  members,  
registration.  A  party-­‐list  group’s  previous  registration  with  the   then   it   is   highly   doubtful   that   COCOFED   will   meet   this  
COMELEC   confers   no   vested   right   to   the   maintenance   of   its   expectation  to  contribute  to  the  formulation  and  enactment  of  
registration.   In   order   to   maintain   a   party   in   a   continuing   legislation  that  is  beneficial  for  the  nation  as  a  whole;  and  if  it  
compliance   status,   the   party   must   prove   not   only   its   cannot  even  name  at  least  three  more  people  who  belongs  to,  
continued   possession   of   the   requisite   qualifications   but,   or   with   sufficient   advocacy   for,   the   sector   sought   to   be  
equally,   must   show   its   compliance   with   the   basic   represented   then   as   a   sectoral   party   or   organization,   it   has  
requirements  of  the  law.   already  forsaken  what  it  seeks  to  represent.  
   
b. Issue   not   yet   moot   and   academic   as   there   remains   the   ! the   SC   dismissed   COCOFED’s   petition   and   absolved  
issue   of   the   validity   of   the   cancellation   of   COCOFED’s   COMELEC  of  committing  GAOD  
registration    
  For  the  COMELEC  to  count  and  canvass  the  votes  cast  for    
COCOFED  was  just  one  of  the  remedies  prayed  for  by  COCOFED   CASE:  ATIENZA  v  COMELEC  (2010)  
in   its   petition.   The   validity   of   the   COMELEC’s   resolution,   (612  SCRA  761,  G.R.  No.  188920,  February  16,  2010)  
canceling   COCOFED’s   registration,   remains   a   very   live   issue   JOSE  L.  ATIENZA,  JR.,  MATIAS  V.  DEFENSOR,  JR.,  RODOLFO  G.  VALENCIA,  DANILO  
that  is  not  dependent  on  the  outcome  of  the  elections.   E.   SUAREZ,   SOLOMON   R.   CHUNGALAO,   SALVACION   ZALDIVAR-­‐PEREZ,   HARLIN  
CAST-­‐ABAYON,   MELVIN   G.   MACUSI   and   ELEAZAR   P.   QUINTO,  Petitioners,     vs.  
  The  fact  that  COCOFED  did  not  obtain  sufficient  number  of   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   MANUEL   A.   ROXAS   II,   FRANKLIN   M.   DRILON   and   J.R.  
votes   in   the   elections   does   not   affect   the   issue   of   the   validity   of   NEREUS  O.  ACOSTA,  Respondents.  THANK  YOU  ATE  NOR  I  LAB  YOU  <3  
the   COMELEC’s   registration.   A   finding   that   the   COMELEC    
gravely   abused   its   discretion   in   canceling   COCOFED’s   Note:  This  is  an  offshoot  of  an  earlier  case  already  resolved  by  SC.  
registration  would  entitle  it,  if  it  is  so  minded,  to  participate  in   The  earlier  case  was  about  Franklin  Drilon’s  ouster  as  president  of  
subsequent   elections   without   need   of   undergoing   registration   the   Liberal   Party   (LP)   before   the   end   of   his   term   in   2007.   The  
proceedings  anew.     March   2006   election   which   replaced   Drilon   as   president   was  
      annulled   by   the   COMELEC.   SC   here   in   this   case   ruled   in   favor   of  
Policy:  If   the   party   has   already   been   registered,   it   needs   only   to   Drilon.    
maintain   compliance   with   the   requirements.   A   registered    
political   party   need   not   re-­‐register   with   the   COMELEC     every   FACTS:  
election.   If   they   want   to   participate   in   the   elections,   they   just   • LP   held   a   National   Executive   Council   (NECO)   meeting.   That  
need  to  manifest  their  intent.  However,  if  their  registration  or   meeting  installed  Manuel  Roxas  II  as  the  new  LP  president.    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   117  
 
• On   January   2008   petitioners   Atienza,   et   al,   filed   a   petition   for   members   who   voted   for   Roxas.   Nor   did   Atienza,   et   al.   present   proof  
mandatory   and   prohibitory   injunction  before   the   COMELEC   that   the   NECO   had   no   quorum   when   it   then   assembled.   In   other  
against   respondents   Roxas,   et   al.   Atienza,   et   al.   sought   to   enjoin   words,   the   claims   of   Atienza,   et   al.   were   totally   unsupported   by  
Roxas  from  assuming  the  presidency  of  the  LP,  claiming  that  the   evidence.  
NECO  assembly  which  elected  him  was  invalidly  convened.      
• On  the  other  hand,  Roxas,  et  al.  claimed  that  Roxas’  election  as  LP   Consequently,   petitioners   Atienza,   et   al.   cannot   claim   that   their  
president   faithfully   complied   with   the   provisions   of   the   amended   expulsion   from   the   party   impacts   on   the   party   leadership   issue   or  
LP   Constitution,   and   that   supervening   events   (e.g.   death   of   on   the   election   of   respondent   Roxas   as   president   so   that   it   was  
members,   voluntary   resignation,   May   2007   elections)   changed   indispensable   for   the   COMELEC   to   adjudicate   such   claim.   Under   the  
the  body’s  number  and  composition.       circumstances,  the  validity  or  invalidity  of  Atienza,  et  al.’s  expulsion  
• Roxas,  et  al.  also  claimed  that  the  party  deemed  Atienza,  Zaldivar-­‐ was   purely   a   membership   issue   that   had   to   be   settled   within   the  
Perez,  and  Cast-­‐Abayon  resigned  for  holding  the  illegal  election  of   party.  It  is  an  internal  party  matter  over  which  the  COMELEC  has  no  
LP   officers   on   March   2006.   This   was   pursuant   to   a   NAPOLCO   jurisdiction.  
resolution   that   NECO   subsequently   ratified.   Meanwhile,   certain    
NECO  members  forfeited  their  party  membership  when  they  ran   COMELEC  has  Limited  Jurisdiction  over  intro-­‐party  disputes  
under   other   political   parties   during   the   May   2007   elections.   They   The   COMELEC’s   jurisdiction   over   intra-­‐party   disputes   is   limited.   It  
were  dropped  from  the  roster  of  LP  members.   does  not  have  blanket  authority  to  resolve  any  and  all  controversies  
• COMELEC   denied   Atienza   et   al’s   petition.   COMELEC   noted   that   involving   political   parties.   Political   parties   are   generally   free   to  
the   May   2007   elections   necessarily   changed   the   composition   of   conduct   their   activities   without   interference   from   the   state.   The  
the   NECO,   and   that   Atienza   et   al   failed   to   prove   that   the   NECO   COMELEC  may  intervene  in  disputes  internal  to  a  party  only  when  
which  elected  Roxas  as  LP  President  was  not  properly  convened.   necessary  to  the  discharge  of  its  constitutional  functions.  
They  questioned  the  existence  of  a  quorum.    
• As   for   the   validity   of   Atienza,   et   al.’s   expulsion   as   LP   members,   Roxas’s  election  is  an  issue  that  COMELEC  had  to  settle    
the   COMELEC   observed   that   this   was   a   membership   issue   that   The  validity  of  Roxas’  election  as  LP  president  is  a  leadership  issue  
related   to   disciplinary   action   within   the   political   party.   The   that   the   COMELEC   had   to   settle.   Under   the   amended   LP  
COMELEC   treated   it   as   an   internal   party   matter   that   was   Constitution,   the   LP   president   is   the   issuing   authority   for  
beyond  its  jurisdiction  to  resolve.   certificates   of   nomination   of   party   candidates   for   all   national  
• Atienza,   et   al.,   in   its   petition   for   certiorari   before   the   SC,   lament   elective   positions.   It   is   also   the   LP   president   who   can   authorize  
that   the   COMELEC   selectively   exercised   its   jurisdiction   when   it   other   LP   officers   to   issue   certificates   of   nomination   for   candidates  
ruled   on   the   composition   of   the   NECO   but   refused   to   delve   into   to   local   elective   posts.  In   simple   terms,   it   is   the   LP   president   who  
the  legality  of  their  expulsion  from  the  party.  The  two  issues,  they   certifies  the  official  standard  bearer  of  the  party.  
said,   weigh   heavily   on   the   leadership   controversy   involved   in   the    
case.   The   previous   rulings   of   the   Court,   they   claim,   categorically   The   law   also   grants   a   registered   political   party   certain   rights   and  
upheld   the   jurisdiction   of   the   COMELEC   over   intra-­‐party   privileges  that  will  redound  to  the  benefit  of  its  official  candidates.  
leadership  disputes.     It   imposes,   too,   legal   obligations   upon   registered   political   parties  
• Roxas,   et   al.   on   the   other   hand,   point   out,   the   key   issue   in   this   that  have  to  be  carried  out  through  their  leaders.  The  resolution  of  
case  is  not  the  validity  of  the  expulsion  of  petitioners  Atienza,  et   the   leadership   issue   is   thus   particularly   significant   in   ensuring   the  
al.  from  the  party,  but  the  legitimacy  of  the  NECO  assembly  that   peaceful  and  orderly  conduct  of  the  elections.    
elected   Roxas   as   LP   president.   Given   the   COMELEC’s   finding   as    
upheld   by   SC   that   the   membership   of   the   NECO   in   question   Previous  SC  Ruling  in  Kalaw  Case  
complied  with  the  LP  Constitution,  the  resolution  of  the  issue  of   The   COMELEC’s   jurisdiction   over   intra-­‐party   leadership   disputes  
whether   or   not   the   party   validly   expelled   petitioners   cannot   has   already   been   settled   by   the   Court.   The   Court   ruled   in   Kalaw  v.  
affect  the  election  of  officers  that  the  NECO  held.   COMELEC  that  the  COMELEC’s  powers  and  functions  under  Section  
  2,  Article  IX-­‐C  of  the  Constitution,  "include  the  ascertainment  of  the  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   gravely   abused   its   discretion   when   it   identity  of  the  political  party  and  its  legitimate  officers  responsible  
resolved   the   issue   concerning   the   validity   of   the   NECO   meeting   for   its   acts."   The   Court   also   declared   in   another   case  that   the  
without   first   resolving   the   issue   concerning   the   expulsion   of   COMELEC’s  power  to  register  political  parties  necessarily  involved  
Atienza,  et  al.  from  the  party  -­‐  NO   the  determination  of  the  persons  who  must  act  on  its  behalf.  Thus,  
  the  COMELEC  may  resolve  an  intra-­‐party  leadership  dispute,  in  
HELD:   a  proper  case  brought  before  it,  as  an  incident  of  its  power  to  
MAIN   RULING:   Atienza   et   al   did   not   present   proof;   it   was   not   register  political  parties.  
indispensable  for  COMELEC  to  adjudicate  the  issue  of  expulsion      
While  Atienza,  et  al.  claim  that  the  majority  of  LP  members  belong    
to  their  faction,  they  did  not  specify  who  these  members  were  and  
how   their   numbers   could   possibly   affect   the   composition   of   the  
NECO  and  the  outcome  of  its  election  of  party  leaders.  Atienza,  et  al.  
has  not  bothered  to  assail  the  individual  qualifications  of  the  NECO  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   118  
 
CASE:  AGAPAY  /  A-­‐IPRA  v  COMELEC  (2013)   HELD:  
G.R.  No.  204591                              April  16,  2013   a. A-­‐IPRA’s   petition   already   moot   and   academic   due   to   Atong  
AGAPAY  NG  INDIGENOUS  PEOPLES  RIGHTS  ALLIANCE  (A-­‐IPRA),   Paglaum  ruling  
Petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   MELVIN   G.   LOTA,     With  a  definite  ruling  of  this  Court  on  the  absence  of  grave  
MAC-­‐MAC  BERNALES,  MARY  ANNE  P.  SANTOS,  JEAN  ANNABELL   abuse  of  discretion  in  the  consolidated  cases  of  Atong  Paglaum,  
S.  GAROTA,  JOSEPH  T.  EVANGELISTA,  ET  AL.  Respondents.   the  instant  petition  had  become  moot  and  academic  and  must  
  therefore  be  dismissed.  
Summary:  Two  lists  of  nominees  were  presented  to  the  COMELEC.    
The   COMELEC   also   cancelled   the   A-­‐IPRA’s   registration   on     the   b. Determination   of   legitimate   nominees   and   officers   of   PL  
ground   that   their   members   did   not   belong   to   the   indigenous   groups  is  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  COMELEC  
peoples’   sector.   Both   groups   petitioned   the   Supreme   Court   to     The  determination  of  who  is  the  rightful  representative  of  
decide  which  of  them  were  the  legitimate  nominees  and  officers  of   a   political   party   or   the   legitimate   nominee   of   a   party-­‐list   group  
the  party.   lies  with  the  COMELEC,  as  part  and  parcel  of  its  constitutional  
  task   of   registering   political   parties,   organizations   and  
FACTS:   coalitions   under   Section   2(5),   Article   IX(C)   of   the   1987  
• A-­‐IPRA   is   a   sectoral   political   party   whose   primordial   objectives   Constitution.    
are   the   recognition,   protection   and   promotion   of   the   rights   of   the     Since   the   Court   remanded   all   the   petitions   in   the   Atong  
indigenous  people.   Paglaum   case,   it   is   only   appropriate   that   the   Insigne   Group  
• It  was  registered  with  the  COMELEC  in  2010.     present   their   challenge   to   the   legitimacy   of   the   Lota   Group’s  
• For  the  2010  elections,  it  submitted  a  list  of  nominees  known  as   nomination  before  the  Commission  to  give  it  the  opportunity  to  
the  Insigne  group.  However,  A-­‐IPRA  failed  to  obtain  a  PL  seat  in   rule  on  the  matter  at  the  same  time  that  it  reevaluates  A-­‐IPRA’s  
Congress.   qualifications   to   run   in   the   May   2013   elections   based   on   the  
new  set  of  guidelines  in  Atong  Paglaum.  
• In   2013,   A-­‐IPRA   manifested   its   intent   to   run   during   the   2013  
elections.   This   time,   however,   it   presented   a   different   list   of    
nominees  known  as  the  Lota  group.    
• It  appears  that  in  2012,  COMELEC  issued  Resolution  9513  which   CASE:  ALCANTARA  v  COMELEC  (2013)  
mandated   an   automatic   review   by   the   en   banc   of   all   PL   groups   G.R.  No.  203646                              April  16,  2013  
with   pending   petitions   for   registration,   and   those   which   have   SAMSON   S.   ALCANTARA,   ROMEO   R.   ROBJSO,   PEDRO   T.   DABU,  
already  manifested  their  intent  to  run  for  the  2013  elections.     JR.,   LOPE   E.   FEBLE,   NOEL   T.   TIAMPONG   and   JOSE   FLORO  
• A-­‐IPRA   was   required   to   appear   before   the   en   banc   to   present   CRTSOLOGO,   Petitioners,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,  
documentary   evidence   to   establish   its   its   continuing   compliance   JONATHAN   DE   LA   CRUZ,   ED   VINCENT   ALBANO   and   BENEDICT  
with   the   requirements   set   forth   under   Republic   Act   No.   7941   KATO,  Respondents.  
(R.A.   No.   7941)   and   the   guidelines   in   Ang   Bagong   Bayani-­‐OFW    
Labor  Party  v.  COMELEC.   Summary:   The   President   of   ABAKADA   refused   to   hold   a   Supreme  
• Shortly  afterward,  the  Insigne  group  intervened,  claiming  that  the   Assembly,  so  the  members  convened  by  themselves.  In  the  Supreme  
Lota  group  were  unathorized  nominees,  and  that  the  nominees  in   Assembly,   new   officers   were   elected   and   the   petitioners   were  
the   Lota   list   were   not   even   members   of   A-­‐IPRA.   The   Insigne   expelled  from  the  party.  They  now  claim  that  the  COMELEC  should  
group  prayed  that  the  Lota  group  be  Dqed  as  nominees  and  that   annul  the  Assembly  as  it  was  convened  contrary  to  the  CBL.  
the  Insigne  group  be  recognized  as  the  legitimate  candidates.    
• However,   instead   of   granting   the   Insigne   group’s   prayer,   the   FACTS:  
COMELEC   cancelled   A-­‐IPRA’s     registration   on   the   ground   that   it   • In  2003,  Alcantara  et  al,  who  were  all  law  teachers,  founded  what  
was   not   able   to   prove   that   the   nominees   were   actual   members   of   would   become   ABAKADA   Guro   Partylist.     The   party   has   its   own  
indigenous  groups.     Constitution  and  By-­‐laws  (CBL).  
Note:   A-­‐IPRA   was   one   of   the   parties   disqualified   who   • ABAKADA   was   able   to   win   a   seat   in   Congress   during   the   2007   PL  
petitioned  in  the  Atong  Paglaum  case   elections,  with  Jonathan  dela  Cruz  as  its  only  representative.  
• The   Inisgne   group   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   with   the   SC   • Later   in   2009,   dela   Cruz   wrote   Alcanatara   to   hold   a   Supreme  
assailing   the   COMELEC’s   cancellation   of   A-­‐IPRA’s   registration.   Assembly  to  determine  their  officers  and  nominees  for  the  2010  
They  further  prayed  that  the  SC  recognize  them  as  the  legitimate   PL   elections.   According   to   the   CBL,   Supreme   Assemblies   should  
nominees  and  officers  of  A-­‐IPRA.   be  held  at  least  once  every  3  years.  However,  no  SA  has  been  held  
• In   the   meantime,   the   SC   promulgated   its   decision   in   Atong   since  2004.  
Paglaum,  where  A-­‐IPRA  was  one  of  the  petitioners.     • Alcantara   replied   that   a   SA   was   not   possible   in   2009   since   the  
  party   lacked   funds.   Alcantara   recommended   that   the   SA   should  
ISSUE:  WON   the   Court   has   jurisdiction   to   declare   the   Insigne   group   be  held  earlier  2010  instead.  
as  A-­‐IPRA’s  legitimate  nominees.  NO   • In   December   2009,   al   All   Leaders   Assembly   (ALA)   was  
WON  A-­‐IPRA’s  petition  with  the  SC  is  moot  and  academic.  YES   assembled.   Alcantara   did   not   attend   this   assembly.   The   attendees  
  in   the   ALA   resolved   to   hold   a   SA   in   February   2010.   The   Acting  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   119  
 
