Election Law Digests

ELECTIONLAWCASEDIGESTS(FROMELECTIONCONTEST)

ThroughthejointeffortsofthestudentsofAteneoLaw2DAY0708

1

ELECTIONCONTESTS16 TOMARONGV.LUBGUBAN

269SCRA624(TAN,L.)

FACTS:Several candidates including Tomarong were defeated in the 1994 BarangayElections in Siquijor. They all filed an election protest before the respectiveMCTC’s. Thewinningcandidates filedtheiranswersprayingthatthepetitionsbedismissedbasedontheaffirmativedefensethattheprotestantsfailedtoattachtotheirpetitionstherequiredcertificationonnon‐forumshoppingasprovidedforinSC‐ACNo.04‐94.TheMCTC initially ruled todismiss but deferred t o the Secretaryof JusticewhothendeferredtotheCourtAdministratorwhoruledthatthecertificationonnon‐forumshoppingshouldbe required inelectionscontestsbefore theMTC’s. ThusthispetitionunderRule65.HELD:Therequirementofthecertificationofnon‐forumshoppingisrequiredforelectioncontests.Yes.TheCourt,citingLoyolav.CourtofAppeals,saidthat:“WedonotagreethatSC‐ACNo.04‐94isnotapplicabletoelectioncases.ThereisnothingintheCircularthatindicatesthatitdoesnotapplytoelectioncases.Onthecontrary,itexpresslyprovidesthattherequirementstherein,whichareinadditiontothoseinpertinentprovisions of the Rules of Court and existing circulars, ‘shall be strictly compliedwithinthefilingofcomplaints,petitions,applicationsorotherinitiatorypleadingsinallcourtsandagenciesothertheSupremeCourtandtheCourtofAppeals.’Ubilexnondistinguitnecnosdistinguiredebemus.”Inthiscase,thepetitionersfiledtherequiredcertification18daysafterfilingtheirpetitions.ItcannotbeconsideredsubstantialcompliancewiththerequirementsoftheCircular.Quiteobviously,thereglementaryperiodforfilingtheprotesthad,bythen,alreadyexpired.Petitiondismissed.

Note:Therecanbesubstantialcomplianceevenafteramotiontodismisshasbeenfiledonthegroundoflackofcertificateofnon‐forumshoppingbutitmustbedoneasap(thenextday)otherwisethevalueoftheSCCircularwouldloseitsvalue.17 BEAGANV.BORJA

261SCRA474(TEEHANKEE)

FACTS: May1994.BarangayElectionsinBislig,Tanauan,Leyte Electionprotest filedbyArnulfoSantillano,Egonioasprotestee,Beegan

asintervenor AboutrevisionofthreeballotboxescompletedinOctober1994,Revision

CommitteepresenteditsreporttotheCourtNovember3,1994 Problem arises when the abovementioned ballots were reopened for

Xeroxingpurposesfortheperusaloftheprotestee’scounsel Office and Court Administrator viewed acts of respondents in effecting

thereopeningoftheballotboxesandcopyingtantamounttomisconductinoffice

Balano(clerkofcourt)andBorjabelievedingoodfaiththattheyhadtheauthoritytoallowsuch.

HELD:Photocopyingofballotsisnottantamounttomisconductinoffice.

As long as no tampering or alteration was manifest inXeroxing/photocopyingofcourtrecords,noliabilityattachestoanyone.

Respondentsareexonerated.18 FERMOV.COMELEC

328SCRA52(VALDEZ)

FACTS: LAXINAandFERMO‐candidates for thepositionofPunongBrgy. inQC.

(1997elections)LAXINAwasproclaimedwinner FERMO‐filedelectionprotestquestionresultsin4clusteredprecinctson

groundofmassivefraudandseriousirregularities.



2

MTC: ruled FERMO won the contested post (in 1999) and granted amotionforexecutionpendingappeal.COMELECreversedongroundthatthepossibility that the termofcontestedseatmightexpireby the timeappeal is decided—not a “good reason” to warrant execution pendingappeal.

HELD:Amotionforexecutingpendingappealongroundoftermexpirationisnot“goodreason”forissuance.Sec. 2, Rule 39 Rules of Court: court while it has jurisdiction and possession oforiginalrecord…in itsdiscretion,orderexecutionof judgmentorfinalorderevenbeforeexpirationoftheperiodtoappeal

Exercise of discretion requires that it is based on “good reasons(combinationof2ormorewillsuffice):

1. PUBLICINTERESTINVOLVEDORWILLOFELECTORATE2. SHORTNESSofremainingportionoftermofcontestedoffice3. LENGTHOFTIMEthatelectioncontesthasbeenPENDING

Shortnessofremainingterm‐notgoodreasonforexecutionofjudgmentpendingappeal—RA8524:extendedtermofofficeofBrgy.officialsto5years(negatesclaimofFERMO

Upon nullification of writ of execution pending appeal, decision ofFERMO’s proclamation as winner was stayed—status quo (last actualpeacefuluncontestedsituationprecedingthecontroversy)restored

LAXINA:entitledtodischargefunctions19 SAQUILAYANV.COMELEC

416SCRA658(DINO)

FACTS:1. SAQUILAYAN and JARO were candidates for the Office of Municipal

MayorofImus,Cavite.2. SAQUILAYANwasproclaimedwinner.3. JARO institutedanElectionProtestCasebefore theRTC, contesting the

resultsofall453electionprecincts.Heallegestheff:a. VotesinfavorofJAROwereconsideredstray

b. Ballots and votes were misappreciated (considered null andvoid,orcountedinfavorofSAQUILAYAN)

c. Votes that were void (containing stickers or markings) werecountedinfavorofSAQUILAYAN,etc..

4. SAQUILAYANfiledaMotiontoDismiss,whichwasdeniedbytheRTC.5. QuestioningthedenialofhisMotiontoDismiss,theCOMELEC(Division)

ruled in favorofSAQUILAYANandorderedthedismissalof theelectionprotest. ItruledthatJARO’sallegationsfailedtostateacauseofaction,onthebasisofPenav.HRET.* Pena v. HRET held that the bare allegations of massive fraud,widespread intimidation and terrorism, without specification andsubstantiation ofwhere and how these occurrences took place, rendertheprotestfatallydefective.