Secretary   (Albano)   sent   out   the   notices   to   the   party’s   chapters   the   legitimate   officers   of   the   party-­‐list   group,   are   entitled   to  
and  members.     exercise  the  rights  and  privileges  granted  to  a  party-­‐list  group  
• In  February,  the  SA  was  held  as  scheduled.  In  this  SA,  the  CBL  of   under  the  law.    
ABAKADA   was   amended,   and   new   officers   were   elected.    
Alcantara  et  al  were  expelled  from  the  party.   c. The   COMELEC’s   resolutions   regarding   party   issues   must  
• Thus,  Alcanatara  et  al  filed  a  petition  with  the  COMELEC  2nd  Div   have   been   with   grave   abuse   of   discretion   so   as   to   be  
to   annul   the   February   SA   and   to   restrain   dela   Cruz   et   al   from   reviewable  under  the  SC  
misrepresenting  themselves  as  the  officers  of  ABAKADA.         With   clear   jurisdictional   authority   to   resolve   the   issue   of  
• Alcantara  claim  that  the  February  SA  was  null  and  void  as  it  was   party   leadership   and   party   identity,   this   Court   will   only   be  
not   authorized   by   the   President.   They   alleged   that   Albano   also   justified  in  interfering  with  the  COMELEC’s  action  under  Rules  
had  no  right  to  send  out  notices,  much  less  convene  a  SA.  Finally,   64  and  65  of  the  Rules  of  Court  if  the  petitioners  can  establish  
they  claimed  that  several  attendees  were  not  actual  members  of   that  the  COMELEC  acted  without  or  in  excess  of  jurisdiction  or  
ABAKADA   since   their   applications   were   not   duly   approved   by   with   grave   abuse   of   discretion   amounting   to   lack   or   excess   of  
Alcantara.  Alcanatara  presented  ID  cards  from  2002  and  2003  as   jurisdiction.   By   grave   abuse   of   discretion   is   generally   meant  
‘proof’   the   capricious   and   whimsical   exercise   of   judgment   equivalent  
• The   COMELEC   2nd   Division   dismissed   Alcanatara’s   petition.   It   to  lack  of  jurisdiction.    
held   that   the   SA   was   long   overdue,   and   that   since   the   members     Mere   abuse   of   discretion   is   not   enough.   It   must   be  
were  in  good  standing,  they  had  every  right  to  convene  a  SA.   grave,   as   when   it   is   exercised   arbitrarily   or   despotically   by  
• Alcanatara  filed  a  MFR  with  the  en  banc.  The  en  banc  denied  their   reason  of  passion  or  personal  hostility.  Such  abuse  must  be  so  
petition,   finding   that   Alcanatara   et   al   failed   to   prove   that   the   patent   and   so   gross   as   to   amount   to   an   evasion   of   a   positive  
attendees  were  not  members  of  ABAKADA.  The  most  the  ID  cards   duty  or  to  a  virtual  refusal  to  perform  the  duty  enjoined  or  to  
proved   was   that   the   persons   concerned   were   members   since   act  at  all  in  contemplation  of  law.  Alcantara  failed  to  prove  this.  
2002/2003.      
• Alcanatara   then   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   with   the   SC,   since   d. The  conduct  of  the  February  SA  was  through  the  members’  
the   COMELEC   refused   to   consider   the   evidence   they   presented   own   initiative,   as   well   as   Alcantara   et   al’s   ousters,   were  
(they   said   the   COMELEC   should   have   simply   compared   the   IDs   internal  matters  that  is  beyond  the  COMELEC’s  jurisdiction  
with  the  list  of  members).       While   ABAKADA   is   registered   as   a   sectoral   party,   the  
• Finally,   Alcantara   et   al   claims   that   the   COMELEC   should   have   general  principles  applicable  to  political  parties  as  a  voluntary  
annulled  the  SA  since  the  procedure  in  the  CBL  was  not  followed.   association   apply   to   it.  Political  parties  are  generally  free  to  
  conduct  its  internal  affairs  pursuant  to  its  constitutionally-­‐
ISSUE:  WON  the  COMELEC  correctly  dismissed  Alcantara’s  petition.   protected  right  to  free  association.  
YES     This   includes   the   determination   of   the   individuals   who  
WON   the   COMELEC   may   annul   the   SA   for   having   been   convened   shall  constitute  the  association  and  the  officials  who  shall  lead  
contrary  to  the  CBL.  NO.   the   party   in   attaining   its   goals.   The   political   parties,   through  
  their   members,   are   free   to   adopt   their   own   constitution   and  
HELD:   by-­‐laws   that   contain   the   terms   governing   the   group   in  
a. Summary  of  the  ruling:   pursuing  its  goals.  These  terms,  include  the  terms  in  choosing  
Alcantara  failed  to  prove  that  the  attendees  of  the  SA  were  not   its  leaders  and  members,  among  others.  To  the  group  belongs  
members   of   ABAKADA.   Furthermore,   political   parties   are   free   the  power  to  adopt  a  constitution;  to  them  likewise  belongs  the  
to  conduct  their  own  internal  ffairs.   power  to  amend,  modify  or  altogether  scrap  it.  
   
b. The   COMELEC’s   power   to   register   political   parties   comes   If   Alcantara   et   al   would   be   allowed   to   nullify   the   SA   on   the  
with   it   the   power   to   resolve   issues   of   party   leadership   and   ground   that   they   did   not   authorize   it,   they   would   be   able   to  
party  identity   perpetuate   themselves   in   power.   This   kind   of   result   would  
  Under   the   Constitution,   the   COMELEC   is   empowered   to   strike   at   the   heart   of   political   parties   as   the   "basic   element   of  
register  political  parties.  More  specifically,  as  part  of  its  power   the   democratic   institutional   apparatus."   This   potential  
to   enforce   and   administer   laws   relative   to   the   conduct   of   an   irregularity  is  what  the  COMELEC  correctly  prevented  in  ruling  
election,   the   COMELEC   possesses   the   power   to   register   for  the  dismissal  of  the  petition.  
national,   regional,   and   sectoral   parties   or   organizations   or    
coalitions  for  purposes  of  the  party-­‐list  system  of  elections.  It  is   e. Other   factual   circumstances   that   justified   COMELEC’s  
the   party-­‐list   group’s   registration   under   the   party-­‐list   system   dismissal  of  Alcanatara’s  petition  
that   confers   juridical   personality   on   the   party-­‐list   group   for   -­‐ The   evidence   they   submitted   failed   to   prove   that   the  
election  related  purposes.   attendees   were   not   actual   members   of   ABAKADA   The  
  As  a  juridical  entity,  a  party-­‐list  group  can  only  validly  act   most   it   proved   was   that   the   concerned   persons   were  
through   its   duly   authorized   representative/s.   In   the   exercise   of   members  since  2002  and  2003.  
its   power   to   register   parties,   the   COMELEC   necessarily   -­‐ Alcantara   et   al   cannot   invoke   the   CBL   as   a   ground   to  
possesses  the  power  to  pass  upon  the  question  of  who,  among   nullify   the   SA,  as  it  was  Alcanatara  himself  who  failed  to  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   120  
 
follow   it   by   failing   to   convene   the   Supreme   Assembly   as   in   no   case   exceed   two   (2)   feet   by   three   (3)   feet   in   area:  
required  by  the  CBL   Provided  further,  That  at  the  site  of  and  on  the  occasion  of  
  a   public   meeting   or   rally,   streamers,   not   more   than   two  
! since   Alcantara   failed   to   prove   GAOD   on   the   part   of   (2)  and  not  exceeding  three  (3)  feet  by  eight  (8)  feet  each  
COMELEC   in   resolving   the   dispute,   the   SC   upheld   the   may   be   displayed   five   (5)   days   before   the   date   of   the  
COMELEC’s  findings   meeting   or   rally,   and   shall   be   removed   within   twenty-­‐four  
  (24)  hours  after  said  meeting  or  rally;  and    
   
  b) for   any   newspaper,   radio   broadcasting   or   television  
station,   or   other   mass   media,   or   any   person   making   use   of  
 SET  11  -­‐  POWER  TO  REGULATE  /   the  mass  media  to  sell  or  to  give  free  of  charge  print  space  
SUPERVISE  ENJOYMENT  or  UTILIZATION     or  air  time  for  campaign  or  other  political  purposes  except  
to  the  Commission  as  provided  under  Sections  90  and  92  
of  FRANCHISE  or  OBJECTIVE   of   Batas   Pambansa   Blg.   881.   Any   mass   media   columnist,  
 
commentator,   announcement   or   personality   who   is   a  
 
candidate  for  any  elective  public  office  shall  take  a  leave  of  
Article  IX-­‐C,  Section  4,  1987  Constitution.  
absence   from   his   work   as   such   during   the   campaign  
Section   4.   The   Commission   may,   during   the   election   period,  
period.    
supervise   or   regulate   the   enjoyment   or   utilization   of   all   franchises  
 
or   permits   for   the   operation   of   transportation   and   other   public  
UNDER  BP  881  –  Omnibus  Election  Code  
utilities,  media  of  communication  or  information,  all  grants,  special  
BP  881,  Section  90.  Comelec  space.  -­‐  The  Commission  shall  procure  
privileges,   or   concessions   granted   by   the   Government   or   any  
space   in   at   least   one   newspaper   of   general   circulation   in   every  
subdivision,   agency,   or   instrumentality   thereof,   including   any  
province   or   city:   Provided,   however,   That   in   the   absence   of   said  
government-­‐owned   or   controlled   corporation   or   its   subsidiary.  
newspaper,   publication   shall   be   done   in   any   other   magazine   or  
Such   supervision   or   regulation   shall   aim   to   ensure   equal  
periodical   in   said   province   or   city,   which   shall   be   known   as  
opportunity,   time,   and   space   ,and   the   right   to   reply,   including  
"Comelec  Space"  wherein  candidates  can  announce  their  candidacy.  
reasonable,   equal   rates   therefor,   for   public   information   campaigns  
Said   space   shall   be   allocated,   free   of   charge,   equally   and   impartially  
and   forums   among   candidates   in   connection   with   the   objective   of  
by   the   Commission   among   all   candidates   within   the   area   in   which  
holding  free,  orderly,  honest,  peaceful,  and  credible  elections.  
the  newspaper  is  circulated.  
 
 
Objective  of  this  power:  
BP   881,   Section   92.  Comelec  time.  -­‐  The  Commission  shall  procure  
! to   ensure   that   candidates   get   equal   opportunity,   time   and  
radio   and   television   time   to   be   known   as   "Comelec   Time"   which  
space  for  public  information  campaigns  and  forums.      
shall   be   allocated   equally   and   impartially   among   the   candidates  
! The   evil   sought   to   be   prevented   by   this   provision   is   the  
within  the  area  of  coverage  of  all  radio  and  television  stations.  For  
possibility   that   a   franchise   holder   may   favor   or   give   any  
this   purpose,   the   franchise   of   all   radio   broadcasting   and   television  
undue   advantage   to   a   candidate   in   terms   of   advertising  
station  are  hereby  amended  so  as  to  provide  radio  television  time,  
space  or  radio  or  television  time.  
free  of  charge,  during  the  period  of  the  campaign.  
! This   is   also   the   reason   why   a   "columnist,   commentator,  
 
announcer  or  personality,  who   is   a  candidate   for   any   elective  
UNDER  RA  9006  –  Fair  Election  Act  
office   is   required   to   take   a   leave   of   absence   from   his   work  
 
during   the   campaign   period.   It   cannot   be   gainsaid   that   a  
Section  4.  Requirements  for  Published  or  Printed  and  Broadcast  
columnist   or   commentator   who   is   also   a   candidate   would   be  
Election  Propaganda.    
more   exposed   to   the   voters   to   the   prejudice   of   other  
4.1.   Any   newspaper,   newsletter,   newsweekly,   gazette   or  
candidates  unless  required  to  take  a  leave  of  absence.  
magazine   advertising,   posters,   pamphlets,   comic   books,  
        (from  Sanidad  v  COMELEC)  
circulars,   handbills,   bumper   stickers,   streamers,   sample   list   of  
 
candidates  or  any  published  or  printed  political  matter  and  any  
RA  6646  (Electoral  Reforms  Law  of  1987)  
broadcast  of  election  propaganda  by  television  or  radio  for  or  
Section   11.   Prohibited   Forms   of   Election   Propaganda.   -­‐   In  
against  a  candidate  or  group  of  candidates  to  any  public  office  
addition   to   the   forms   of   election   propaganda   prohibited   under  
shall   bear   and   be   identified   by   the   reasonably   legible   or  
Section  85  of  Batas  Pambansa  Blg.  881,  it  shall  be  unlawful:    
audible   words   "political   advertisement   paid   for,"   followed   by  
 
the   true   and   correct   name   and   address   of   the   candidate   or  
a) to   draw,   paint,   inscribe,   write,   post,   display   or   publicly  
party   for   whose   benefit   the   election   propaganda   was   printed  
exhibit   any   election   propaganda   in   any   place,   whether  
or  aired.  
private,   or   public,   except   in   the   common   poster   areas  
 
and/or   billboards   provided   in   the   immediately   preceding  
4.2.   If   the   broadcast   is   given   free   of   charge   by   the   radio   or  
section,   at   the   candidate's   own   residence,   or   at   the  
television   station,   it   shall   be   identified   by   the   words   "airtime  
campaign   headquarters   of   the   candidate   or   political   party:  
Provided,   That   such   posters   or   election   propaganda   shall  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   121  
 