6. Upon reconsideration sought by JARO, the COMELEC En Banc,SAQUILAYAN’sMotion toDismisswasagaindismissed,and theElectionProtestCasewasorderedtoproceed.

HELD:

1. ThepresentcaseissimilartoMiguelv.COMELEC,whichtheCOMELECEnBancusedasbasisinorderingtheElectionProtestCasetoproceed.

2. IN both cases, the protestants questioned all the precincts in theirrespectivemunicipalities.

3. AsMiguelv.COMELECismorerecentthanPenav.HRET(asusedbytheCOMELECDivision),thentheformershouldprevailincaseofaconflict.

4. Furthermore,electioncontestsinvolvepublicinterest.Technicalitiesandproceduralbarriersshouldnotbeallowedtostandiftheyconstitutedanobstacletothedeterminationofthetruewilloftheelectorate.

5. Lawsgoverningelectioncontestsmustbe liberallyconstruedtotheendthat thewill of the people in the choice of public officialsmay not bedefeatedbymeretechnicalobjections.

6. Allowing the election protest to proceed would be the best way ofremoving any doubt as to who was the real candidate chosen by theelectorate.

7. DecisionofCOMELECEnBancaffirmed.20 SANTOSV.COMELEC

399SCRA611(PADLAN)



3

FACTS:

Petitioner (SANTOS)andRespondent (PANULAYA)werebothcandidate forMAYORof theMunicipal of Balingoan,MisamisOriental in theMay14, 2001elections.

MUNICIPALBoardofCanvassers(MBC)proclaimedPANULAYAasMayor.

SANTOSfiledanELECTIONPROTESTintheRTC.

RTC found that SANTOS obtained 76 votes more than PANULAYA. RTCdeclared SANTOS as winner. RTC voided MBC’s proclamation in favor ofPANULAYA.

SANTOSfiledaMOTIONFOREXECUTIONPENDINGAPPEALwiththeRTC.

PANULAYA APPEALED the RTC declaration in favor of SANTOS to theCOMELEC.

COMELECissuedINJUNCTIONagainstRTCtorefrainfromactingonmotionforexecutionpendingappeal.

RTCAPPROVEDmotionforexecutionpendingappeal.

SANTOS took OATH of office and ASSUMED duties and functions of hisoffice.

PANULAYAfiledwithCOMELECaPETITIONFORSTATUSQUOANTE.

COMELECISSUEDORDERdirectingpartiestoMAINTAINSTATUSQUOANTE,atthesametimeENJOININGSANTOSfromassumingfunctionsofmayor.

HELD:Mere filingof anoticeof appeal doesnotdivest the trial courtof its jurisdictionover the case and to resolve pending incidents such as motions for executionpendingappeal.Thefollowingconstitutegoodreasonsandacombinationoftwoormoreofthemwillsufficetograntexecutionpendingappeal:(1)publicinterestinvolvedorwillofthe electorate; (2) the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of thecontested office; and (3) the length of time that the election contest has beenpending.ThetrialintheRTCtookmorethanayear,whilethethree‐yeartermoftheOfficeof theMayor continued to run. Thewill of the electorate, as determined by thetrialcourtintheelectionprotest,hadtoberespectedandgivenmeaning.

Between the determination by the trial court ofwho of the candidateswon theelectionsandthefindingoftheBoardofCanvassersastowhomtoproclaim, it isthecourt’sdecisionthatshouldprevail.All that was required for a valid exercise of the discretion to allow executionpending appeal was that the immediate execution should be based "upon goodreasons to be stated in a special order." The rationale why such execution isallowed in election cases is to give as much recognition to the worth of a trialjudge’sdecisionasthatwhichisinitiallyascribedbythelawtotheproclamationbytheboardofcanvassers.Why should the proclamation by the board of canvassers suffice as basis of therighttoassumeoffice,subjecttofuturecontingenciesattendanttoaprotest,andnotthedecisionofacourtofjustice?Indeed,whenitisconsideredthattheboardofcanvassersiscomposedofpersonswhoarelesstechnicallypreparedtomakeanaccurate appreciation of the ballots, apart from their beingmore apt to yield toextraneous considerations, and that the board must act summarily, practicallyracing against time, while, on the other hand, the judge has benefit of all theevidencethepartiescanofferandofadmittedlybettertechnicalpreparationandbackground,apartfromhisbeingallowedampletimeforconscientiousstudyandmature deliberation before rendering judgment, one cannot but perceive thewisdomofallowingtheimmediateexecutionofdecisionsinelectioncasesadverseto the protestees, notwithstanding the perfection and pendency of appealstherefrom,aslongasthereare,inthesounddiscretionofthecourt,goodreasonstherefor.Todeprivetrialcourtsoftheirdiscretiontograntexecutionpendingappealwouldbring back the ghost of the "grab‐the‐proclamation‐prolong the protest"techniquessooftenresortedtobydeviouspoliticiansinthepastintheireffortstoperpetuate their hold to an elective office. Thiswould, as a consequence, lay towastethewilloftheelectorate.

ELECTIONOFPRESIDENTANDVICE‐PRESIDENT 21 DEFENSOR‐SANTIAGOV.RAMOS

253SCRA559(CONCEPCION)

FACTS:



4

This is an original action filed before the SC acting as a Presidential ElectoralTribunal.MiriamDefensor‐Santiago (DS) ran forpresidency in the1992National Elections.Shelost,butfiledthispresentprotestagainstthewinner,Pres.FVRamos.Subsequently however, she ran for Senator in the 1995 Senatorial elections. Shewon and assumed office as Senator in 1995. Considering this factualmilieu, theissuesrevolveonwhether thispresentelectoralprotestwouldstillbevalid,evenaftertheprotestanthasalreadyassumedofficeasSenator,notingthatshouldshewin thisprotest, her termaspresidentwould coincidewithher termas senator,whichsheisnowin.Now,in1996,theSCasPETdecidesthecase.HELD:Therewasabandonmentofprotest.Yes.DSfiledhercertificateofcandidacytorunforsenatorwithoutqualificationorreservation. Indoingso, sheentered intoapolitical contractwith theelectorate,that, ifelected,shewouldassumetheofficeassenator.Thisis inaccordwiththeconstitutionaldoctrinethatapublicofficeisapublictrust.InassumingtheofficeofSenator, shehaseffectively abandonedherdetermination topursue thispresentprotest.Suchabandonmentoperatestorenderthisprotestmoot.Also,thePETissuedaresolutionorderingtheprotestanttoinformthePETwithin10days ifafterthecompletionoftherevisionoftheballots fromherpilotareas,shestillwishestopresentevidence.SinceDShasnotinformedtheTribunalofanysuchintention,suchisamanifestindicationthatshenolongerintendstodoso.ELECTIONOFMEMBERSOFCONGRESS,LOCALOFFICIALS,ANDMEMBERSOFTHEREGIONALASSEMBLYOFTHEAUTONOMOUSREGIONS;THEPARTY‐LISTSYSTEM22 VETERANSFEDERATIONPARTYV.COMELEC

342SCRA244(AGUINALDO)

FACTS:Respondent proclaimed 14 party‐list representatives from 13 parties whichobtainedatleast2%ofthetotalnumberofvotescastfortheparty‐listsystemasmembers of the House of Representatives. Upon petition for respondents,who

wereparty‐listorganizations,itproclaimed38additionalparty‐listrepresentativesalthough they obtained less than 2% of the total number of votes cast for theparty‐listsystemonthegroundthatundertheConstitution,itismandatorythatatleast20%ofthemembersoftheHouseofRepresentativescomefromtheparty‐listrepresentatives.HELD:Itisnotmandatory.Itmerelyprovidesaceilingfortheparty‐listseatsintheHouseof Representatives. The Constitution vested Congress with the broad power todefineandprescribethemechanicsoftheparty‐listsystemofrepresentatives.Inthe exercise of its constitutional prerogative, Congress deemed it necessary torequirepartiesparticipating inthesystemtoobtainat least2%ofthetotalvotescastforthepartylistsystemtobeentitledtoaparty‐listseat.CongresswantedtoensurethatonlythosepartieshavingasufficientnumberofconstituentsdeservingofrepresentationareactuallyrepresentedinCongress.**NOTES:determinationoftotalnumberofparty‐listrepresentatives=additionalrepresentativesoffirstparty=additional seats forconcernedparty=23 ANGBAGONGBAYANIV.COMELEC

359SCRA698(ENRIQUEZ)

FACTS:TheOmnibusResolutionNo.3785issuedbytheCOMELECischallengedinsofarasitapprovestheparticipationof154organizationsandpartiesinthe2001party‐listelections.Petitionersseekthedisqualificationofprivaterespondentsastheparty‐listsystemwasintendedtobenefitthemarginalizedandunderrepresentedandnotthemainstreampoliticalparties.

€

# districtrepresentatives.80

∗ .20

€

# votesofconcernedparty# votesoffirstparty

∗ additionalseatsforconcernedparty

€

#ofvotesoffirstparty#ofvotesofpartylistsystem



5

The COMELEC received several petitions for registration filed by sectoral parties,etc. for the 2001 elections. The COMELEC allege that verifications for thequalifications of these parties take a long process and as a result the 2 divisionspromulgatedaseparateOmnibusResolutionand individualresolutiononpoliticalparties only on February 10, 2001. Before the February 12, 2001 deadline, theregistered parties and organizations filed their Manifestations, stating theirintention to participate in the party‐list elections. The COMELEC approved theManifestationsof154partiesandorganizationsbutdeniedthoseofseveralothers.ACAP filed before the COMELEC a petition praying that the names of somerespondentsbedeletedfromtheCertifiedListofPoliticalParties…Participating inthePartyListSystemfortheMay14,2001Elections.Italsoprayedthatthevotescast for the said respondents be not counted or canvassed and that the latter’snominees not be proclaimed. Bayan Muna and Bayan Muna‐Youth also filed asimilarpetitionagainstsomeoftherespondents.ISSUE1:WONpoliticalpartiesmayparticipateintheparty‐listelectionsTheSCheldthatundertheConstitutionandRA7941,privaterespondentscannotbe disqualified from the party‐list elections,merely on the ground that they arepolitical parties. Sec. 7 and 8, Article IX‐C provides that political parties may beregisteredunderthepartylistsystem.IntheConComdeliberations,Com.Monsodstated that thepurposeof theparty‐listprovisionwas toopenup the system, inordertogiveachancetopartiesthatconsistentlyplace3rdor4thincongressionaldistrict elections to win a seat in Congress. Sec. 3 of RA 7941 provides that a“party”is“eitherapoliticalpartyorasectoralpartyoracollationofparties”.Sec.11ofthesameActleavesnodoubtastotheparticipationofpoliticalpartiesintheparty‐list system. Indubitable, political parties – even the major ones‐mayparticipateintheparty‐listelections.ISSUE 2: WON the party‐list system is exclusive to marginalized andunderrepresentedsectorsandorganizationsForpoliticalpartiestoparticipateintheparty‐listelectionstheirrequisitecharactermust be consistentwith the purpose of the party‐list system in the ConstitutionandRA7941.Thepurposeoftheparty‐listsystemistogive“genuinepowertoourpeople” in Congress. However, the constitutional provision is not self‐executory,henceRA7941wasenacted.