for  this  broadcast  was  provided  free  of  charge  by"  followed  by   survey   is   taken   in   a   home,   dwelling   place   and   other  
the  true  and  correct  name  and  address  of  the  broadcast  entity.   places;  
  b) Pollsters  shall  wear  distinctive  clothing;  
4.3.   Print,   broadcast   or   outdoor   advertisements   donated   to   the   c) Pollsters  shall  inform  the  voters  that  they  may  refuse  
candidate   or   political   party   shall   not   be   printed,   published,   to  answer;  and  
broadcast,  or  exhibited  without  the  written  acceptance  by  the   d) The   result   of   the   exit   polls   may   be   announced   after  
said  candidate  or  political  party.  Such  written  acceptance  shall   the   closing   of   the   polls   on   election   day,   and   must  
be  attached  to  the  advertising  contract  and  shall  be  submitted   clearly  identify  the  total  number  of  respondents,  and  
to  the  COMELEC  as  provided  in  Subsection  6.3.  hereof.   the   places   where   they   were   taken.   Said  
  announcement   shall   state   that   the   same   is   unofficial  
Section  5.  Election  Surveys.  –     and  does  not  represent  a  trend.  
5.1.  Election  surveys  refer  to  the  measurement  of  opinions  and    
perceptions   of   the   voters   as   regards   a   candidate's   popularity,   Section  6.  Equal  Access  to  Media  Time  and  Space.  –  All  registered  
qualifications,   platforms   or   a   matter   of   public   discussion   in   parties  and  bona  fide  candidates  shall  have  equal  access  to  media  
relation   to   the   election,   including   voters'   preference   for   time  and  space.  The  following  guidelines  may  be  amplified  on  by  
candidates   or   publicly   discussed   issues   during   the   campaign   the  COMELEC.  
period  (hereafter  referred  to  as  "Survey").    
  6.1.   Print   advertisements   shall   not   exceed   one-­‐fourth   (1/4)  
5.2.  During  the  election  period,  any  person,  natural  as  well  as   page,  in  broad  sheet  and  one-­‐half  (1/2)  page  in  tabloids  thrice  
juridical,   candidate   or   organization   who   publishes   a   survey   a  week  per  newspaper,  magazine  or  other  publications,  during  
must  likewise  publish  the  following  information:   the  campaign  period.    
a) The   name   of   the   person,   candidate,   party   or    
organization   who   commissioned   or   paid   for   the   6.2.   (a)   Each   bona   fide   candidate   or   registered   political   party  
survey;   for  a  nationally  elective  office  shall  be  entitled  to  not  more  than  
b) The   name   of   the   person,   polling   firm   or   survey   one  hundred  twenty  (120)  minutes  of  television  advertisement  
organization  who  conducted  the  survey;   and  one  hundred  eighty  (180)  minutes  of  radio  advertisement  
c) The   period   during   which   the   survey   was   conducted,   whether  by  purchase  or  donation.  
the   methodology   used,   including   the   number   of    
individual   respondents   and   the   areas   from   which   (b)  Each  bona  fide  candidate  or  registered  political  party  for  a  
they  were  selected,  and  the  specific  questions  asked;   locally   elective   office   shall   be   entitled   to   not   more   than   sixty  
d) The  margin  o  error  of  the  survey;   (60)   minutes   of   television   advertisement   and   ninety   (90)  
e) For   each   question   for   which   the   margin   of   error   is   minutes  of  radio  advertisement  whether  by  purchase  or  
greater   than   that   reported   under   paragraph   (d),   the    
margin  of  error  for  that  question;  and   For   this   purpose,   the   COMELEC   shall   require   any   broadcast  
f) A   mailing   address   and   telephone   number,   indicating   station   or   entity   to   submit   to   the   COMELEC   a   copy   of   its  
it   as   an   address   or   telephone   number   at   which   the   broadcast   logs   and   certificates   of   performance   for   the   review  
sponsor   can   be   contacted   to   obtain   a   written   report   and   verification   of   the   frequency,   date,   time   and   duration   of  
regarding   the   survey   in   accordance   with   Subsection   advertisements  broadcast  for  any  candidate  or  political  party.  
5.3.    
  6.3.  All  mass  media  entities  shall  furnish  the  COMELEC  with  a  
5.3.   The   survey   together   with   raw   data   gathered   to   support   its   copy   of   all   contracts   for   advertising,   promoting   or   opposing  
conclusions   shall   be   available   for   inspection,   copying   and   any   political   party   or   the   candidacy   of   any   person   for   public  
verification  by  the  COMELEC  or  by  a  registered  political  party   office  within  five  (5)  days  after  its  signing.  In  every  case,  it  shall  
or   a   bona   fide   candidate   or   by   any   COMELEC-­‐accredited   be  signed  by  the  donor,  the  candidate  concerned  or  by  the  duly  
citizen's   arm.   A   reasonable   fee   sufficient   to   cover   the   costs   of   authorized  representative  of  the  political  party.  
inspection,  copying  and  verification  may  be  charged.    
  6.4.   No   franchise   or   permit   to   operate   a   radio   or   television  
5.4.   Surveys   affecting   national   candidates   shall   not   be   stations   shall   be   granted   or   issued,   suspended   or   cancelled  
published   fifteen   (15)   days   before   an   election   and   surveys   during  the  election  period.  
affecting  local  candidates  shall  not  be  published  seven  (7)  days    
before  an  election.   In   all   instances,   the   COMELEC   shall   supervise   the   use   and  
  employment   of   press,   radio   and   television   facilities   insofar   or  
5.5.   Exit   polls   may   only   be   taken   subject   to   the   following   the   placement   of   political   advertisements   is   concerned   to  
requirements:   ensure   that   candidates   are   given   equal   opportunities   under  
a) Pollsters   shall   not   conduct   their   surveys   within   fifty   equal   circumstances   to   make   known   their   qualifications   and  
(50)   meters   from   the   polling   place,   whether   said   their   stand   on   public   issues   within   the   limits   set   forth   in   the  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   122  
 
Omnibus  Election  Code  and  Republic  Act  No.  7166  on  election   equally   and   impartially   among   all   candidates   for   national  
spending.   office.   Such   free   time   shall   be   allocated   on   three   (3)   different  
  The   COMELEC   shall   ensure   that   radio   or   television   or   calendar   days;   the   first   day   within   the   first   week   of   the  
cable   television   broadcasting   entities   shall   not   allow   the   campaign   period;   the   second   day   within   the   fifth   week   of   the  
scheduling  of  any  program  or  permit  any  sponsor  to  manifestly   campaign  period;  and  the  third  day  within  the  tenth  weeks  of  
favor   or   oppose   any   candidate   or   political   party   by   unduly   or   the  campaign  period.  
repeatedly   referring   to   or   including   said   candidate   and/or    
political   party   in   such   program   respecting,   however,   in   all   7.3.   The   COMELEC   may   require   national   television   and   radio  
instances  the  right  of  said  broadcast  entities  to  air  accounts  of   networks  to  sponsor  at  least  three  (3)  national  debates  among  
significant  news  or  news  worthy  events  and  views  on  matters   presidential   candidates   and   at   least   one   (1)   national   debate  
of  public  interest.   among   vice   presidential   candidates.   The   debates   among  
  presidential   candidates   shall   be   scheduled   on   three   (3)  
6.5.   All   members   of   media,   television,   radio   or   print,   shall   different   calendar   days;   the   first   debate   shall   be   scheduled  
scrupulously  report  and  interpret  the  news,  taking  care  not  to   within   the   first   and   second   week   of   the   campaign   period;   the  
suppress  essential  facts  nor  to  distort  the  truth  by  omission  or   second  debate  within  the  fifth  and  sixth  week  of  the  campaign  
improper   emphasis.   They   shall   recognize   the   duty   to   air   the   period;   and   the   third   debate   shall   be   scheduled   within   the  
other  side  and  the  duty  to  correct  substantive  errors  promptly.   tenth  and  eleventh  week  of  the  campaign  period.  
   
6.6.   Any   mass   media   columnist,   commentator,   announcer,   The   sponsoring   television   or   radio   network   may   sell   air-­‐time   for  
reporter,   on-­‐air   correspondent   or   personality   who   is   a   commercials   and   advertisements   to   interested   advertisers   and  
candidate   for   any   elective   public   office   or   is   a   campaign   sponsors.  The  COMELEC  shall  promulgate  rules  and  regulations  for  
volunteer   for   or   employed   or   retained   in   any   capacity   by   any   the  holding  of  such  debates.  
candidate   or   political   party   shall   be   deemed   resigned,   if   so    
required   by   their   employer,   or   shall   take   a   leave   of   absence   Section  8.   COMELEC  Space  and  Time.   –   The   COMELEC   shall   procure  
from   his/her   work   as   such   during   the   campaign   period:   shall   in   at   least   one   (1)   newspaper   of   general   circulation   and   air  
  Provided,  That  any  media  practitioner  who  is  an  official  of   time  in  at  least  one  (1)  major  broadcasting  station  or  entity  in  every  
a   political   party   or   a   member   of   the   campaign   staff   of   a   province  or  city:  
candidate  or  political  party  shall  not  use  his/her  time  or  space    
to  favor  any  candidate  or  political  party.    Provided,   however,   That   in   the   absence   of   said   newspaper,  
  publication   shall   be   done   in   any   other   magazine   or   periodical   in  
6.7.   No   movie,   cinematograph   or   documentary   portraying   the   said   province   or   city,   which   shall   be   known   as   "COMELEC   Space":  
life  or  biography  of  a  candidate  shall  be  publicly  exhibited  in  a   Provided,  further,  That  in  the  absence  of  said  broadcasting  station  or  
theater,   television   station   or   any   public   forum   during   the   entity,  broadcasting  shall  be  done  in  any  radio  or  television  station  
campaign  period.   in  said  province  or  city,  which  shall  be  known  as  "COMELEC  Time".  
  Said   time   shall   be   allocated   to   the   COMELEC   free   of   charge,   while  
6.8.  No  movie,  cinematograph  or  documentary  portrayed  by  an   said  space  shall  be  allocated  to  the  COMELEC  upon  payment  of  just  
actor  or  media  personality  who  is  himself  a  candidate  shall  be   compensation.   The   COMELEC   time   and   space   shall   be   utilized  
publicly  exhibited  in  a  theater,  television  station  or  any  public   exclusively   by   the   COMELEC   for   public   information   dissemination  
forum  during  the  campaign  period.   on  election-­‐related  concerns.  
   
Section  7.  Affirmative  Action  by  the  COMELEC.  –     Section   9.   Posting   of   Campaign   Materials.   –   The   COMELEC   may  
  authorize   political   parties   and   party-­‐list   groups   to   erect   common  
7.1.   Pursuant   to   Sections   90   and   92   of   the   Omnibus   Election   poster   areas   for   their   candidates   in   not   more   than   ten   (1)   public  
Code  (Batas  Pambansa  Bldg.  881),  the  COMELEC  shall  procure   places   such   as   plazas,   markets,   barangay   centers   and   the   like,  
the   print   space   upon   payment   of   just   compensation   from   at   wherein   candidates   can   post,   display   or   exhibit   election  
least   three   (3)   national   newspapers   of   general   circulation   propaganda:   Provided,   That   the   size   of   the   poster   areas   shall   not  
wherein   candidates   for   national   office   can   announce   their   exceed  twelve  (12)  by  sixteen  (16)  feet  or  its  equivalent.  
candidacies.   Such   space   shall   be   allocated   free   of   charge     Independent   candidates   with   no   political   parties   may  
equally   and   impartially   among   all   the   candidates   for   national   likewise   be   authorized   to   erect   common   poster   areas   in   not   more  
office  on  three  (3)  different  calendar  days:  the  first  day  within   than  ten  (10)  public  places,  the  size  of  which  shall  not  exceed  four  
the   first   week   of   the   campaign   period;   the   second   day   within   (4)  by  six  (6)  feet  or  its  equivalent.  
the  fifth  week  of  the  campaign  period;  and  the  third  day  within     Candidates   may   post   any   lawful   propaganda   material   in  
the  tenth  week  of  the  campaign  period.   private  places  with  the  consent  of  the  owner  thereof,  and  in  public  
  places   or   property   which   shall   be   allocated   equitably   and  
7.2.   The   COMELEC   shall   also   procure   free   airtime   from   at   least   impartially  among  the  candidates.  
three   (3)   national   television   networks   and   three(3)   national    
radio   networks,   which   shall   also   be   allocated   free   of   charge  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   123  
 
Section   10.   Right   to   Reply.   –   All   registered   parties   and   bona   fide   Dangerous   Tendency   Test   (not   necessary   that   evil   was  
candidates   shall   be   have   the   right   to   reply   to   charges   published   actually  created,  mere  tendency  towards  evil  is  enough)  
against  them.  The  reply  shall  be  given  publicity  by  the  newspaper,    
television   and/or   radio   station   which   first   printed   or   aired   the   Espuelas  v  People  –  picture  published  in  newspaper  that  he  
charges   with   the   same   prominence   or   in   the   same   page   or   section   was   committing   suicide   and   that   he   was   displeased   with  
or  in  the  same  time  slot  as  the  first  statement.   Roxas   govt.   Espuelas   was   convicted   for   seditious   libel  
  (tendency  to  stir  up  general  discontent,  etc)  
Section   11.   Rates   for   Political   Propaganda.   –   During   the   election    
period,   media   outlets   shall   charge   registered   political   parties   and   2. Clear   and   Present   Danger   Test   –   currently   used;  
bona  fide  candidates  a  discounted  rate  of  thirty  percent  (30%)  for   whether   words   are   used   to   create   clear   and   present  
television,  twenty  percent  (20%)  for  radio  and  ten  (10%)  for  print   danger   and   bring   about   substantive   evil   which   the   State  
over  the  average  rates  charged  during  the  first  three  quarters  of  the   has  the  right  to  prevent  
calendar  year  preceding  the  elections.   Chavez  v  Gonzales  –  DOJ   Sec   warned   reporters   that   those  
  with  copies  of  Hello  Garci  tapes  could  be  liable  under  Anti-­‐
  Wire   Tapping.   SC:   this   is   a   content-­‐based   regulation  
OVERVIEW  OF  FREEDOM  OF  EXPRESSION   (subjected  to  clear  and  present  danger  test)  
From  Alvar  /  1E  notes  -­‐    Consti  2   ABS   CBN   v   Comelec   –   Comelec   issued   order   to   stop   ABS  
  exit   polls.   The   danger   that   Comelec   seeks   to   prevent   is   the  
Scope  of  Freedom  of  Expression:  freedom  of  speech,  expression,   bandwagon   effect.   But   according   to   SC,   exit   polls   would  
press,  right  to  assemble,  right  to  petition  the  government,  freedom   not  have  an  effect  on  that.    
of  religion,  freedom  to  associate,  access  to  matters  of  public  info,    
right  not  to  be  detained  by  reason  of  one’s  political  beliefs  and   Adiong  v  Comelec  –   Comelec   prohibited   posting   of   stickers,  
aspirations   posters   in   other   areas   except   Comelec   poster   areas,  
  headquarters,   etc.   This   is   a   curtailment   of   freedom   of  
Basis:  everyone  should  be  allowed  to  talk  about,  against  or  for  the   expression  (no  clear  public  interest  threatened)    
government   Gonzales  v  Comelec  
   
Scope  of  the  Guarantee:   3. Balancing   of   Interest   Test   –   used   only   when   there   is  
1. Freedom  from  prior  restraint  –  government  interference   conflict   between   2   rights   that   are   protected   by   the  
BEFORE  words  are  spoken  /  published   Constitution;   Court   will   weigh   the   circumstances   and  
2. Freedom  from  subsequent  punishment  –  no  restriction   appraise  substantiality  of  reasons  
prior,  but  thereafter  may  be  subjected  to  penalty    
  B. CONTENT-­‐NEUTRAL  RESTRICTIONS  –  not  concerned  with  
  content  but  on  the  time  and  manner  of  expression  
Tests  for  Valid  Restriction    
  O’Brien  Test  –  government  regulation  sufficiently  justified  if:  
A. CONTENT-­‐BASED  RESTRICTIONS  –  refer  to  restrictions  of   1. If  it  is  within  the  Constitutional  power  of  the  government  
expression  itself  (words  uttered,  how  it  was  uttered)   2. It  furthers  an  important  or  substantial  government  interest  
  3. The  government  interest  is  unrelated  to  suppression  of  
NPC  v  Comelec   –   mass   media   prevented   from   selling   /   donating   expression  
space  for  political  ads.  This  is  a  valid  restriction  of  free  speech   4. Incidental  restriction  and  alleged  freedom  of  expression  is  
(among   others,   to   promote   equal   opportunity   and   equal   time   no  greater  than  the  essential  or  furtherance  of  interest  
and  space  for  political  candidates)    
  Osmena   v   Comelec   –   Validity   of   Electoral   Reforms   Law   is  
Sanidad   v   Comelec   –   Comelec   resolution   that   prohibits   mass   assailed  as  it  prohibits  mass  media  from  selling/giving  print  
media  personalities  to  campaign  for  or  against  plebiscite  issues   space  or  air  time  for  campaign  or  political  purposes.  SC:  this  
during   the   plebiscite   campaign   period   violates   freedom   of   is   valid.   Any   restriction   on   freedom   of   expression   is   only  
expression  (matters  of  public  concern)   incidental  and  no  more  than  necessary  to  achieve  purpose  of  
  promoting   equality   (ensure   equal   opportunity,   time   and  
Newsounds   v   Dy   –   Bombo   Radyo’s   renewal   of   permit   was   space  for  campaigns).    
disapproved  because  of  previous  utterances  (issue  with  Mayor,    
etc).  This  is  ultimately  content-­‐based.     SWS  v  Comelec  –  Surveys   affecting   national   candidates   shall  
  not  be  published  15  days  before  election  /  local  candidates  7  
1. Dangerous  Tendency  Test     days   before   election   –   content   neutral   and   O’Brien   Test  
People  v  Perez  –  “Filipinos   like   myself   must   use   bolos   for   applies.  Failed  to  meet  criteria  #3  and  4.    
cutting   Gov   Gen’s   head…”   =   seditious   words.   SC   used    
 

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   124  
 
CASE:  NATIONAL  PRESS  CLUB  v  COMELEC  (1992)   and  television  time  that  the  resources  of  the  financially  affluent  
G.R.  No.  102653  March  5,  1992   candidates  are  likely  to  make  a  crucial  difference.  
NATIONAL  PRESS  CLUB,  petitioner,    vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  respondent.  
 
 
G.R.  No.  102925  March  5,  1992   Aside  from  RA  6646,  the  COMELEC’s  power  is  also  mandated  by  
PHILIPPINE   PRESS   INSTITUTE   represented   by   ZOILO   DEJARESCO,   JR.,   as   its   Past   Chairman   and  
President,   and   FRAULIN   A.   PEÑASALES   as   its   Corporate   Secretary,   petitioners,    vs.    COMMISSION  
the  Constitution  
ON   ELECTIONS,   represented   by   HON.   CHRISTIAN   MONSOD,   its   Chairman;   HON.   GUILLERMO     The   objective   sought   to   be   achieved   by   granting   the  
CARAGUE  and  HON.  ROSALINA  S.  CAJUCOM,  respondents.  
 