Proportionalrepresentationdoesnotrefertothenumberofpeopleinaparticulardistrict, because the party‐list election is national in scope. It refers to therepresentationofthemarginalizedandunderrepresentedasexemplifiedinSection5 of the Act. The party‐list organization must factually and truly represent themarginalizedandunderrepresentedconstituencies.Thepersonsnominatedtotheparty‐list system must also belong to the underrepresented and marginalizedsectors,organizationsandparties.Lack of well‐defined constituency refers to the absence of a traditionallyidentifiableelectoralgroup.Itpointstothosewithdisparateinterestsdefinedwiththemarginalizedandunderrepresented.Intheend,theCOMELEC’sroleistoseetoit that only those Filipinos who are marginalized and underrepresented becomemembers of Congress under the party‐list system. Not all sectors can berepresented under the party‐list system. The law crafted to address the peculiardisadvantages of Payatas hovel dwellers cannot be appropriated by themansionownersofForbesPark.Whilethemega‐richarenumericallyspeaking,aminority,they are neither marginalized nor underrepresented. It is illogical to open thesystemtothosewhohavelongbeenwithinit–thoseprivilegedsectorsthathavelongdominatedthecongressionaldistrictelections.TheSCheldthatitcannotallowtheparty‐listsystemtobesulliedandprostitutedbythosewhoareneithermarginalizednorunderrepresented.Mendoza,dissenting:ThetextofArt.VI,Sec.5(1)(2)providesforaparty‐listsystemof registered, regional and sectoral parties or organizations, and not for sectoralrepresentation.Itprovidesfornobasisforpetitioner’scontentionthatwhetheritissectoral representation or party‐list system the purpose is to provide exclusiverepresentation formarginalizedsectors.TheRecordof theConComspeaksclearlyagainst the petitioner’s assertion. Two proposals for additional representation intheHouseofRepresentativesweresubmittednamely,sectoralrepresentationandparty‐list system.These twoarenot the same. In theend, theConComchose theparty‐listsystem.Inchoosingthissystem,theConComdidnotintendtoreservetheparty‐list system to the marginalized or underrepresented. In fact, the party‐listsystemmandatestheopposite.Furthermore, Justice Mendoza holds that the majority misapprehended themeaningofSection2ofRANo.7941.Theprovisionstatesthatthepurposeoftheparty‐list system is to promote promotional representation in the election ofrepresentatives in theHouseofRepresentatives.Tothisend,a full, freeandopen



6

party system is guaranteed to obtain the broadest possible representation of aparty, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives. While therepresentationofthemarginalizedandunderrepresentedsectorsisabasicpurposeofthelaw,itisnotitsonlypurpose.ISSUE3:WONtheCOMELECcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretioninpromulgatingOmnibusResolutionNo.3785TheSCheld that it isproper to remand the case to theCOMELECT todeterminewhether the154partiesandorganizationsallowed toparticipate in theparty‐listelectionscomplywiththerequirementsofthelaw.Inlightofthis,theSCprovidesfor guidelines to assist the COMELEC in its work. (1) The political party…mustrepresentthemarginalizedandunderrepresentedgroupsidentifiedinSection5ofRA7941,(2)Evenifmajorpoliticalpartiesareallowedtoparticipateintheparty‐listsystem,theymustcomplywiththedeclaredstatutorypolicyofenablingFilipinocitizensbelonging tomarginalizedandunderrepresentedsectors tobeelected tothe House of Representatives, (3) a party or an organization must not bedisqualified under Section 6 of the Act which enumerates the grounds fordisqualification, (4) the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or aprojectorganizedoranentityfundedorassistedbythegovernment,(5)partymustnotcomplywiththerequirementsof the law, (6)notonly thecandidatepartyororganizationmust representmarginalized and underrepresented sectors, so alsomust its nominees, (7) the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to theformulationandenactmentofappropriatelegislationthatwillbenefitthenationasawhole.24 ANGBAGONGBAYANIV.COMELEC

GR147589,JANUARY29,2002(ENRIQUEZ)

FACTS:The COMELEC issued a TRO against the proclamation of APEC, CIBAC and AMINbecause they failed to meet the 8‐point guidelines set forth by this Court. TheCOMELEC found that APEC was merely an arm of the Philippine Rural ElectricCooperative, Inc. (PHILRECA) and that it did not truly represent themarginalizedsectors of society, CIBACwas reported to bemerely an extensionof the Jesus IsLord (JIL) religious movement and did not represent the interest of themarginalized and underrepresented sectors of society and that Anak Mindanao

(AMIN)was listedashavingobtainedonly1.6865%ofthetotalvotescastfortheparty‐listsystem,notsufficienttomeetthe2%requiredno.ofvotes.ISSUE:WON APEC, CIBAC and AMIN should be proclaimed winners aside from thosealreadyvalidlyproclaimedbytheearlierResolutionsoftheSC.RULING:AMINdidnotgetmorethantwopercentofthevotescast.APECandCIBAChavesufficientlymetthe8‐pointguidelinesofhisCourtandhavesufficientvotestoentitlethemtoseatsinCongress.Issuesarefactualincharacter,Commission’s findings are adopted, absent any patent arbitrariness or abuse ornegligenceinitsaction.NosubstantialproofthatCIBACismerelyanarmofJIL,orthatAPECisanextensionofPHILRECA.TheOSGexplainedthetheseareseparateentities with separate memberships. Although APEC’s nominees are allprofessionals, its membership is composed not only of professionals but also ofpeasants, elderly, youth andwomen. APEC addresses the issues of job creation,poverty alleviation and lack of electricity. CIBAC is composed of heunderrepresentedandmarginalizedand is concernedwith theirwelfare.CIBAC isparticularlyinterestedintheyouthandprofessionalsectors.TROpartiallyliftedwithregardtoAPECandCIBAC.25 ANGBAGONGBAYANIV.COMELEC

GR147589,APRIL10,2002(ENRIQUEZ—angbagongbayaning2D!)

The COMELEC determined that the following party‐list participants, despite theirhavingobtainedatleast2%ofthetotalvotescast,havefailedtomeetthe8‐pointguidelines set forth in our Decision: Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga (MAD),Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC), Veterans Federation Party(VFP), Abag Promdi (PROMDI), Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC), Lakas NUCD‐UMDP,andCitizen’sBattleAgainstCorruption(CIBAC).TheOSG,actingonbehalfoftheComelec,initsConsolidatedReplydatedOctober15,2001andinaManifestationdatedDecember5,2001,modifieditspositionandrecommended that APEC and CIBAC be declared as having compliedwith the 8‐pointguidelines



7

ELECTIONOFLOCALOFFICIALS

26 OCCEÑAV.COMELEC

127SCRA404(ZUÑIGA)

FACTS:

Samuel Occena filed a petition for prohibition to declare asunconstitutionaltheprovisions intheBarangayElectionActof1982(BP222)whichprohibited:

o anycandidateinthe1982barangayelectionfromrepresentinghimselfasamemberofapoliticalparty;

o theinterventionofpoliticalpartiesinacandidate'snominationandfilingofhiscertificateofcandidacy;and

o thegivingofaidorsupportofpoliticalparties fororagainstacandidate'scampaign

Occena prayed that the 1982 elections be declared null and void, andnew barangay elections held without the ban on the involvement ofpoliticalparties

In1982thecourtconsideredtheCommentsoftheSolicitorGeneralasanAnswer

Note that thedecision in the casewasdelayedbecause all the Justicesresigned on May 1982 (*SC trivia: over allegations that the bar examresultsof JusticeEricta'ssonwerechanged inhis favor‐ therewaspre‐decodingofhisgradesbeforeofficialdecodingandpublication)

HELD:Thebanontheinterventionofpoliticalpartiesintheelectionofbarangayofficialsis NOT violative of the constitutional guarantee of the right to form associationsandsocietiesforpurposesnotcontrarytolaw.Under the Barangay ElectionAct of 1982, the right to organize is intact. Politicalpartiesmayfreelybeformedalthoughthereisarestrictionontheiractivities,i.e.,their intervention in the election of barangay officials on May 17, 1982 isprescribed.Butthebanisnarrow,nottotal.Itoperatesonlyonconcertedorgroup

action of political parties. The ban against the participation of political parties inthebarangayelection is an appropriate legislative response to theunwholesomeeffects of partisan bias in the impartial discharge of the duties imposed on thebarangay and its officials as the basic unit of our political and social structure. Itwoulddefinitelyenhancetheobjectiveand impartialdischargeof theirduties forbarangayofficialstobeshieldedformpoliticalpartyloyalty.Somereasonsfortherestriction:‐ "the barangay is the basic unit not only of our social structure but also of ourpolitical structure. It would be a more prudent policy to insulate the barangaysfromthe influenceofpartisanpolitics.Thebarangays,although it istruetheyarealready considered regular units of our government, are non‐partisan; theyconstitutethebaseofthepyramidofoursocialandpoliticalstructure,andinorderthat base will not be subject to instability because of the influence of politicalforces, it is better that we elect the officials thereof through a non‐partisansystem."(DeliberationsonParliamentaryBill2125whichlaterbecameBPBlg.222)‐TheBarangayCaptainandtheBarangayCouncil,apartfromtheir legislativeandconsultative powers, also act as an agency for neutral community action such asthedistributionof basic foodstuff and as an instrument in conductingplebiscitesandreferenda.‐ The Barangay Captain, together with the members of the Lupon Tagapayapaappointed by him, exercises administrative supervision over the barangayconciliation panels in the latter's work of settling local disputes. The BarangayCaptain himself settles or helps settle local controversies within the barangayeitherthroughmediationorarbitration.ThecaseofImbongv.COMELECalsoinvolvedtherestrictionasthatprescribedinSec.4ofBP222. Inupholding theconstitutionalityofwhatwas thenSec.8(a)ofRepublic Act No. 6132, the court said that "While it may be true that a party'ssupportofacandidate isnotwrongperse, it isequally truethatCongress intheexercise of its broad law‐making authority can declare certain acts as malaprohibitawhen justified by the exigencies of the times." The primary purpose ofthe prohibitionwas to avoid the denial of the equal protection of the laws. Thesponsorsoftheprovisionemphasizedthatunderthisprovision,thepoorcandidatehasanevenchanceasagainsttherichcandidate.Equalityofchancesmaybebetterattainedbybanningallorganizationsupport.Thebanwastoassureequalchancesto a candidate with talent and imbued with patriotism as well as nobility ofpurpose,sothatthecountrycanutilizetheirservicesifelected.



8

Fernando'sConcurringOpinion:Test of the permissible limitation on freedom of association: How should thelimitation'forpurposesnotcontrarytolaw'beinterpreted?Itissubmittedthatitisanother way of expressing the clear and present danger rule for unless anassociation or society could be shown to create an imminent danger to publicsafety, there is no justification for abridging the right to form associations orsocieties."Teehankee'sDissentingOpinion:The restriction denies "non‐political" candidates the very freedoms of effectivelyappealing to the electorate through the publicmedia and of being supported byorganized groups thatwould give them at least a fighting chance towin againstcandidatesofthepoliticalkingpins.Thepoliticalbigwigsaremeanwhilelefttogivetheir"individual"blessingstotheir favoredcandidates,which inactuality is takenbyallastheparty'sblessings.27 KANDUMV.COMELEC

GR136969,JANUARY18,2000(CHOTRANI)

FACTS:Petitioner Amilhamja Kandum and respondent Hadji Gapur Ballaho werecandidatesforPunongBarangayinBarangayLookBisaya,Tipo‐Tipo,Basilaninthe1997barangayelections.Petitionergarnered61votesoverrespondent's59votes.When petitioner was proclaimed the winner by the BBC, respondent filed anelectionprotestintheMCTCandsecuredafavorabledecision.Petitioner appealed the decision to the RTC. But when the RTC dismissed theappeal for lackof jurisdiction,petitioner filedanoticeofappeal to theCOMELECthroughtheMCTC.TheCOMELECissuedaresolutiondismissingtheappealforhavingbeenfiledoutoftime. (Appealwas filed37daysafterpetitioner receivedcopyof thedecisionoftheMCTC)HELD:RTC doesn't have jurisdiction over election protests involving barangay officialsdecidedbytrialcourtsoflimitedjurisdiction.