COMELEC   the   power   to   regulate   franchises   is   also   a  
G.R.  No.  102983  March  5,  1992   constitutional   mandate,   under   Article   9C   (4)   of   the   1987  
KAPISANAN   NG   MGA   BRODKASTERS   SA   PILIPINAS;   MAKATI   BROADCASTING   NETWORK;  
MOLAVE  BROADCASTING  NETWORK;  MASBATE  COMMUNITY  BROADCASTING  CO.,  INC.,  RADIO  
Constitution.  
MINDANAO   NETWORK,   INC.;   ABS-­‐CBN   BROADCASTING   CORP.;   FILIPINAS   BROADCASTING;     The   Comelec   has   thus   been   expressly   authorized   by   the  
RADIO   PILIPINO   CORP.;   RADIO   PHILIPPINES   NETWORK,   INC.;   EAGLE   BROADCASTING   CORP.;  
MAGILIW   COMMUNITY   BROADCASTING   CO.,   INC.;   for   themselves   and   in   behalf   of   the   mass   Constitution   to   supervise   or   regulate   the   enjoyment   or  
media   owners   as   a   class;   ANDRE   S.   KHAN;   ARCADIO   M.   CARANDANG,   JR.;   MALOU   ESPINOSA   utilization   of   the   franchises   or   permits   for   the   operation   of  
MANALASTAS;  MIGUEL  C.  ENRIQUEZ;  JOSE  ANTONIO  K.  VELOSO;  DIANA  G.  DE  GUZMAN;  JOSE  E.  
ESCANER,  JR.;  RAY  G.  PEDROCHE;  PETER  A.  LAGUSAY;  ROBERT  ESTRELLA;  ROLANDO  RAMIREZ;   media   of   communication   and   information.   The   fundamental  
for   themselves   as   voters   and   in   behalf   of   the   Philippine   electorate   as   a   class;   ORLANDO   S.   purpose   of   such   "supervision   or   regulation"   has   been   spelled  
MERCADO   and   ALEJANDRO   de   G.   RODRIGUEZ;   for   themselves   as   prospective   candidates   and   in  
behalf   of   all   candidates   in   the   May   1992   election   as   a   class,   petitioners,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   out   in   the   Constitution   as   the   ensuring   of   "equal   opportunity,  
ELECTIONS,  respondent.   time,  and  space,  and  the  right  to  reply,"  as  well  as  uniform  and  
  reasonable  rates  of  charges  for  the  use  of  such  media  facilities,  
FACTS:   in  connection  with  "public  information  campaigns  and  forums  
• There  are  three  groups  of  petitioners  in  this  case:   among  candidates."  
1. Representatives   of   the   mass   media   -­‐   National   Press   Club,     Note   that   this   power   is   applicable   only   durng   a   specific  
Philippine   Press   Institute   and   the   many   broadcast   period  –  “during  the  election  period.”  
networks      
2. 2  candidates  for  office   The   freedom   of   speech,   expression   and   of   the   press   are   not  
3. taxpayers     unlimited  rights;  must  give  way  to  EQUALITY  of  OPPORTUNITY  
• The   main   thrust   of   the   petitions   is   to   challenge   the   especially  during  election  period  
constitutionality   of   Section   11   (b)   of   RA   6646.   The   section     It  is  frequently  stated  that  the  freedom  of  speech  and  free  
prohibits   the   sale   or   donation   of   print   space   and   air   time   "for   press  are  very  important  especially  when  they  relate  to  purity  
campaign  or  other  political  purposes"  except  to  the  COMELEC.   and  integrity  of  the  electoral  process  itself.  However,  they  are  
• They  claim  that  the  provision  is  unconstitional  because:   not  unlmited  rights.    
1. Amounts   to   censorship   –   it   seeks   to   repress   only     In   our   own   society,   equality   of   opportunity   to   proffer  
publications  of  a  particular  content,  namely,  media-­‐based   oneself   for   public   office,   without   regard   to   the   level   of  
election  or  political  propaganda.       financial  resources  that  one  may  have  at  one's  disposal,   is  
! thus,   the   prohibition   is   in   derogation   of   media's   clearly  an  important  value.  One  of  the  basic  state  policies  given  
role,   function   and   duty   to   provide   adequate   constitutional  rank  by  Article  II,  Section  26  of  the  Constitution  
channels   of   public   information   and   public   is  the  egalitarian  demand  that  "the  State  shall  guarantee  equal  
opinion  relevant  to  election  issues.   access   to   opportunities   for   public   service   and   prohibit   political  
2. Abridges   the   candidates’   freedom   of   speech   -­‐     by   dynasties  as  may  be  defined  by  law."  
limiting  their  advertising  to  COMELEC  space  and  time    
3. Reduces   the   quantity   and   volume   of   election   info   –   COMELEC’s   exercise   of   this   power   is   presumed   constitutional,  
thus   curtailing   and   limiting   the   right   of   voters   to   since  the  power  to  regulate  necessarily  results  in  limitation  of  
information  and  opinion   rights  
    No   presumption   of   invalidity   arises   in   respect   of   exercises  
ISSUE:  WON  Section  11  of  RA  6646  is  unconstitutional.  NO.   of   supervisory   or   regulatory   authority   on   the   part   of   the  
  Comelec  for  the  purpose  of  securing  equal  opportunity  among  
HELD:   candidates   for   political   office,   although   such   supervision   or  
The  purpose  of  Section  11  (b)  is  to  equalize  the  playing  field   regulation   may   result   in   some   limitation   of   the   rights   of   free  
  The   objective   which   animates   Section   11   (b)   is   the   speech   and   free   press.   For   supervision   or   regulation   of   the  
equalizing,  as  far  as  practicable,  the  situations  of  rich  and  poor   operations   of   media   enterprises   is   scarcely   conceivable  
candidates  by  preventing  the  former  from  enjoying  the  undue   without  such  accompanying  limitation.    
advantage  offered  by  huge  campaign  "war  chests."     Thus,  the  applicable  rule  is  the  general,  time-­‐honored  one  
  Section   11   (b)   does,   of   course,   limit   the   right   of   free   —  that  a  statute  is  presumed  to  be  constitutional  and  that  the  
speech   and   of   access   to   mass   media   of   the   candidates   party   asserting   its   unconstitutionality   must   discharge   the  
themselves.   The   limitation,   however,   bears   a   clear   and   burden  of  clearly  and  convincingly  proving  that  assertion.  
reasonable   connection   with   the   constitutional   objective   set   out    
in   Article   IX(C)   (4)   and   Article   II   (26)   of   the   Constitution.   For   it    
is  precisely  in  the  unlimited  purchase  of  print  space  and  radio    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   125  
 
Furthermore,   the   power   under   Section   11   (b)   is   subject   to   • The   COMELEC   further   stated   that   the   political   candidates   and  
limitations   parties   wil   be   notified   to   send   their   campaign   materials   directly  
1. it  is  limited  in  period  of  applicability  -­‐  only  limited  during   to  the  newspapers,  either  as  raw  data  or  camera-­‐ready  materials.    
the  1992  election  period   • The  newspaper  members  of  the  PPI  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  
2. it   limited   in   the   scope   of   its   application   –   it   covers   only   and   prohibition   asking   that   Res.   2772   be   declared  
paid   political   advertisements   or   particular   candidates.   It   unconstitutional   as   it   amounted   to   taking   of   private   property  
does  not  restrict  either  the  reporting  of  or  the  expression  of   without  just  compensation.    
belief   or   opinion   or   comment   upon   the   qualifications   and   • They   further   claimed   that   the   order   that   they   process   the  
programs  and  activities  of  any  and  all  candidates  for  office.   parties/candidates’  raw  data  constituted  involuntary  servitude.    
3. It   allows   the   purchase   or   donation   to   the   COMELEC   of   • SOLGEN:  the  Resolution  is  not  mandatory  as  it  merely  laid  down  
print   space   or   air   time   –   such   space   and   time   the   COMELEC   guidelines   as   to   the   acquisition   of   COMELEC   space,   that   the  
is  required  to  allocate  on  a  fair  and  equal  basis  to  individual   Resolution  does  not  impose  administrative  or  criminal  sanctions  
candidates.   The   possibility   that   the   COMELEC   will   not   for  non-­‐compliance.    
allocate   the   space   fairly   is   no   argument   against   the   • SOLGEN:   Even   if   the   Resolution   is   mandatory,   it   is   a   valid  
concession   of   the   power   or   authority   involved,   for   there   is   exercise  of  police  power  of  the  State.    
no   power   or   authority   in   human   society   that   is   not   • The  COMELEC  and  PPI  later  appeared  to  have  settled,  but  the  SC  
susceptible  of  being  abused.   still  decided  the  issue.  
   
Main  distinction  from  Sanidad   ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC’s   ‘resolution’   to   LDP’s   dilemma   was  
  In   Sanidad,   Section   19   of   Resolution   2167   was   struck   proper.  NO.  
down   because   it   prohibited   members   of   the   media   to   use   his    
column,   radio   or   TV   time   to   campaign   for   or   against   the   HELD:  
plebiscite  issues.       Overview  of  ruling:    
  This   case   is   different   because   Section   11   (b)   does   not   Section  2  of  Resolution  2772  is  unconstitutional  as  it  amounted  
restrict   either   the   reporting   of   or   the   expression   of   belief   or   to  taking  without  payment  of  just  compensation,  in  violation  of  
opinion   or   comment   upon   the   qualifications   and   programs   and   the   Constitutional   guarantee   of   non-­‐deprivation   of   property  
activities  of  any  and  all  candidates  for  office.     without  due  process.  
   
  Order   to   ‘donate’   COMELEC   space   amounted   to  
  taking/expropriation,   and   must   be   with   just   compensation.  
CASE:  Philippine  Press  Institute  v  COMELEC   COMELEC  has  no  power  of  expropriation.  
G.R.  No.  L-­‐119694  May  22,  1995     The   threshold   requisites   for   a   lawful   taking   of   private  
PHILIPPINE   PRESS   INSTITUTE,   INC.,   for   and   in   behalf   of   139   members,  
represented   by   its   President,   Amado   P.   Macasaet   and   its   Executive   Director   property  for  public  use  need  to  be  examined  here:    
Ermin  F.  Garcia,  Jr.,  petitioner,    vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  respondent.   1. The  necessity  for  the  taking;    
  2. the  legal  authority  to  effect  the  taking.  
FACTS:    
    The   element   of   necessity   for   the   taking   has   not   been  
Summary  of  facts:     shown   by   COMELEC.   It   has   not   been   suggested,   let   alone  
PPI   is   an   organization   of   newspaper   and   magazine   publishers.   demonstrated,   that   Comelec   has   been   granted   the   power   of  
Pursuant  to  COMELEC  Resolution  No.  2772,  the  COMELEC  directed   eminent  domain  either  by  the  Constitution  or  by  the  legislative  
3   publishers   to   give/donate   free   space   for   use   as   COMELEC   space;   authority.  
as   well   as   to   process   raw   data   to   make   it   ‘camera-­‐ready’.   PPI     Resolution   No.   2772   does   not,   however,   provide   a  
appealed  this,  as  this  was  tantamount  to  expopriation  without  just   constitutional   basis   for   compelling   publishers,   against   their   will,  
compensation  and  involuntary  servitude  .     in  the  kind  of  factual  context  here  present,  to  provide  free  print  
  space   for   Comelec   purposes.   Section   2   does   not   constitute   a  
• In   1995,   the   COMELEC   promulgated   Resolution   2772,   Section   2   valid  exercise  of  the  power  of  eminent  domain.  
thereof   stating   that   the   COMELEC   shall   “procure   free   print    
space’  in   at   least   one   newspaper   of   general   circulation   for   use   as   COMELEC   should   have   offered   to   buy   first,   and   if   PPI   was  
COMELEC   space,   which   will   then   be   alllocated   by   raffle   to   unwilling   to   sell,   that   was   when   expropriation   would   have  
candidates.   been  proper.  
• Section   8   was   also   contested,   as   it   prohibited   newspapers   from     It   has   not   been   suggested   that   the   members   of   PPI   are  
publishing   accounts   which   manifestly   favor   any   candidate   or   unwilling   to  sell   print   space   at   their   normal   rates   to   Comelec   for  
political  party.     election   purposes.   Indeed,   the   unwillingness   or   reluctance   of  
• Pursuant   to   this   Resolution,   Commissioner   Maambong   sent   Comelec  to  buy  print  space  lies  at  the  heart  of  the  problem.  
letters   to   various   newspapers   (who   were   members   of   the   PPI),     It   seems   to   the   Court   a   matter   of   judicial   notice   that  
directing  them  to  “provide  free  print  space.”     government  offices  and  agencies  (including  the  Supreme  Court)  
simply   purchase   print   space,   in   the   ordinary   course   of   events,  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   126  
 
when  their  rules  and  regulations,  circulars,  notices  and  so  forth     Thus,  the  State  must  exercise  a  balancing   of   interests   as  
need   officially   to   be   brought   to   the   attention   of   the   general   between  individual  freedom  and  substantial  public  interests.    
public.    
  In  this  case,  COMELEC  simply  demanded  that  PPI  give  the    
space,  without  first  offering  to  buy.    
  Prohibition   does   not   promote   substantial   State   interest;   does  
The  Court’s  ruling  on  Section  8:  not  ripe  for  adjudication   not  pass  clear  and  present  danger  test  
  Section  8  of  Resolution  No.  2772  appears  to  represent  the     A   government   regulation   is   sufficiently   justified   if   it   is  
effort  of  the  Comelec  to  establish  a  guideline  for  implementation  of   within   the   constitutional   power   of   the   Government,   if   it  
the  above-­‐quoted  distinction  and  doctrine  in  National  Press  Club  an   furthers   an   important   or   substantial   governmental   interest;   if  
effort  not  blessed  with  evident  success.     the   governmental   interest   is   unrelated   to   the   suppression   of  
  The   distinction   between   paid   political   advertisements   on   free   expression;   and   if   the   incidental   restriction   on   alleged  
the   one   hand   and   news   reports,   commentaries   and   expressions   of   First   Amendment   freedoms   is   no   greater   than   is   essential   to  
belief   or   opinion   by   reporters,   broadcasters,   editors,   etc.   on   the   the  furtherance  of  that  interest.  
other   hand,   can   realistically   be   given   operative   meaning   only   in     The   posting   of   decals   and   stickers   in   mobile   places   like  
actual   cases   or   controversies,   on   a   case-­‐to-­‐case   basis,   in   terms   of   cars   and   other   moving   vehicles   does   not   endanger   any  
very  specific  sets  of  facts.   substantial   government   interest.   There   is   no   clear   public  
  interest   threatened   by   such   activity   so   as   to   justify   the  
! since  PPI  failed  to  show  that  they  have  sustained  injury   curtailment   of   the   cherished   citizen's   right   of   free   speech   and  
by   COMELEC’s   enforcement   of   Section   8,   the   Court   expression.  
dismissed  the  petition  for  being  premature     Under  the  clear   and   present   danger  rule  not  only  must  
  the  danger  be  patently  clear  and  pressingly  present  but  the  evil  
  sought  to  be  avoided  must  be  so  substantive.  
CASE:  Adiong  v  COMELEC  (1992)    
G.R.  No.  103956  March  31,  1992   Prohibition  seeks  to  regulate  the  expression  of  the  citizen  itself    
BLO  UMPAR  ADIONG,  petitioner,    vs.  COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  respondent.     The   freedom   of   expression   curtailed   by   the   questioned  
  prohibition   is   not   so   much   that   of   the   candidate   or   the   political  
FACTS:   party.  The  regulation  strikes  at  the  freedom  of  an  individual  to  
• In   1992,   the   COMELEC   promulgated   Res.   2347.   Section   21   of   express   his   preference   and,   by   displaying   it   on   his   car,   to  
which   made   it   unlawful   to   publicly   display   any   election   convince  others  to  agree  with  him.  A  sticker  may  be  furnished  
propaganda   in   “any   place,   whether   public   or   private,   mobile   or   by  a  candidate  but  once  the  car  owner  agrees  to  have  it  placed  
stationary”  except  in  COMELEC-­‐approved  areas.   on  his  private  vehicle,  the  expression  becomes  a  statement  by  
• The  COMELEC  used  as  basis  Section  82  of  the  OEC  (which  defined   the  owner,  primarily  his  own  and  not  of  anybody  else.  
and   enumerated   lawful   election   propaganda)   and   Section   11   (a)    
of  RA  6646.   Prohibition   void   for   being   overbroad;   deprives   property  
• Senatorial   candidate   Adiong   contested   Section   21   of   the   without  due  process  
Resolution   insofar   as   it   prohibits   the   posting   of   decals   and     A   statute   is   considered   void   for   overbreadth   when   "it  
stickers  in  "mobile"  places  like  cars  and  other  moving  vehicles.   offends   the   constitutional   principle   that   a   governmental  
• Adiong   claims   that   since   he   is   a   newbie,   his   best   chance   was   to   purpose  to  control  or  prevent  activities  constitutionally  subject  
advertise   himself   on   car   and   moving   vehicles,   thus,   the   limitation   to   state   regulations   may   not   be   achieved   by   means   which  
on  the  Sec  21  would  greatly  prejudice  him.     sweep   unnecessarily   broadly   and   thereby   invade   the   area   of  
• Adiong   further   claims   that   at   the   time   of   the   petition,   there   has   protected  freedoms.  
been   no   notice   as   to   the   location   of   the   supposed   “COMELEC     The   resolution   prohibits   the   posting   of   decals   and   stickers  
poster  areas.”   in  any  place,  including  mobile  places   whether   public   or   private  
  except   in   areas   designated   by   the   COMELEC.   Verily,   the  
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC   prohibition   on   displaying   election   restriction   as   to   where   the   decals   and   stickers   should   be  
propaganda  on  moving  vehicles  is  constitutional.  NO.   posted   is   so   broad   that   it   encompasses   even   the   citizen's  
  private   property,   which   in   this   case   is   a   privately-­‐owned  
HELD:   vehicle.  
Prohibition  violates  citizen’s  right  to  free  speech     The   SC   said   that   this   was   a   violation   of   another  
  All   of   the   protections   expressed   in   the   Bill   of   Rights   are   Constitutional   right,   as   he   would   be   deprived   of   his   property  
important  but  we  have  accorded  to  free  speech  the  status  of  a   without  due  process  of  law.  While  the  COMELEC  will  certainly  
preferred  freedom. The   preferred   freedom   of   expression   never   require   the   absurd,   there   are   no   limits   to   what  
calls   all   the   more   for   the   utmost   respect   when   what   may   be   overzealous  and  partisan  police  officers,  armed  with  a  copy  of  
curtailed   is   the   dissemination   of   information   to   make   more   the  statute  or  regulation,  may  do.  
meaningful  the  equally  vital  right  of  suffrage.    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   127  
 