Exclusiveappellatejurisdictionoverallcontestsinvolvingelectivebarangayofficialsdecidedbycourtsof limited jurisdiction (theMetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourtsandMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts)lieswiththeCOMELEC,nottheRTC.Underparagraph(2),Section2,subdivisionC,ArticleIXoftheConstitution,Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers andfunctions:xxx(2)Exerciseexclusive . . .appellate jurisdictionoverallcontests involvingelectivemunicipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involvingelectivebarangayofficialsdecidedbytrialcourtsoflimitedjurisdiction.28 BUHISANV.COMELEC

GR127328,JANUARY30,2001(PEÑAFLORIDA)

FACTS:PetitionerJaneBuhisanandprivaterespondentGordonGorospewerecandidatesforthepositionofSangguniangKabataan(SK)ChairmanofBarangayPoblacion,SanJuan,SiquijorduringtheMay6,1996elections.Buhisangarnered35votesagainstGorospe's34votes.BuhisanwasproclaimedbytheBoardofElectionTellersasthedulyelectedSKChairman.On May 13 Gorospe filed before the MCTC of Lazi, Siquijor an election protestwhich seeks the annulment of the proclamation of Buhisan and to declare theformer thedulyelected SKChairman.MCTCnullifiedBuhisan'sproclamationanddeclaredGorospeastheSKChairman.BuhisanappealedwiththeCOMELEC.ElectoralContestsAdjudicationDepartmentof COMELEC returned the appeal. A motion for reconsideration was filed. Also,Buhisan re‐filed with the COMELEC her appellant's brief insisting that publicrespondenttakecognizanceofherappeal.COMELECdismissed the appeal and informedBuhisan that theMCTCdecision intheelectionprotestmayonlybeelevatedtotheCommissionenbancviaapetitionforreviewandnotbyordinaryappeal.



9

HELD:The COMELEC didn't commit any grave abuse of discretion with dismissing theappealdueameretechnicality.Section49ofCOMELECResolutionNo.2824datedFebruary6,1996,governingtheconductofSangguniangKabataanelectionsprovides:Sec.49. Finality of Proclamation.‐Theproclamationof thewinning candidate shallbe final.However, theMetropolitanTrialCourts/MunicipalTrialCourts/MunicipalCircuit Trial Courts shall have original jurisdiction over all election protest cases,whose decision shall be final. TheCommission en banc inmeritorious casesmayentertain a petition for review of the decision of the MeTC/MTC/MCTC inaccordancewith the COMELECRules of Procedure. An appeal bondof P2,000.00shallberequired,whichshallberefundableiftheappealisfoundmeritorious.Also, the COMELECmay entertain such petitions only onmeritorious gronds. Byprescribing a specific mode to be adopted in assailing the MCTC's decision,COMELEC is afforted opportunity to examine the allegations on the face jof thepetitionifthereisaprimafacieshowingthattheMCTCcommittedanerroroffactor lawor gravely abused itsdiscretion towarrant reversalormodificationof thedecision.Inotherwords,thismannerofappealisdiscretionaryonthepartoftheelection tribunal. It isessential thatapriordeterminationbemaderegarding theexistence of meritorious reasons for the petition. Unlike in ordinary appeals,acceptanceof thepetition isnotamatterof course.Hereanappeal isobviouslynot the proper remedy allowed by the COMELEC Rules Accordingly, publicrespondent cannot be faulted for grave abuse of discretion in dismissingpetitioner’sappeal29 MONTESCLAROSV.COMELEC

382SCRA2(VALDEZ)

FACTS:

MONTESCLAROS (petitioners), all 20 y.o. claims being in danger ofdisqualificationtovoteandbevotedfor intheSKelectionsshould itbepostponedfromoriginaldate(MAY02)toNOV02

RPPres.Signedthebillintolawpostponingtheelections

DuringpendencyofpetitionCongressenactedRA9164‐synchronizationofbrgy.andSKelectionsonJUL02;providesthatvotersandcandidatesfor SK elections must be at least 15 but less than 18 on the day ofelection

HELD:Thesubjectlawdoesn'tdisfranchisethepetitioners.Italsodoesn'tdeprivethemofanypropertyright.

SK: youth organization originally established by PD 684 as KABATAANGBARANGAY(KB)—composedofallbrgy.residentslessthan18y.o.

o LGC renamed KB to SK and limitedmembership to youths atleast15butnotmorethan21yo

o SK tasked to enhance social, political, economic, cultural,…dev’t.ofyouth

NovestedrighttothepermanenceofagerequirementunderLGC;everylawpassedisalwayssubjectofamendmentorrepeal

o Court cannot restrain Congress from amending or repealinglaw;powertomakelawsincludespowertochangelaws;CourtcannotdirectCOMELECtoallowover‐agedvoterstovoteorbevotedinanelectionlimitedunderRA9164

o Congresshaspowertoprescribequalifications PETITIONERS:nopersonal and substantial interest in the SKelections—

seekingtoenforcerightwhichhasbeenalreadylimitedwiththepassageof RA 9164—ceased to be members of SK and no longer qualified toparticipate

o Only those who qualify can contest, based on a statutoryauthority,anyactdisqualifyingthem—membershipintheSKismerestatutoryrightconferredbylaw

Noonehasvestedrighttoanypublicoffice,muchlessvestedrighttoanexpectancyofholdingpublicoffice

30 MONTESCLAROSV.COMELEC

GR152295,AUGUST13,2002



10

FACTS:HELD:

ELIGIBILITYOFCANDIDATESANDCERTIFICATEOFCANDIDACY31 RECABOV.COMELEC

308SCRA793(1999)(FLORES)

FACTS:

ThisisapetitionforCertiorariseekingtoannultheComelec’sresolutioncancelling Kaiser Recabo’s certificate of candidacy for Vice‐Mayor inSurigaoDelNorte

Kaiser Recabo claimed to be LAKASNUCD‐UMDP’s official candidate totheaforementionedposition,substitutinghismotherCandelariaRecabo

Kaiser Recabo’s certificate of candidacy was only signed by GovernorMatugas, and not jointly with Robert Barbers (space left blank) asintendedbythecertificateofnomination

OntheotherhandRespondentReyes’certificateofnominationforVice‐mayorwassignedbynootherthanFidelV.Ramos(NationalChairmanLAKAS)andJoseDeVenecia(SecretaryGeneralLAKAS)

HELD:ThecertificateofcandidacyofpetitionerandthatofhismotherwhohesubstitutedascandidateforViceMayorDIDNOTsubstantiallycompliedwiththerequirementsofbeingofficialcandidatesoftheLAKASparty.

ToallowRecabotorunwouldputtheelectionprocessinmockeryforwewould in effect be allowing an anomalous situation where a singlepoliticalpartymayfieldinmultiplecandidateforasingeelectionposition

Lakas designated 2 party officers to issue certificates of nomination,petitoner’snominationwassignedonlybyone,whilerespondentssignedbyRamosandJDV

Comelecdeclaredpetitioner’smotherasand independentcandidateonaccount of the invalidity of her nomination, thus there can be no validsubstitutionbypetitionerforaninvalidnomination

Besides, petitioner filed his candidacy out of time for an independentcandidate (althoughw/nprescriptiveperiodof a substituted candidate,useless because already adjudged as an invalid nomination andsubstitution)

Well‐settledcertificatefiledbeyonddeadlinenotvalid ButReyes’motion tobedeclaredwinner, garnering the secondhighest

numberofvotestoRecabocannotbegranted,woundbetantamounttosubstitutionofjudgmentforthemindofthevoter

32 BAUTISTAV.COMELEC

414SCRA299(AQUINO,T.)

FACTS:HELD:

DISQUALIFICATIONS33 SOCRATESV.COMELEC

391SCRA457(NEPOMUCENO)

FACTS:

PetitionerismayorofPuertoPrincesa,whowasremovedfromofficethruarecallproceedinginitiatedbythemajorityoftheincumbentbarangayofficialsofthecity

PetitionerfiledamotiontonullifytherecallresolutionbutwasdismissedbytheComelecforlackofmerit

Comelecsetdateforconductingtherecallelection;former3termmayorEdwardHagedornfileshiscertificateofcandidacy



11

PetitionerAdovoandGilofilespetitionbeforeComelectodisqualifyHagedornclaimingthatheisdisqualifiedfromrunningfora4thterm;petitionwasdismissed

HELD:Hagedornisqualifiedtorunintherecallelection

Art. X Sec. 8 of 1987 Constitution: the term of office of elective localofficials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law,shall be 3 years and no such official shall serve for more than 3consecutiveterms.Voluntaryrenunciationoftheofficeforanylengthoftime shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of hisserviceforthefulltermforwhichhewaselected.

Sec.43(b)RA7160:Termofoffice–nolocalofficialshallserveformorethan3consecutivetermsinthesameposition.Voluntaryrenunciationofthe office for any length of time shall not be considered as aninterruption in the continuity of service for the full term forwhich theelectiveofficialwaselected

Theseconstitutionalandstatutoryprovisionshave2parts Thefirstpartprovidesthatanelectivelocalofficialcannotserveorethan

3consecutiveterms Theclear intent isthatonlyconsecutivetermscount indeterminingthe

3‐termlimitrule The second part states that voluntary renunciation of office for any

lengthoftimedoesnotinterruptthecontinuityofservice Theclear intent is that involuntaryseverance fromoffice forany length

of time interrupts continuityof service andprevents the servicebeforeand after the interruption from being joined together to form acontinuousserviceorconsecutiveterms

After 3 consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot seekimmediatereelectionforafourthterm

Theprohibitedelection refers to thenext regularelection for the sameofficefollowingtheendofthethirdconsecutiveterm

Any subsequent election, like a recall election, is no longer covered bytheprohibitionfortworeasons

First, a subsequent election like a recall election is no longer animmediatereelectionafterthreeconsecutiveterms

Second,theinterveningperiodconstitutesaninvoluntaryinterruptioninthecontinuityofservice

Clearly,theconstitutionprohibitsimmediatereelectionforafourthtermfollowingthreeconsecutiveterms

Theconstitution,however,doesnotprohibitasubsequentreelectionforafourthtermaslongasthereelectionisnotimmediatelyaftertheendofthethirdconsecutiveterm

Arecallelectionmidwayinthetermfollowingthethirdconsecutivetermisasubsequentelectionbutnotanimmediatereelectionafterthethirdterm

Neither does the constitution prohibit one barred from seekingimmediate reelection to run in anyother subsequent election involvingthesametermofoffice

Whattheconstitutionprohibitsisaconsecutivefourthterm Theprohibitedelectionreferredtobytheframersof theconstitution is

theimmediatereelectionafterthethirdterm,notanyothersubsequentelection

The framersexpressly acknowledged that theprohibitedelection refersonly to the immediate reelection, and not to any subsequent election,duringthe6yearperiodfollowingthetwotermlimit

Theframersoftheconstitutiondidnotintend“theperiodofrest”ofanelectiveofficialwhohasreachedhistermlimittobethefullextentofthesucceedingterm

34 ADORMEOV.COMELEC

376SCRA90(HOSAKA)

FACTS:



12

PetRaymundoAdormeoandprivaterespRamonTalagaweretheonlycandidateswhofiledthecertificatesofcandidacyformayorofLucenaCityintheMay14,2001elections.Talagawasthentheincumbentmayor.Adormeo filed a with the Provincial Election Supervisor a Petition To Deny DueCoursetoorCancelCertificateofCandidacyandorDisqualificationofTalagaonthegroundthatthelatterwaselectedandhadservedascitymayorfor3consecutivetermsasfollows:1)electionofMay1992whereheservedthefullterm;2)electionofMay1995,againheservedafull term;and3) intherecallelectionofMay12,2000 where he served only the unexpired term of Tagarao after having lost toTagaraointhe1998election.AdormeocontendedthatTalaga’scandidacyasMayorwasaviolationofSec8ArtXoftheConstitution‐‐‐Sec.8.Thetermofofficeofelectivelocalofficials,exceptbarangayofficials,whichshallbedeterminedbylaw,shallbe3yearsandnosuchofficialshallserveformore than 3 consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for anylength of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of hisserviceforthefulltermforwhichhewaselected.Talagaclaimsthatheonlyservedfor2consecutivetermsandthathisservicefromMay2000wasnotafulltermbecauseheonlyservedTagarao’sunexpiredtermbyvirtueoftherecallelection.HecitesthecaseofLonzanidagiving2conditionsforthedisqualification1)thattheofficialhasbeenelectedfor3consecutivetermsinthesamelocalgovtpost;and2)thathehasfullyserved3consecutiveterms.ComelecdivisionruledinfavorofAdormeo. Comelecenbancreversed,hencethispetition.HELD:Talagaisqualifiedtorunformayor.Talagawasnotelectedfor3consecutivetermshaving losthis3rdbid intheMay11,1998elections,saiddefeatisaninterruptioninthecontinuityofhisserviceascitymayorofLucena.Theterm limit forelective localofficialsmustbetakentorefer totheright tobeelectedaswellastherighttoserveinthesameelectiveposition.