The  Constitutional  right  to  equal  opportunity  is  not  violated  by   time   of   radio   and   TV   stations   and   allocates   these   to   the  
the  posting  of  decals  on  cars  and  public  vehicles;     candidates.  
  The  constitutional  objective  to  give  a  rich  candidate  and  a    
poor   candidate   equal   opportunity   to   inform   the   electorate   as   b. SC  ruling  on  provision’s  ‘ineffectivity’.    
regards  their  candidacies  is  not  impaired  by  posting  decals  and     Assuming   that   rich   candidates   can   spend   for   parades,  
stickers   on   cars   and   other   private   vehicles.   Compared   to   the   rallies,  motorcades,  airplanes  and  the  like  in  order  to  campaign  
paramount   interest   of   the   State   in   guaranteeing   freedom   of   while   poor   candidates   can   only   afford   political   ads,   the   gap  
expression,  any  financial  considerations  behind  the  regulation   between   the   two   will   not   necessarily   be   reduced   by   allowing  
are  of  marginal  significance.   unlimited  mass  media  advertising  because  rich  candidates  can  
  The  Court  said  that  this  avenue  for  campaigning  requires   spend   for   other   propaganda   in   addition   to   mass   media  
the  consent  of  the  owner  of  the  vehicle.  Hence,  the  preference   advertising.  Moreover,  it  is  not  true  that  §11(b)  has  abolished  
of   the   citizen   becomes   crucial   in   this   kind   of   election   the  playing  field.  What  it  has  done,  as  already  stated,  is  merely  
propaganda   not   the   financial   resources   of   the   candidate.   to  regulate  its  use  through  COMELEC-­‐sponsored  advertising  in  
Whether   the   candidate   is   rich   and,   therefore,   can   afford   to   place   of   advertisements   paid   for   by   candidates   or   donated   by  
doleout   more   decals   and   stickers   or   poor   and   without   the   their  supporters.  
means   to   spread   out   the   same   number   of   decals   and   stickers   is    
not   as   important   as   the   right   of   the   owner   to   freely   express   his   c. “Nobody  listens  or  watches  COMELEC  time  anyway’  
choice  and  exercise  his  right  of  free  speech.     It   is   finally   argued   that   COMELEC   Space   and   COMELEC  
  Time   are   ineffectual.   It   is   claimed   that   people   hardly   read   or  
  watch   or   listen   to   them.   Again,   this   is   a   factual   assertion  
CASE:  OSMENA  v  COMELEC  (1998)   without  any  empirical  basis  to  support  it.  What  is  more,  it  is  an  
G.R.  No.  132231  March  31,  1998   assertion   concerning   the   adequacy   or   necessity   of   the   law  
EMILIO  M.  R.  OSMEÑA  and  PABLO  P.  GARCIA,  petitioners,    vs.  THE  COMMISSION  ON   which  should  be  addressed  to  Congress.  Well-­‐settled  is  the  rule  
ELECTIONS,  respondent.  
that   the   choice   of   remedies   for   an   admitted   social   malady  
 
requiring  government  action  belongs  to  Congress.  The  remedy  
FACTS:  
prescribed   by   it,   unless   clearly   shown   to   be   repugnant   to  
• In   the   1992   case   of   NPC   v   COMELEC,   the   SC   upheld   the  
fundamental   law,   must   be   respected.   As   shown   in   this   case,  
constitutionality  of  Section  11  (b)  of  RA  6646.    
§11(b)   of   R.A.   6646   is   a   permissible   restriction   on   the   freedom  
• In  1998,  Pres.  candidate  Osmena  and  Gov.  candidate  Garcia  filed  a   of  speech,  of  expression  and  of  the  press.  
petition   for   prohibition,   and   sought   a   reexamination   of   the   said  
 
provision.  
d. Purpose  of  Section  11b  is  regulation.  
• They   claimed   that   the   “ad   ban”   has   had   negative   and     The  main  purpose  of  §11(b)  is  regulatory.  Any  restriction  
disadvantageous  effects.  Since  the  poorer  candidates  cannot  buy   on  speech  is  only  incidental,  and  it  is  no  more  than  is  necessary  
ad   or   print   space,   their   wealthier   rivals   can   resort   to   other   to  achieve  its  purpose  of  promoting  equality  of  opportunity  in  
methods   of   campaigning   such   as   rallies,   parades,   handbills,   the  use  of  mass  media  for  political  advertising.  The  restriction  
planes,  and  boats.   on   speech,   as   pointed   out   in   NPC,   is   limited   both   as   to   time   and  
• They   claim   that   “instead   of   levelling   the   field,   Section   11   (b)   as  to  scope.  
abolished  it.”    
• While   Osmena   and   Garcia   do   not   claim   to   be   prejudiced   by   RA    
6646,  the  SC  took  the  opportunity  to  expound  on  the  points  made  
CASE:  TELEBAP  v  COMELEC  (1998)  
in  NPC  v  COMELEC.       G.R.  No.  132922  April  21,  1998  
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS  AND  BROADCAST  ATTORNEYS  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES,  INC.  
ISSUE:   WON   Section   11(b)   is   ineffective   since   it   does   not   really   and   GMA   NETWORK,   INC.,   petitioners,     vs.   THE   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,  
level  the  playing  field.  NO.   respondent.  
 
 
Summary:       Section   92   (free   air   time)   of   the   OEC   was   assailed   as  
HELD:  
unconstitutional   by   TELEBAP   and   GMA-­‐7   as   it   allegedly   amounted  
a. No  ad  ban,  but  merely  regulation.    
to  taking  without  just  compensation.  They  further  claimed  that  the  
  The  term  political  "ad  ban,"  when  used  to  describe  §11(b)  
law  was  biased  against  radio  and  TV  as  the  law  states  that  air  time  
of  R.A.  No.  6646,  is  misleading,  for  even  as  §11(b)  prohibits  the  
be   provided   for   free,   while   comelec   space   in   print   was   to   be   paid  
sale   or   donation   of   print   space   and   air   time   to   political  
for.  
candidates,   it   mandates   the   COMELEC   to   procure   and   itself  
 
allocate  to  the  candidates  space  and  time  in  the  media.  There  is  
FACTS:  
no  suppression  of  political  ads  but  only  a  regulation  of  the  time  
and  manner  of  advertising.   • Prelude:   TELEBAP’s   petition   was   dismissed   as   it   did   not   have  
  In   effect,   during   the   election   period,   the   COMELEC   takes   locus  standi.  
over   the   advertising   page   of   newspapers   or   the   commercial   • GMA   Network   assailed   the   constitutionality   of   Section   92   of   the  
Omnibus  Election  Code:    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   128  
 
Sec.   92.   Comelec   time.   —   The   commission   shall   procure     The   claim   that   GMA   stands   to   lose   millions   is   based   on   the  
radio  and  television  time  to  be  known  as  "Comelec  Time"   assumption   that   air   time   is   a   ‘finished   product,’   which   is  
which   shall   be   allocated   equally   and   impartially   among   company  property.  
the   candidates   within   the   area   of   coverage   of   all   radio   and     In   truth,   radio   and   television   broadcasting   companies,  
television   stations.   For   this   purpose,   the   franchise   of   all   which   are   given   franchises,   do   not   own   the   airwaves   and  
radio   broadcasting   and   television   stations   are   hereby   frequencies  through  which  they  transmit  broadcast  signals  and  
amended  so  as  to  provide  radio  or  television  time,  free  of   images.  They  are  merely  given  the  temporary  privilege  of  using  
charge,  during  the  period  of  the  campaign.   them.  Since  a  franchise  is  a  mere  privilege,  the  exercise  of  
  the   privilege   may   reasonably   be   burdened   with   the  
• While   Section   90   (COMELEC   print   space)   should   be   paid   for,   performance   by   the   grantee   of   some   form   of   public  
Section  92  states  that  air   time  procured  by  the  COMELEC  shall  be   service.  
free  of  charge.     All   broadcasting,   whether   by   radio   or   by   television  
• GMA7  claims  that  section  92  amounts  to  taking  without  payment   stations,   is   licensed   by   the   government.   Airwave   frequencies  
of  just  compensation.  Allegedly,  GMA  has  suffered  more  than  22m   have  to  be  allocated  as  there  are  more  individuals  who  want  to  
in  losses  due  to  the  free  air  space.   broadcast   than   there   are   frequencies   to   assign.   A   franchise   is  
  thus   a   privilege   subject,   among   other   things,   to   amended   by  
ISSUE:   WON  Section  92  which  mandates  broadcast  stations  to  give   Congress   in   accordance   with   the   constitutional   provision   that  
COMELEC  space  free  of  charge  is  constitutional.  YES.   "any   such   franchise   or   right   granted   .   .   .   shall   be   subject   to  
WON   there   is   a   substantial   distinction   between   print   and   broadcast   amendment,   alteration   or   repeal   by   the   Congress   when   the  
media  to  justify  the  different  treatment.  YES   common  good  so  requires.”  
   
HELD:   d. Broadcast  v  print  media:  broadcast  media  more  pervasive  
Summary  of  ruling:     From   another   point   of   view,   this   Court   has   also   held   that  
  All   broadcasting,   whether   by   radio   or   by   television   because   of   the   unique   and   pervasive   influence   of   the   broadcast  
stations,   is   licensed   by   the   government.   Airwave   frequencies   have   media,   "necessarily   .   .   .   the   freedom   of   television   and   radio  
to  be  allocated  as  there  are  more  individuals  who  want  to  broadcast   broadcasting   is   somewhat   lesser   in   scope   than   the   freedom  
than  there  are  frequencies  to  assign.     accorded  to  newspaper  and  print  media.”  
  There   is   thus   a   give   and   take   relationship.   The   State   lets     The   broadcast   media   have   also   established   a   uniquely  
the   station   broadcast,   while   the   station   lets   the   State   have   its   pervasive  presence  in  the  lives  of  all  Filipinos.  Newspapers  and  
30mins  of  COMELEC  space.   current  books  are  found  only  in  metropolitan  areas  and  in  the  
  poblaciones   of   municipalities   accessible   to   fast   and   regular  
a. Objective  of  the  provision:  the  common  good   transportation.  
Art.   XII,   §11   of   the   Constitution   authorizes   the   amendment   of    
franchises  for  "the  common  good."  What  better  measure  can  be   e. Regulation  of  franchises  during  election  linked  to  people’s  
conceived  for  the  common  good  than  one  for  free  air  time  for   freedom  of  information  
the  benefit  not  only  of  candidates  but  even  more  of  the  public,     More   than   merely   depriving   candidates   of   time   for   their  
particularly  the  voters,  so  that  they  will  be  fully  informed  of  the   ads,  the  failure  of  broadcast  stations  to  provide  air  time  unless  
issues  in  an  election?  It  is  the  right  of  the  viewers  and  listeners,   paid   by   the   government   would   clearly   deprive   the   people   of  
not  the  right  of  the  broadcasters,  which  is  paramount.     their   right   to   know.   Art   III,   §7   of   the   Constitution   provides   that  
  "the   right   of   the   people   to   information   on   matters   of   public  
b. Does   the   power   of   the   COMELEC   under   Art.   9C.4   include   concern  shall  be  recognized,"  while  Art.  XII,  §6  states  that  "the  
the  power  to  prohibit?  YES   use  of  property  bears  a  social  function  [and]  the  right  to  own,  
  Under  the  Constitution,  the  COMELEC  is  given  the  broader   establish,  and  operate  economic  enterprises  [is]  subject  to  the  
powers   to   supervise   or   regulate   the   use   of   media   by   duty   of   the   State   to   promote   distributive   justice   and   to  
information.   intervene  when  the  common  good  so  demands."  
  Under   RA   6646,   it   is   the   Congress   (not   the   COMELEC)    
which   prohibited   the   sale   or   donation   of   print/air   space   for   f. Broadcast  companies  have  social  duty;    
political  ads.       To   affirm   the   validity   of   §92   of   B.P.   Blg.   881   is   to   hold  
  public   broadcasters   to   their   obligation   to   see   to   it   that   the  
In   other   words,   the   object   of   supervision   or   regulation   is   variety   and   vigor   of   public   debate   on   issues   in   an   election   is  
different   from   the   object   of   the   prohibition.   GMA   cannot   maintained.  For  while  broadcast  media  are  not  mere  common  
claim   that   the   power   of   the   COMELEC   does   not   include   the   carriers   but   entities   with   free   speech   rights,   they   are   also  
power  to  prohibit.   public   trustees   charged   with   the   duty   of   ensuring   that   the  
  people  have  access  to  the  diversity  of  views  on  political  issues.  
c. Airtime  is  not  a  product;  licensed  by  the  Government   This   right   of   the   people   is   paramount   to   the   autonomy   of  
broadcast  media.    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   129  
 
  To   affirm   the   validity   of   §92,   therefore,   is   likewise   to   cannot   undermine   those   of   the   elections,   since   the   former   is  
uphold   the   people's   right   to   information   on   matters   of   public   only  part  of  the  latter.  If  at  all,  the  outcome  of  one  can  only  be  
concern.   The   use   of   property   bears   a   social   function   and   is   indicative  of  the  other.  
subject   to   the   state's   duty   to   intervene   for   the   common   good.    
Broadcast  media  can  find  their  just  and  highest  reward  in  the   c. What  can  the  COMELEC  do?  
fact   that   whatever   altruistic   service   they   may   render   in     For   instance,   a   specific   limited   area   for   conducting   exit  
connection   with   the   holding   of   elections   is   for   that   common   polls  may  be  designated.  Only  professional  survey  groups  may  
good.   be   allowed   to   conduct   the   same.   Pollsters   may   be   kept   at   a  
  reasonable   distance   from   the   voting   center.   They   may   be  
  required   to   explain   to   voters   that   the   latter   may   refuse  
CASE:  ABS-­‐CBN  v  COMELEC  (2000)   interviewed,   and   that   the   interview   is   not   part   of   the   official  
[G.R.  No.  133486.  January  28,  2000]   balloting   process.   The   pollsters   may   further   be   required   to  
ABS-­‐CBN   BROADCASTING   CORPORATION,   petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   wear  distinctive  clothing  that  would  show  they  are  not  election  
ELECTIONS,  respondent.  
officials.   Additionally,   they   may   be   required   to   undertake   an  
 
information   campaign   on   the   nature   of   the   exercise   and   the  
FACTS:  
results   to   be   obtained   therefrom.   These   measures,   together  
• During   the   1998   elections,   the   COMELEC   received   reports   that  
with   a   general   prohibition   of   disruptive   behavior,   could   ensure  
ABS-­‐CBN   was   planning   to   conduct   an   exit   poll   survey   for   the  
a  clean,  safe  and  orderly  election.  
national  positions  of  President  and  VPres.    
 
• The   COMELEC   believed   that   this   exit   poll   survey   might   conflict  
 
with  the  official  COMELEC  quick  count,  and  NAMFREL’s  unofficial  
 
count.    
   
• On   April   21,   1998,   the   COMELEC   issued   a   Resolution   where   it  
approved  the  issuance  of  a  restraining  order  to  stop  ABS-­‐CBN   (as  
well  as  other  media  groups)  from  conducting  such  a  survey.  
• The   SC   granted   ABS’   prayer   for   a   TRO.   Thus,   the   exit   poll   count  
was  conducted  without  any  problems.    
 
ISSUE:   WON   the   COMELEC’s   Resolution   to   prohibit   exit   polls   is  
valid.  NO.  
 
HELD:  
a. Exit  poll:  definition.  
  An   exit   poll   is   a   species   of   electoral   survey   conducted   by  
qualified  individuals  or  groups  of  individuals  for  the  purpose  of  
determining  the  probable  result  of  an  election  by  confidentially  
asking   randomly   selected   voters   whom   they   have   voted   for,  
immediately   after   they   have   officially   cast   their   ballots.   The  
results   of   the   survey   are   announced   to   the   public,   usually  
through  the  mass  media,  to  give  an  advance  overview  of  how,  
in   the   opinion   of   the   polling   individuals   or   organizations,   the  
electorate  voted.  
 
b. Exit   polls   do   not   affect   the   validity   and   credibility   of  
elections.  
  Such   arguments   are   purely   speculative   and   clearly  
untenable.   First,   by   the   very   nature   of   a   survey,   the  
interviewees  or  participants  are  selected  at  random,  so  that  the  
results  will  as  much  as  possible  be  representative  or  reflective  
of   the   general   sentiment   or   view   of   the   community   or   group  
polled.  Second,  the  survey  result  is  not  meant  to  replace  or  be  
at  par  with  the  official  Comelec  count.  It  consists  merely  of  the  
opinion  of  the  polling  group  as  to  who  the  electorate  in  general  
has   probably   voted   for,   based   on   the   limited   data   gathered  
from   polled   individuals.   Finally,   not   at   stake   here   are   the  
credibility   and   the   integrity   of   the   elections,   which   are  
exercises   that   are   separate   and   independent   from   the   exit  
polls.  The  holding  and  the  reporting  of  the  results  of  exit  polls  
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   130  
 
SET  12  -­‐  ELIGIBILITY  OF  CANDIDATES  UNDER   CASE:    Frivaldo  v  COMELEC  (1989)  
THE  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  CODE   G.R.  No.  87193  June  23,  1989  
JUAN   GALLANOSA   FRIVALDO,   petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON  
 
ELECTIONS  AND  THE  LEAGUE  OF  MUNICIPALITIES,  SORSOGON  
QUALIFICATIONS  FOR  ELECTIVE  OFFICIALS  
CHAPTER,   HEREIN   REPRESENTED   BY   ITS   PRESIDENT,  
Section  39.  Qualifications.  -­‐  
SALVADOR  NEE  ESTUYE,  respondents.  
a) An   elective   local   official   must   be   a   citizen   of   the  
 
Philippines;   a   registered   voter   in   the   barangay,  
FACTS:  
municipality,  city,  or  province  or,  in  the  case  of  a  member  
of   the   sangguniang   panlalawigan,   sangguniang   • In  1988,  Juan  Frivaldo  won  as  the  governor  of  Sorsogon.    
panlungsod,   or   sangguniang   bayan,   the   district   where   he   • After   Frivaldo   was   proclaimed   and   began   assuming   his   functions,  
intends  to  be  elected;  a  resident  therein  for  at  least  one  (1)   the   President   of   the   League   of   Municipalities   Salvador   Estuye  
year   immediately   preceding   the   day   of   the   election;   and   filed   a   petition  for  the  annulment  of  election  and  proclamation  on  
able   to   read   and   write   Filipino   or   any   other   local   language   the  grounds  that  Frivaldo  was  not  a  Filipino  citizen.  
or  dialect.   • Apparently,   Frivaldo   was   naturalized   as   an   American   in   1983,  
b) Candidates  for  the  position  of  governor,  vice-­‐governor,  or   and   did   not   reacquire   his   PHL   citizenship   on   the   day   of   the  
member  of  the  sangguniang  panlalawigan,  or  mayor,  vice-­‐ elections.  
mayor   or   member   of   the   sangguniang   panlungsod   of   • In   his   defense,   Frivaldo   calims   that   his   naturalization   was   not  
highly   urbanized   cities   must   be   at   least   twenty-­‐one   (21)   ‘impressed   with   voluntariness’   since   he   only   sought  
years  of  age  on  election  day.   naturalization   to   protect   himself   from   the   dictator   Marcos.   He  
c) Candidates   for   the   position   of   mayor   or   vice-­‐mayor   of   claims   that   the   filing   of   his   COC   should   be   asufficient   to   renounce  
independent   component   cities,   component   cities,   or   his  foreign  citizesnhip.Frivaldo’s  other  defenses:  
municipalities   must   be   at   least   twenty-­‐one   (21)   years   of   -­‐ The   Special   Committee   on   Naturalization   was   not   yet  
age  on  election  day.   consittuted  when  he  returned  to  the  country  
d) Candidates  for  the  position  of  member  of  the  sangguniang   -­‐ He  participated  in  the  elections,  thus  effectiely  renouncing  
panlungsod   or   sangguniang   bayan   must   be   at   least   his  US  citizenship  under  US  law  
eighteen  (18)  years  of  age  on  election  day.   • Frivaldo   also   claims   that   the   petition   should   be   dismissed   as,  
e) Candidates   for   the   position   of   punong   barangay   or   being  a  petition  quo  warranto,  it  should  have  been  filed  within  10  
member   of   the   sangguniang   barangay   must   be   at   least   days  from  his  proclamation.    
eighteen  (18)  years  of  age  on  election  day.    
f) Candidates  for  the  sangguniang  kabataan  must  be  at  least   ISSUE:  WON  Frivaldo’s  disqualification  was  proper.  YES  
fifteen   (15)   years   of   age   but   not   more   than   twenty-­‐one    
(21)  years  of  age  on  election  day.   HELD:  
  Frivaldo   did   not   re-­‐acquire   his   PHL   citizenship   through  
GROUNDS  FOR  DISQUALIFICATION   methods  provided  by  law  
Section   40.   Disqualifications.   -­‐   The   following   persons   are   Under   CA   No.   63   as   amended   by   CA   No.   473   and   PD   No.   725,  
disqualified  from  running  for  any  elective  local  position:     Philippine   citizenship   may   be   reacquired   by   direct   act   of  
  Congress,  by  naturalization,  or  by  repatriation.  Frivaldo  failed  to  
a) Those   sentenced   by   final   judgment   for   an   offense   prove  he  availed  of  these  methods.    
involving  moral  turpitude  or  for  an  offense  punishable  by    
one   (1)   year   or   more   of   imprisonment,   within   two   (2)   The   SC   said   that   they   will   not   permit   the   anomaly   of   a   person  
years  after  serving  sentence;   sitting   as   provincial   governor   in   this   country   while   owing  
b) Those  removed  from  office  as  a  result  of  an  administrative   exclusive  allegiance  to  another  country.  
case;    
c) Those  convicted  by  final  judgment  for  violating  the  oath  of   ! The  SC  upheld  Frivaldo’s  DQ  and  ordered  him  to  vacate  the  
allegiance  to  the  Republic;   office  
d)  Those  with  dual  citizenship;    
e) Fugitives   from   justice   in   criminal   or   non-­‐political   cases   On  Frivaldo’s  ‘forced’  naturalization  
here  or  abroad;     Frivaldo’s   feeble   suggestion   that   his   naturalization   was  
f)  Permanent   residents   in   a   foreign   country   or   those   who   not   the   result   of   his   own   free   and   voluntary   choice   is   totally  
have   acquired   the   right   to   reside   abroad   and   continue   to   unacceptable  and  must  be  rejected  outright.    
avail   of   the   same   right   after   the   effectivity   of   this   Code;     There   were   many   other   Filipinos   in   the   United   States  
and   similarly   situated   as   Frivaldo,   and   some   of   them   subject   to  
g) The  insane  or  feeble-­‐minded.   greater   risk   than   he,   who   did   not   find   it   necessary   —   nor   do   they  
  claim  to  have  been  coerced  —  to  abandon  their  cherished  status  
Notes:   read   in   connection   with   RA   8189   re:   how   diqualifications   as   Filipinos.   The   martyred   Ninoy   Aquino   heads   the   impressive  
removed.     list   of   those   Filipinos   in   exile   who,   unlike   Frivaldo,   held   fast   to  
 
   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   131  
 
their   Philippine   citizenship   despite   the   perils   of   their   resistance   CASE:    Republic  v  dela  Rosa  (1994)  
to  the  Marcos  regime.   G.R.  No.  104654  June  6,  1994  
    REPUBLIC   OF   THE   PHILIPPINES,   petitioner,     vs.   HON.   ROSALIO   G.   DE   LA   ROSA,  
PRESIDING   JUDGE   OF   THE   REGIONAL   TRIAL   COURT,   BRANCH   28,   MANILA   and  
Filing  of  COC  does  not  confer  citizenship   JUAN  G.  FRIVALDO,  respondents.  
Frivaldo  contends  that  by  simply  filing  his  certificate  of  candidacy    
he   had   already   effectively   recovered   Philippine   citizenship.   But   G.R.  No.  105715  June  6,  1994  
that  is  hardly  the  formal  declaration  the  law  envisions  —  surely,   RAUL   R.   LEE,   petitioner,    vs.  COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   JUAN   G.   FRIVALDO,  
respondents.  
Philippine   citizenship   previously   disowned   is   not   that    
cheaply   recovered.   If   the   Special   Committee   had   not   yet   been   G.R.  No.  105735  June  6,  1994    
convened,  what  that  meant  simply  was  that  the  petitioner  had  to   RAUL   R.   LEE,   petitioner,    vs.  COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and   JUAN   G.   FRIVALDO,  
respondents.  
wait   until   this   was   done,   or   seek   naturalization   by   legislative   or    
judicial  proceedings.   FACTS:  
  • After   the   decision   of   the   Court   in   Frivaldo   v   COMELEC,   Frivaldo  
Frivaldo   did   not   reacquire   PHL   citizenship   by   participating   in   filed  a  petition  with  the  RTC  to  be  re-­‐admitted  as  a  citizen  of  the  
our  elections   Philippines.     Frivaldo   intended   to   run   again   as   Governor   in   the  
Frivaldo   claims   that   by   actively   participating   in   the   elections   in   1992  elections.  
this   country,   he   automatically   forfeited   American   citizenship  
• The  judge  set  the  hearing  for  March  16,  1992.  However,  Frivaldo  
under  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  Such  laws  do  not  concern  us  
requested   that   the   hearing   be   moved   earlier,   since   the   deadline  
here.   The   alleged   forfeiture   is   between   him   and   the   United   States  
for   filing   COCs   is   on   March   16.   The   judge   granted   his   request.  
as   his   adopted   country.   It   should   be   obvious   that   even   if   he   did   However,  the  moving  of  the  hearing  date  was  not  published  nor  
lose  his  naturalized  American  citizenship,  such  forfeiture  did  not   posted.  
and   could   not   have   the   effect   of   automatically   restoring   his  
• During  the  hearing,  Frivaldo  was  the  only  witness.    
citizenship   in   the   Philippines   that   he   had   earlier   renounced.   At  
• Judge  dela  Rosa  later  issued  a  Decision  readmitting  Frivaldo  as  a  
best,   what   might   have   happened   as   a   result   of   the   loss   of   his  
citizen  of  the  Philippines.  On  the  same  day,  Frivaldo  was  allowed  
naturalized  citizenship  was  that  he  became  a  stateless  individual.  
to  take  his  oath  of  allegiance.  
 
Petition  not  filed  out  of  time   • The  SolGen  appealed  this  decision,  claiming  that  the  proceedings  
were  tainted  with  jurisdictional  defects:  
  Evidence  of  Frivaldo’s  naturalization  was  obtained  only  8  
months   after   his   assumption   of   office,   and   the   petition   was   filed   -­‐ The  resetting  of  the  date  of  hearing  was  not  published  
shortly  after.   -­‐ The   petition   was   hear   within   6   months   from   the   last  
publication  of  the  petition  
  Frivaldo   was   being   prevented   from   continuing   to  
discharge   his   office   of   governor   because   he   is   disqualified   from   -­‐ Frivaldo  was  allowed  to  take  his  oath  of  allegiance  before  
the  finality  of  judgment  
doing   so   as   a   foreigner.   Qualifications   for   public   office   are  
continuing   requirements   and   must   be   possessed   not   only   at   the   -­‐ Frivaldo  took  his  oath  of  allegiance  without  observing  the  
2yr  waiting  period  
time   of   appointment   or   election   or   assumption   of   office   but  
during   the   officer's   entire   tenure.   Once   any   of   the   required   • In   his   defense,   Frivaldo   claims   that   while   the   procedure   under  
qualifications  is  lost,  his  title  may  be  seasonably  challenged.   the  Revised  Naturalization  Law  was  not  perfectly  followed,  there  
  was   still   substantial   compliance   with   the   law.   Furthermore,   he  
  claims   that   the   2yr   waiting   period   before   taking   the   oath   of  
Election  did  not  cure  defect   allegiance   could   be   dispensed   with   since   the   public   already  
  The   fact   that   he   was   elected   by   the   people   of   Sorsogon   knows  him.  
does  not  excuse  this  patent  violation  of  the  salutary  rule  limiting   • Meanwhile,  Frivaldo  again  won  in  the  elections.  
public  office  and  employment  only  to  the  citizens  of  this  country.   • A  petition  to  annul  Frivaldo’s  proclamation  was  later  filed  on  the  
The  qualifications  prescribed  for  elective  office  cannot  be  erased   basis  of  3  grounds:  
by   the   electorate   alone.   The   will   of   the   people   as   expressed   -­‐ The  proceedings  and  composition  of  the  PBOC  were  not  in  
through  the  ballot  cannot  cure  the  vice  of  ineligibility,  especially   accordance  with  law  
if  they  mistakenly  believed,  as  in  this  case,  that  the  candidate  was   -­‐ The   grant   of   PHL   citizenship   was   not   yet   final,   thus  
qualified.   Frivaldo  should  be  disqualified  for  being  an  alien  
  If   a   person   seeks   to   serve   in   the   Republic   of   the   -­‐ That  Frivaldo  was  not  a  registered  voter.  
Philippines,   he   must   owe   his   total   loyalty   to   this   country   only,   • The   COMELEC   en   banc   dismissed   the   petition   for   having   been  
abjuring  and  renouncing  all  fealty  and  fidelity  to  any  other  state.   filed   outside   3   day   period   for   questioning   the   proceedings   and  
  composition  of  the  BOC  under  Section  19  of  RA  7166.  
 
 
ISSUE:   WON  Frivaldo  was  duly  readmitted  as  a  citizen  of  the  PHL.  
NO    
WON  the  petition  to  annul  Frivaldo’s  proclamation  was  filed  out  of  
time.  NO,  as  it  should  be  considered  a  petition  quo  warranto  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   132  
 
HELD:   Omnibus   Election   Code.   Furthermore,   we   explained   that  
RTC   did   not   obtain   jurisdiction   for   failure   to   observe   the   "qualifications  for  public  office  are  continuing  requirements  and  
publication   and   posting   requirements   under   the   Revised   must   be   possessed   not   only   at   the   time   of   appointment   or  
Naturalization  Law   election   or   assumption   of   office   but   during   the   officer’s   entire  
Frivaldo,   having   opted   to   reacquire   Philippine   citizenship   thru   tenure;   once   any   of   the   required   qualification   is   lost,   his   title   may  
naturalization   under   the   Revised   Naturalization   Law,   is   duty   be  seasonably  challenged."  
bound   to   follow   the   procedure   prescribed   by   the   said   law.   It   is    
not   for   an   applicant   to   decide   for   himself   and   to   select   the    
requirements   which   he   believes,   even   sincerely,   are   applicable   to   CASE:    Frivaldo  v  COMELEC  (1996)  
his  case  and  discard  those  which  he  believes  are  inconvenient  or   G.R.  No.  120295  June  28,  1996  
merely  of  nuisance  value.   JUAN   G.   FRIVALDO,   petitioner,  vs.  COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   and   RAUL   R.   LEE,  
  Under   Section   9   of   the   said   law,   both   the   petition   for   respondents.  
 
naturalization   and   the   order   setting   it   for   hearing   must   be  
FACTS:  
published   once   a   week   for   three   consecutive   weeks   in   the   Official  
Gazette  and  a  newspaper  of  general  circulation.     • On   August   17,   1994,   Frivaldo   filed   an   application   to   be  
  repatriated   under   PD   725   with   the   Special   Committee   on  
Frivaldo’s  petition  itself  is  defective   Naturalization.  
  Frivaldo’s   petition   for   naturalization   lacks   several   • In   March   1995,   Frivaldo   filed   a   COC   to   run   as   Governor   of  
allegations   required   by   Sections   2   and   6   of   the   Revised   Sorsogon  (his  third  time  running).  
Naturalization   Law,   particularly:   (1)   that   the   petitioner   is   of   good   • Shortly  after,  rival  Lee  filed  a  petition  praying  for  Frivaldo’s  DQ  as  
moral   character;   (2)   that   he   resided   continuously   in   the   Frivaldo   was   not   yet   a   PHL   citizen.   The   2nd   Div   disqualified  
Philippines  for  at  least  ten  years;  (3)  that  he  is  able  to  speak  and   Frivaldo.  
write   English   and   any   one   of   the   principal   dialects;   (4)   that   he   • Frivaldo   filed   a   MFR,   which   remained   unacted   upon   until   after  
will   reside   continuously   in   the   Philippines   from   the   date   of   the   the  elections.  Thus,  his  candidacy  continued,  and  again,  Frivaldo  
filing  of  the  petition  until  his  admission  to  Philippine  citizenship;   won  the  elections.  Raul  Lee  placed  second.  
and   (5)   that   he   has   filed   a   declaration   of   intention   or   if   he   is   • In   June,   both   Frivaldo   and   Lee   filed   petitions   that   they   be  
excused  from  said  filing,  the  justification  therefor.   proclaimed  Governor.    
  Likewise,   the   petition   is   not   supported   by   the   affidavit   of   • The   COMELEC   ordered   the   PBOC   to   reconvene   and   consequently,  
at   least   two   credible   persons   who   vouched   for   the   good   moral   on  830pm  of  June  30  1995,  Lee  was  proclaimed  winner.  
character   of   private   respondent   as   required   by   Section   7   of   the   • Frivaldo  claims  that  on  2pm  of  June  30,  1995,  he  took  his  oath  of  
Revised   Naturalization   Law.   Private   respondent   also   failed   to   allegiance   after   his   petition   for   naturalization   was   granted   by   the  
attach   a   copy   of   his   certificate   of   arrival   to   the   petition   as   Special   Committee.   Thus,   he   should   have   been   proclaimed  
required  by  Section  7  of  the  said  law.   instead  of  Lee  as  no  legal  impediment  no  longer  existed.  
    Timeline:  
Purpose  of  the  2  year  period   August   17   1994   –   Frivaldo   files   application   with   Special  
Section   1   of   R.A.   No.   530   provides   that   no   decision   granting   Committee    
citizenship  in  naturalization  proceedings  shall  be  executory  until   May  8  1995  –  provincial  election  
after   two   years   from   its   promulgation   in   order   to   be   able   to   June  30  1995,  2pm  –  Frivaldo  takes  his  oath  of  allegiance  
observe  if:     June  30  1995,  830pm  –  Lee  is  proclaimed  
(1) the  applicant  has  left  the  country;     • Frivaldo   filed   a   petition   with   the   COMELEC   praying   for   the  
(2) the   applicant   has   dedicated   himself   continuously   to   a   annulment  of  Lee’s  proclamation.  
lawful  calling  or  profession;     • The   COMELEC   1st   Div   ruled   in   favor   of   Frivaldo   and   annulled  
(3) the   applicant   has   not   been   convicted   of   any   offense   or   Lee’s  proclamation.    
violation  of  government  promulgated  rules;  and     • Lee   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   claiming   that   the   COMELEC  
(4) the   applicant   has   committed   any   act   prejudicial   to   the   erred  in  ruling  that  Frivaldo’s  repatration  had  retroactive  effect.  
interest   of   the   country   or   contrary   to   government   Lee  also  claimed  that  the  repatriation  proceedings  were  unfairly  
announced  policies.   sped  up  in  favor  of  Frivaldo.  
   
The   petition   to   annul   proclamation   should   be   considered   as   a   ISSUE:  WON  Frivaldo  was  qualified  to  run  as  Governor  for  the  1995  
petiiton  quo  warranto;  not  filed  out  of  time   elections.  YES,  his  repatriation  is  given  retroactive  effect  
  The  petition  for  Frivaldo’s  DQ  to  be  proclaimed  Governor   When   should   the   candidate   comply   with   citizenship   requirement?  
on  grounds  of  his  lack  of  PHL  citizenship  is  really  a  petition  quo   At  the  time  of  proclamation  
warranto.      
  The   Court   has   held   that   a   petition   for   quo   warranto,  
questioning  Frivaldo’s  title  and  seeking  to  prevent  him  from  
holding   office   as   Governor   for   alienage,   is   not   covered   by   the  
ten-­‐day   period   for   appeal   prescribed   in   Section   253   of   the  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   133  
 
HELD:   “…the   electorate   fully   aware   in   fact   and   in   law   of   a  
Frivaldo’s   repatriation   retroacted   to   the   date   of   filing   his   candidate's   disqualification   so   as   to   bring   such   awareness  
application   within   the   realm   of   notoriety,   would   nonetheless   cast   their  
  The   repatriation   granted   under   PD   725   to   Frivaldo   on   votes   in   favor   of   the   ineligible   candidate.   In   such   case,   the  
June   30,   1995   is   to   be   deemed   to   have   retroacted   to   the   date   of   electorate   may   be   said   to   have   waived   the   validity   and  
his   application   therefor,   August   17,   1994.   This   is   in   order   to   efficacy   of   their   votes   by   notoriously   misapplying   their  
benefit  the  greatest  number  of  former  Filipinos  possible  thereby   franchise   or   throwing   away   their   votes,   in   which   case,   the  
enabling   them   to   enjoy   and   exercise   the   constitutionally   eligible   candidate   obtaining   the   next   higher   number   of   votes  
guaranteed   right   of   citizenship.   Furthermore,   there   is   no   may  be  deemed  elected.”  
legislative  intent  to  the  contrary.    
  Being   a   former   Filipino   who   has   served   the   people   However,   it   was   not   proven   that   the   electorate   of   Sorsogon   was  
repeatedly,   Frivaldo   deserves   a   liberal   interpretation   of   "fully   aware   in   fact   and   in   law"   of   Frivaldo's   alleged  
Philippine   laws   and   whatever   defects   there   were   in   his   disqualification   as   to   "bring   such   awareness   within   the   realm   of  
nationality  should  now  be  deemed  mooted  by  his  repatriation.   notoriety;"   in   other   words,   that   the   voters   intentionally   wasted  
  Since   Frivaldo   re-­‐assumed   his   citizenship   on   June   30,   their   ballots   knowing   that,   in   spite   of   their   voting   for   him,   he   was  
1995   -­‐-­‐   the   very   day   the   term   of   office   of   governor   (and   other   ineligible  
elective   officials)   began   -­‐-­‐   he   was   therefore   already   qualified   to    
be  proclaimed,  to  hold  such  office  and  to  discharge  the  functions    
and  responsibilities  thereof  as  of  said  date.  In  short,  at  that  time,   CASE:    Marquez  v  COMELEC  (1995)  
he  was  already  qualified  to  govern  his  native  Sorsogon.   G.R.  No.  112889  April  18,  1995  
  Thus,   Frivaldo’s   registration   as   voter   also   benefits   from   BIENVENIDO   O.   MARQUEZ,   JR.,   petitioner,     vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and  
this  retroactivity.   EDUARDO  T.  RODRIGUEZ,  respondents.  
 
 
FACTS:  
Candidate   should   possess   the   required   citizenship   at   the   time  
of  proclamation   • Marquez   and   Rodriguez   were   candidates   for   the   position   of  
Qualifications  under  the  LGC  should  be  possessed  when  the  official   Governor  during  the  1992  Quezon  Province  elections.    
begins   to   govern   –   that   is,   at   the   time   he   is   proclaimed   and   at   the   • Before   the   elections,   a   petition   for   cancellation   of   COC   was   filed  
start  of  his  term.  Reasons:   against  Rodriguez  on  the  ground  of  Sec.  40  (e)  which  disqualifies  
1. Section   39   speaks   of   Qualifications   of   ELECTIVE   fugitives   from   justice   from   running   for   any   local   government  
OFFICIALS,  not  candidates   post.  
2. The  remedy  of  quo  warranto  is  only  available  10  days   • It   was   alleged   when   Rodriguez   filed   his   COC,   there   ws   already   a  
after   the   proclamation   of   the   contested   official,   criminal   charge   against   him   for   10   counts   of   insurance   fraud   /  
precisely  because  it  is  only   at   such   time   that  the  issue   grand   theft   of   personal   property   pending   before   a   municipal  
of   ineligibility   may   be   taken   cognizance   of   by   the   court  in  Los  Angeles,  USA.  
Commission.   • Around   this   time,   Rodriguez   beat   Marquez   and   was   subsequently  
  proclaimed  Governor.  
PD   725   may   be   given   retroactive   effect   since   it   is   a   curative   • The   COMELEC   however,   dismissed   this   petition,   since   at   the   time  
statute   of   filing,   Rodriguez   had   already   been   proclaimed.   The   proper  
  By   their   very   nature,   curative   statutes   are   retroactive,   action   therefore   now   was   a   petition   for   quo   warranto,   said   the  
since   they   are   intended   to   supply   defects,   abridge   superfluities   in   COMELEC.  
existing  laws  and  curb  certain  evils.     • Thus,   Marquez   filed   a   petition   quo   warranto.   The   COMELEC  
  In   this   case,   P.D.   No.   725   was   enacted   to   cure   the   defect   in   however,  dismissed  this  petition  and  Marquez’  subsequent  MFRs.  
the   existing   naturalization   law,   specifically   C.A.   No.   63   wherein   The   basis   for   this   dismissal   was   apparently   Article   73   of   the  
married  Filipino  women  are  allowed  to  repatriate  only  upon  the   Rules   and   Regulations   promulgated   by   the   Oversight  
death  of  their  husbands,  and  natural-­‐born  Filipinos  who  lost  their   Committee,   which   states   that   the   term   fugitive   from   justice  
citizenship   by   naturalization   and   other   causes   faced   the   difficulty   contemplates   only   those   who   have   been   convicted   by   funal  
of  undergoing  the  rigid  procedures  of  C.A.  63  for  reacquisition  of   judgment.    
Filipino  citizenship  by  naturalization.   • Arquez   then   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   with   the   SC,   claiming  
  Presidential   Decree   No.   725   provided   a   remedy   for   the   that   even   though   the   criminal   charges   against   Rodriguez   was  
aforementioned   legal   aberrations   and   thus   its   provisions   are   instituted   in   another   country,   he   still   comes   within   the   ambit   of  
considered  essentially  remedial  and  curative.   Sec  40  (e).  
   
Lee’s  proclamation  void   ISSUE:   WON   a   candidate   for   a   local   elective   office   may   be  
Lee   invokes   the   ruling   in   Labo   v   COMELEC,   where   a   candidate   disqualified   under   Sec   40   (e)   when   the   ciriminal   charges   against  
who   did   not   receive   the   highest   number   of   votes   may   be   him  are  filed  in  a  foreign  court.    The  SC  didn’t  say.    
proclaimed  in  the  event  that  the  winner  is  DQd  if:  
 

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   134  
 
! SC   remanded   the   case   back   to   COMELEC   to   decide   impossible   for   Rodriguez   to   have   known   about   such   felony  
WON  Rodriguez  is  a  ‘fugitive’  since  this  is  apparently   complaint  and  arrest  warrant  at  the  time  he  left  the  US,  as  there  
a  factual  matter  that  the  COMELEC  must  decide  (???)   was   in   fact   no   complaint   and   arrest   warrant   —   much   less  
    conviction  —  to  speak  of  yet  at  such  time.  
    The   criminal   process   of   the   United   States   extends   only  
SEQUEL  CASE:    Rodriguez  v  COMELEC  (1996)     within  its  territorial  jurisdiction.    That  Rodrigeuz  has  already  left  
[G.R.  No.  120099.    July  24,  1996]   said   country   when   the   latter   sought   to   subject   him   to   its   criminal  
EDUARDO   T.   RODRIGUEZ,  petitioner,  vs.  COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS,   BIENVENIDO   process   is   hardly   petitioner's   fault.     In   the   absence   of   an   intent   to  
O.  MARQUEZ,  JR.,  respondents.  
evade  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  petitioner  had  every  right  to  
 
depart  therefrom  at  the  precise  time  that  he  did  and  to  return  to  
FACTS:  
the   Philippines.     No   justifiable   reason   existed   to   curtail   or   fetter  
• In   the   earlier   case   (GR   112889),   the   COMELEC   defined   “fugitive   Rodriguez’   exercise   of   his   right   to   leave   the   United   State   and  
from   justice’     as   including   “not   only   those   who   flee   after   return   home.     Hence,   sustaining   the   contrary   proposition   would  
conviction  to  avoid  punishment  but  likewise  those  who,  after   be  to  unduly  burden  and  punish  him  for  exercising  a  right  as  he  
being  charged,  flee  to  avoid  prosecution.”  (MARQUEZ  case)   cannot  be  faulted  for  the  circumstances  that  brought  him  within  
• Later   in   the   1995   elections,   Rodriguez   and   Marquez   again   ran   Philippine   territory   at   the   time   he   was   sought   to   be   placed   under  
against   each   other.     This   time,   Marquez   filed   a   petition   fro   arrest  and  to  answer  for  charges  filed  against  him.  
disqualification    against  Rodriguez.  However,  Marquez  lost.    
• The   COMELEC   promulgated   a   resolution   resolving   the   pending   Effect   of   later   knowledge;   May   Rodriguez   be   compelled   to  
quo   warranto   and   DQ   cases   against   Rodriguez.   The   COMELEC   return  to  the  US  to  face  the  charges?  NO  
ruled   against   Rodriguez,     finding   him   indeed   to   be   a   fugitive   from     Only   a   person   who   is   aware   of   the   imminent   filing   of  
justice,  and  ordered  him  to  vacate  the  Governor  office.   charges   against   him   or   of   the   same   already   filed   in   connection  
• However,  after  motions  by  Rodriguez,  the  COMELEC  re-­‐evaluated   with  acts  he  committed  in  the  jurisdiction  of  a  particular  state,  is  
the   evidence   and   made   a   180-­‐degree   turnaround   and   this   time   under  an  obligation  not  to  flee  said  place  of  commission.  
ruled   that   since   intent   to   evade   was   not   present   in   Rodriguez’     Even  if  Rodriguez  later  knew  about  the  charges  (in  fact  his  
case,  he  could  not  be  considered  a  fugitive  from  justice.     wife   was   arrested)   he   cannot   be   compelled   to   return   to   the  
• Intent   to   evade   was   absent   because   Rodriguez   presented   jurisdiction   of   the   US   since,   precisely,   he   did   not   know   of   the  
additional   evidence   that   he   left   the   US   five   months   before   the   charges  when  he  left.  
criminal   charges   before   him   were   filed   before   the   Los   Angeles    
Court.     Procedure:    ‘law  of  the  case’  doctrine  applicable  
  Left  US:  April  11,  1985   Law  of  the  case:    
  Warrant  of  arrest:  November  12,  1985   -­‐ More   specifically,   it   means   that   whatever   is   once  
  irrevocably   established   as   the   controlling   legal   rule   of  
ISSUE:   WON   Rodriguez   is   a   fugitive   from   justice   as   defined   in   the   decision   between   the   same   parties   in   the   same   case  
Marquez  case.  NO,  there  was  no  intent  to  evade   continues   to   be   the   law   of   the   case,   whether   correct   on  
  general   principles   or   not,   so   long   as   the   facts   on   which  
HELD:   such   decision   was   predicated   continue   to   be   the   facts   of  
Summary  of  the  ruling   the  case  before  the  court."  
  In   order   that   a   person   who   has   committed   an   offense   may    
be   considered   a   fugitive   from   justice,   there   must   be   intent   to   This   doctrine   is   applicable   because   the   same   parties   and   the  
evade,   that   is,   he   intended   to   evade   prosecution   or   punishment.   same   issues   are   involved   in   the   quo   warranto   and   DQ   cases  
This   intent   to   evade   presupposes   knowledge   on   the   part   of   the   against   Rodriguez.   Thus,   the   ruling   in   the   Marquez   case   must  
accused.     apply   and   the   Court   need   not   disturb   it   as   it   would   result   in  
  Thus,   as   Rodriguez   left   the   US   5   months   before   the   instability  of  jurisprudence.  
charges   were   even   filed,   he   can’t   known   about   the   charges,   and    
his  departure  from  the  US  must  be  presumed  in  good  faith.   POLICY:   A   'fugitive   from   justice'   includes   not   only   those   who   flee  
  Intent  to  evade  on  the  part  of  a  candidate  must  therefore   after   conviction   to   avoid   punishment   but   likewise   those   who,   after  
be  established  by  proof  that  there  has  already  been  a  conviction   being  charged,  flee  to  avoid  prosecution."  
or   at   least,   a   charge   has   already   been   filed,   at   the   time   of   flight.      
Not  being  a  "fugitive  from  justice"  under  this  definition,  Rodriguez  
 
cannot  be  denied  the  Quezon  Province  gubernatorial  post.  
 
The  element  of  intent  to  evade  absent  in  Rodriguez’  case  
  Rodriguez'   case   does   not   fit   the   definiton   given   by   the  
COMELEC.   His   arrival   in   the   Philippines   (certified   by   the   Bu   of  
Immigrations)  preceded  the  filing  of  the  felony  complaint  and  the  
issuance   of   the   warrant   by   almost   5   months.   It   was   clearly  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   135  
 
CASE:    Mercado  v  Manzano  (1999)   Sec  40  (d)  refers  to  dual  allegiance  
G.R.  No.  135083  May  26,  1999     The  SC  looked  at  the  deliberations  of  Congress  and  found  
ERNESTO   S.   MERCADO,   petitioner,     vs.EDUARDO   BARRIOS   MANZANO   and   the   that  the  phrase  "dual  citizenship"  in  R.A.  No.  7160,  §40(d)  and  in  
COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS,  respondents.  
 
R.A.   No.   7854,   §20   must   be   understood   as   referring   to   "dual  
FACTS:   allegiance."  Consequently,  persons  with  mere  dual  citizenship  do  
• Manzano   and   Mercado   were   vice-­‐mayor   candidates   during   the   not  fall  under  this  disqualification.    
1998  elections  in  Makati  City.       Unlike  those  with  dual  allegiance,  who  must,  therefore,  be  
subject   to   strict   process   with   respect   to   the   termination   of   their  
• Manzano   got   the   plurality   of   votes,   however,   his   proclamation  
status,   for   candidates   with   dual   citizenship,   it   should   suffice   if,  
was  suspended  because  of  a  pending  petition  for  disqualification  
upon   the   filing   of   their   certificates   of   candidacy,   they   elect  
filed  a  a  voter,  Ernesto  Mamaril.    
Philippine   citizenship   to   terminate   their   status   as   persons   with  
• The   petition   against   Manzano   claimed   that   he   was   disqualified  
dual   citizenship   considering   that   their   condition   is   the  
under  Sec   40   (d)   of   the   LGC,   which  disqualifies  for  running  for  
unavoidable  consequence  of  conflicting  laws  of  different  states.  
public  office  those  with  dual-­‐citizenship.  
 
• As   proof,   Mamaril   presented   the   fact   that   Manzano   was  
 
registered  as  an  alien  with  the  Bu  of  Immigration.  
Effect   when   dual   citizen   elects   foreign   citizenship:   terminates  
• The  2nd  Division  found  that  Manzano  possessed  dual-­‐citizenship:   his  status  as  a  dual  citizen  
he  was  born  in  the  United  States  in  1955  to  Filipino  parents.  He  
  By   electing   Philippine   citizenship,   such   candidates   at   the  
was  thus  disqualified.  
same   time   forswear   allegiance   to   the   other   country   of   which   they  
• In   the   meantime,   Mercado   sought   to   intervene   in   the   are   also   citizens   and   thereby   terminate   their   status   as   dual  
disqualification  case  against  Manzano.   citizens.  This  is  similar  to  naturalization,   which  requires  that  the  
• Later,   the   COMELEC   en   banc   reversed   the   ruling   of   the   2nd   applicant  must  renounce  "all  allegiance  and  fidelity  to  any  foreign  
Division  and  declared  Manzano  qualified  to  run  in  the  vice-­‐mayor   prince,   potentate,   state,   or   sovereignty"   of   which   at   the   time   he   is  
race,  citing  the  following  reasons:   a   subject   or   citizen   before   he   can   be   issued   a   certificate   of  
1. He   was   born   to   Filipino   parents   abroad   and   he   did   not   naturalization  as  a  citizen  of  the  Philippines.  
renounce   his   PHL   citizenship   when   he   returned   to   the    
country   Edu   Manzano   renounced   his   dual   citizenship,   not   when   he  
2. The  issuance  of  the  alien  certificate  of  recognition  did  not   participated  in  the  PHL  elections,  but  when  he  filed  his  COC  
result  in  the  loss  of  PHL  citizenship     The   US   law   referred   to   by   COMELEC   that   Manzano  
3. Under  US  law,  Manzano’s  participation  in  the  1992,  1995,   renounced   his   US   citizenship   when   he   voted   in   3   PHL   election  
and   1998   elections,   he   effectively   renounced   his   US   was   struck   down   by   the   US   Supreme   Court   as   unconstitutional  
citizenship.   beause   ti   allowed   the   US   to   regulte   foreign   elections.   Thus,   the   en  
• Pursuant   to   this   en   banc   ruling,   the   BOC   declared   Manzano   the   banc  erred  when  it  ruled  Manzano  renounced  his  US  citizenship  
winner.     on  this  ground.  
• Mercado  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  with  the  SC.     However,   by   filing   a   certificate   of   candidacy   when   he   ran  
  for   his   present   post,   Manzano   elected   Philippine   citizenship   and  
ISSUE:  WON  Manzano  should  be  disqualified  based  on  the  LGC.  NO   in  effect  renounced  his  American  citizenship.  The  COC  contained    
  averments   that   the   candidate   will   ‘support   and   defend   the  
HELD:   Constitution  of  the  PHL…etc.’    
Summary  of  the  ruling:     The   filing   of   such   certificate   of   candidacy   sufficed   to  
While   the   LGC   says   ‘dual   citizenship,’   it   really   refers   to   dual   renounce   his   American   citizenship,   effectively   removing   any  
allegiance.  Persons  with  dual  allegiance  are  those  disqualified.   disqualification   he   might   have   as   a   dual   citizen.   This   was   also  
  held  in  the  case  of  Frivaldo  v  COMELEC.  
Dual  citizenship  and  dual  allegiance;  jus  soli  and  jus  sanguinis     Thus,   by   declaring   in   his   certificate   of   candidacy   that  
Dual   citizenship   -­‐   The   former   arises   when,   as   a   result   of   the   he  is  a  Filipino  citizen;  that  he  is  not  a  permanent  resident  or  
concurrent   application   of   the   different   laws   of   two   or   more   immigrant   of   another   country;   that   he   will   defend   and  
states,   a   person   is   simultaneously   considered   a   national   by   the   support   the   Constitution   of   the   Philippines   and   bear   true  
said  states.     faith   and   allegiance   thereto   and   that   he   does   so   without  
Ex.   When   a   person   whose   national   laws   adhere   to   jus   mental   reservation,   Manzano   has,   as   far   as   the   laws   of   this  
sanguinis  is  born  in  a  state  which  recognizes  jus  soli   country   are   concerned,   effectively   repudiated   his   American  
  citizenship  and  anything  which  he  may  have  said  before  as  a  
Dual   allegiance   -­‐   refers   to   the   situation   in   which   a   person   dual  citizen.  
simultaneously  owes,  by  some  positive  act,  loyalty  to  two  or  more    
states.   Procedure:  May  Mercado  intervene  in  the  petition  for  DQ  even  
  though  it  was  instituted  by  somebody  else?  YES  
While   dual   citizenship   is   involuntary,   dual   allegiance   is   the   result  
of  an  individual's  volition.  

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   136  
 
  Manzano  claims  that  Mercado  has  no  no  right  to  intervene   nationalities   or   citizenships.   Indeed,   there   is   no   express  
since   under   Section   1,   Rule   8   of   the   COMELEC   Rules,   he   has   no   renunciation  here  of  Philippine  citizenship;  truth  to  tell,  there  is  
‘legal  interest  in  the  matter  in  litigation.’   even  no  implied  renunciation  of  said  citizenship.  
  The   Court   ruled   that   Mercado   has   legal   interest   since    
when  he  filed  the  motion  to  intervene,  Manzano   had   not   yet   been   Procedure:   two   instances   where   qualifications   of   local   govt  
proclaimed   (his   proclamation   was   suspended   because   of   the   candidates   may   be   questioned   under   OEC   -­‐   before   and   after  
pending  dq  case).     elections  
  In  the  present  case,  at  the  time  Mercado  filed  a  "Motion  for   Before  election  under  Section  78:  
Leave   to   File   Intervention",   there   had   been   no   proclamation   of   Section  78.  Petition  to  deny  due  course  or  to  cancel  a  certificate  of  
the   winner,   and   his   purpose   was   precisely   to   have   Manzano   candidacy.   —   A   verified   petition   seeking   to   deny   due   course   or   to  
disqualified   under   §40(d)   of   the   LGC.   If   Ernesto   Mamaril   (who   cancel   a   certificate   of   candidacy   may   be   filed   by   any   person  
originally   instituted   the   disqualification   proceedings),   a   exclusively   on   the   ground   that   any   material   representation  
registered   voter   of   Makati   City,   was   competent   to   bring   the   contained   therein   as   required   under   Section   74   hereof   is   false.  
action,   so   was   petitioner   since   the   latter   was   a   rival   candidate   for   The   petition   may   be   filed   at   any   time   not   later   than   twenty-­‐five  
vice  mayor  of  Makati  City.   days  from  the  time  of  the  filing  of  the  certificate   of   candidacy   and  
  shall   be   decided,   after   the   notice   and   hearing,   not   later   than  
  fifteen  days  before  the  election.  
CASE:    Aznar  v  COMELEC  (1990)    
G.R.  No.  83820  May  25,  1990   After  election  under  Section  253:  
JOSE   B.   AZNAR   (as   Provincial   Chairman   of   PDP   Laban   in   Cebu),   petitioner,     vs.   Sec.   253.   Petition   for   quo   warranto.   —   Any   voter   contesting   the  
COMMISSION  ON  ELECTIONS  and  EMILIO  MARIO  RENNER  OSMEÑA,  respondents.     election   of   any   Member   of   the   Batasang   Pambansa,   regional,  
 
provincial,   or   city   officer   on   the   ground   of   ineligibility   or   of  
FACTS:  
disloyalty   to   the   Republic   of   the   Philippines   shall   file   a   sworn  
• Aznar  is  the  Provincial  Chairman  of  the  Cebu  PDP-­‐Laban.     petition   for   quo   warranto   with   the   Commission   within   ten   days  
• When  Osmena  filed  his  COC  to  run  as  Cebu  Governor  for  the  1988   after  the  proclamation  of  the  results  of  the  election.  
local   elections,   Aznar   filed   a   petition  for  disqualification  with   the    
COMELEC   on   the   ground   that   Osmena   was   a   US   citizen,   since   Osmena  filed  his  COC  on  Nov  19,  1987.  Aznar  filed  his  petition  for  
Osmena   was   a   holder   of   an   Alien   Certificate   of   Registration   DQ   in   January   22,   1988,   way   beyond   the   25   day   reglamentary  
(ACR).     period.  Neither  can  Aznar’s  petition  be  considered  a  petiiton  quo  
• The  COMELEC  en  banc  ordered  the  BOC  to  continue  the  canvass   warranto  since  Osmena  was  not  yet  proclaimed.  
but  suspend  the  proclamation.      
• As  defense,  Osmena  claims  he  was  a  Filipino  citizen  as:   Loss  of  PHL  citizenship  under  CA  63  
1. He  was  born  to  a  Filipino  father   Under  CA  63,  the  modes  for  the  lossof  PHL  citizenship  are:  
2. He  holds  a  valid  PHL  passport   1. naturalization  in  a  foreign  country  
3. Resided  in  the  PHL  since  birth,  and  is  a  registered  voter   2. express  renunciation  of  citizenship  
• The  COMELEC  dismissed  the  petition  for  DQ  on  the  ground  that  it   3. subscribing   to   an   oath   of   allegiance   to   support   the  
was   filed   out   of   time   and   without   proof   that   Osmena   was   not   a   Constitution  of  laws  of  a  foreign  country  
PHL  citizen.    
  Aznar  failed  to  prove  that  Osmena  did  any  of  these  things.  
ISSUE:  WON  Osmena  should  be  disqualified.  NO    
 
 
HELD:  
Ruling  summary:   CASE:    Lopez  v  COMELEC  (2008)    
G.R.  No.  182701                              July  23,  2008  
The   fact   that   Osmena   was   a   holder   of   an   ACR,   as   well   as   having   EUSEBIO   EUGENIO   K.   LOPEZ,   Petitioner,   vs.   COMMISSION   ON   ELECTIONS   and  
been   given   clearance   and   permit   to   re-­‐enter   the   PHL   by   the   TESSIE  P.  VILLANUEVA,  Respondents.  
Commission   on   Immigration   is   not   sufficient   to   prove   that    
Osmena   renounced   his   Filipino   citizenship.   In   order   to   effectively   FACTS:  
renounce  PHL  citizenship,  it  must  be  done  in  accordance  wit  hthe   • Lopez   here   was   a   Brgy   Chairman   candidate   during   the   1998   local  
methods  outlined  in  CA  63.   elections  in  Brgy  Dionisio,  Iloilo  City.  
  • Lopez  was  a  natural  born  Filipino,  but  he  was  later  naturalized  as  
Osmena   did   not   expressly   or   impliedly   renounce   his   PHL   an  American  citizen.  However,  by  virtue  of  RA  9225  (Citizenship  
citizenship   and  Retention  and  Re-­‐acquisition  Act  of  2003)  he  later  regained  
Considering  the  fact  that  admittedly  Osmeña  was  both  a  Filipino   his  PHL  citizenship.  
and  an  American,  the  mere  fact  that  he  has  a  Certificate  stating  he   • 4   days   before   the   election,   Tessie   Villanueva   filed   a   petition   for  
is   an   American   does   not   mean   that   he   is   not   still   a   Filipino.   In   the   DQ  against  Lopez  on  the  ground  that  he  is  an  American  citizen.  As  
case  of  Osmeña,  the  Certification  that  he  is  an  American  does  not   defense,  Lopez  claims  he  was  a  dual  citizen.  
mean   that   he   is   not   still   a   Filipino,   possessed   as   he   is,   of   both   • Lopez  got  the  plurality  of  votes  after  the  canvass.    

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA  
   
 ELECTION  LAW  CASE  DIGESTS      
KARL  BENJAMIN  FAJARDO  |  2-­‐SR  2014-­‐2015  |  ATENEO  DE  DAVAO  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
LAKAS  ATENISTA  BATCH  CETERIS  PARIBUS  ETC   137  
 
• However,  the  COMELEC  granted  the  petition  for  disqualification.   Ruling  in  Valles  case  not  applicable  
According   to   the   COMELEC,   Lopez   failed   to   regain   his   PHL   In  the  Valles  case,  the  candidate  was  a  dual  citizen  (AUS  and  PHL)  
citizenship  in  the  manner  provided  for  by  law.  Lopez  should  have   due   to   birth   in   a   jus  soli  country.   She   did   not   perform   any   act   to  
made   a   personal   and   sworn   renunciation   of   any   and   all   foreign   swear   allegiance   to   a   country   other   than   the   Philippines.   In   this  
citizenship.   case,   Lopez   was   naturalized   in   a   foreign   country   and   became   a  
• Lopez’  MFR  was  denied,  so  he  filed  a  petition  for  certiorari  with   dual  citizen  only  because  he  re-­‐acquired  his  PHL  citizenship.  
the   SC.   Lopez   claims   that   pursuant   to   the   ruling   in   Valles   v    
COMELEC,   the   filing   of   his   COC   operated   as   an   effective   Victory  and  discharge  of  functions  does  not  cure  the  defect  
renunciation  of  foreign  citizenship.   While   it   is   true   that   Lopez   won   the   elections,   took   his   oath   and  
  began   to   discharge   the   functions   of   Barangay   Chairman,   his  
ISSUE:  WON  Lopez’  disqualification  was  proper.  YES   victory   can   not   cure   the   defect   of   his   candidacy.   Garnering   the  
  most   number   of   votes   does   not   validate   the   election   of   a  
HELD:   disqualified   candidate   because   the   application   of   the  
Lopez  failed  to  comply  with  the  requisites  in  RA  9225   constitutional  and  statutory  provisions  on  disqualification  is  not  
Under   Section   5   of   RA   9225,   there   is   an   additional   requirement   a  matter  of  popularity.  
imposed   before   those   who   re-­‐acquired   PHL   citizenship   may   run    
for  public  office:  
 
Section   5.   Civil   and   Political   Rights   and   Liabilities.   –   Those  
who   retain   or   re-­‐acquire   Philippine   citizenship   under   this   Act  
shall   enjoy   full   civil   and   political   rights   and   be   subject   to   all  
attendant  liabilities  and  responsibilities  under  existing  laws  of  
the  Philippines  and  the  following  conditions:  
      x  x  x  x  
(2)  Those  seeking  elective  public  office  in  the  Philippines  shall  
meet  the  qualification  for  holding  such  public  office  as  required  
by   the   Constitution   and   existing   laws   and,   at   the   time   of   the  
filing   of   the   certificate   of   candidacy,   make   a   personal   and  
sworn   renunciation   of   any   and   all   foreign   citizenship  
before  any  public  officer  authorized  to  administer  an  oath.  
 
While  Lopez  was  able  to  regain  his  Filipino  Citizenship  by  virtue  
of   the   Dual   Citizenship   Law   when   he   took   his   oath   of   allegiance  
before   the   Vice   Consul   of   the   Philippine   Consulate   General’s  
Office  in  Los  Angeles,  California,  the  same  is  not  enough  to  allow  
him  to  run  for  a  public  office.  The  above-­‐quoted  provision  of  law  
mandates   that   a   candidate   with   dual   citizenship   must   make   a  
personal   and   sworn   renunciation   of   any   and   all   foreign  
citizenship  before  any  public  officer  authorized  to  administer  an  
oath.   There   is   no   evidence   presented   that   will   show   that  
respondent  complied  with  the  provision  of  R.A.  No.  9225.  
 
Elements  of  a  valid  renunciation  
For  the  renunciation  to  be  valid,  it  must  be:  
1. contained   in   an   affidavit   duly   executed   before   an   officer   of  
law  who  is  authorized  to  administer  an  oath.    
2. The  affiant  must  state  in  clear  and  unequivocal  terms  that  he  
is  renouncing  all  foreign  citizenship  for  it  to  be  effective.    
 
Lopez’s  failure  to  renounce  his  American  citizenship  as  proven  by  
the  absence  of  an  affidavit  that  will  prove  the  contrary  leads  this  
Commission  to  believe  that  he  failed  to  comply  with  the  positive  
mandate   of   law.   For   failure   of   respondent   to   prove   that   he  
abandoned   his   allegiance   to   the   United   States,   this   Commission  
holds   him   disqualified   from   running   for   an   elective   position   in  
the  Philippines.  
 

   
EXCLUSIVE  TO  LAKAS  ATENISTA