Talagawas not elected for 3 consecutive terms and for nearly 2 years hewas aprivatecitizen.Thecontinuityofhismayorshipwasdisruptedbyhisdefeat inthe1998 elections. It was only by virtue of the recall that he served Tagarao’sunexpiredterm.Thisdidnotamounttoathirdfullterm.Fr.Bernas’commentthat“ifone iselectedrepresentativetoservetheunexpiredtermofanother,thatunexpiredterm,nomatterhowshort,willbeconsideredonetermforthepurposeofcomputingthenumberofsuccessivetermsallowed”onlypertains to themembers of the House of Representatives and not to local govtofficials.Neither can Talaga’s victory in the recall election be deemed as “voluntaryrenunciation”undertheConstitution.35 DIANGKAV.COMELEC

323SCRA887(REYES)

FACTS:PetitionerMaimonaDiangkafiledapetitionforcertiorariquestioningthedecisionofCOMELECindisqualifyingherascandidateforMayorofGanassi,LanaodelSur.PetitionerwasthewifeoftheincumbentMayor.AliBalindong,theothermayoraltycandidate, filed a special action for disqualification against Diangka and herhusbandallegingthattheycommitted2actsofterrorism:*First,thattheyloadedtheballotboxesintoanambulancethensubsequently,through force and threats, made the watchers of Balindong go down from thevehicle.* Second, that Diangka’s husband went to the voting areas and caused acommotionthatpreventedvotersfromvoting.Intheresultsoftheelections,Diangkaemergedthewinner.COMELECorderedtheboardofcanvasserstoceaseanddesistfromdeclaringDiangkaasmayor,butthatorder came in late and still Diangka was declaredmayor. In the hearing for thedisqualification,onlyBalindongandlawyerappeared,henceCOMELECdisqualifiedDiangka. Diangka now assails the decision via certiorari, meanwhile vice‐mayorelectMacapodiassumedthemayorposition.



13

HELD:Diangkacanbeheldliableforthetwoactsofterrorismofherhusbandthus,shecouldbedisqualifiedbytheCOMELEC.1.COMELECdeterminedthatDiangkawasatthefrontseatbesidethedriverintheambulancewhenthewatchersofBalindongweremadetogodownviathreats.Herexcusethatshedidnotknownorwassheincollusionwithherhusbandcannotholdwater.First,sheadmittedthatsherequestedthatthedriver,aftertheythreatenedthewatchers,dropheroffattheschool.Suchshowsshehadcontroloverthedriver.Second,hermerepresenceintheambulanceshowsthatsheacquiescedtoherhusbandsactsandhenceguiltyalso.2.COMELECdeterminedthatitwasactuallyDiangka’shusbandwhocausedthecommotionwhichpreventedthevotersfromvoting.WhileitwasnotactuallyDiangkawhocommittedtheacts,shedidnotprovethatherrunningwasnotamerealteregoofherhusbandwhoisinhis3termasmayor.ThistogetherwithherpresenceintheambulancemakesherguiltyoftheactsofterrorisminviolationoftheOmnibusElectionCode.

Note:GroundsforDisqualification(Section68ofOmnibusElectionCode):a)Givingmoneyorothermaterialconsiderationtoinfluence,induceorcorruptthevotersorpublicofficialsperformingelectoralfunctions;b)Committedactsofterrorismtoenhancehiscandidacy;c)Spentinhiselectioncampaignanamountinexcessofthatallowedd)Solicited,receivedormadeanycontributionwhichareprohibited

36 SOON‐RUIZV.COMELEC

GR144323,SEPTEMBER5,2000(TAN,E.)

FACTS:Petitioner(SOLLER)andrespondent(SAULONG)werebothcandidatesformayorofBansud,OrientalMindoro.MunicipalboardofcanvassersproclaimedSOLLERdulyelectedmayor.SAULONGfiledtwoactions:

a. COMELEC: “petition for annulment of the proclamation/exclusion ofelectionreturn”

b. RTC:electionprotestagainstSAULONGSOLLERfiledmotiontodismiss—COMELECgranted,RTCdeniedThedenial byRTCof SOLLER’smotion todismisswasquestioned via petition forcertiorariwithCOMELEC.ThiscertiorariwasdismissedbytheCOMELECenbanc.HELD:1.W/NCOMELECgravelyabuseditsdiscretionamountingtolackofjurisdictioninnotorderingthedismissalofSAULONG’selectionprotest.YES. The decision of the COMELEC en banc is null and void. The authority toresolve petition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protest fallswithin the division of the COMELEC and not on the COMELEC en banc. TheCOMELEC en banc does not have the requisite authority to hear and decideelectioncases includingpre‐proclamationcontroversies in the first instance. Anydecision by it in the first instance is null and void. If the principal case, oncedecidedonthemerits,iscognizableonappealbyadivisionoftheCOMELEC,then,there is no reason why petitions for certiorari relating to incidents of electionprotestshouldnotbereferredfirsttoadivisionoftheCOMELECforresolution.2.W/NRTCcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretioninfailingtodismissrespondent’selectionprotest.Yes.Closescrutinyofthereceiptsshowthatrespondentfailedtopaythefilingfeeof P300. Thus, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over respondent’selection protest. COMELEC erred in not ordering the dismissal of respondent’sprotest case. Errors in the payment of filing fees in election cases is no longerexcusable.The protest should have also been dismissed for lack of proper verification(tantamount to filing an unsigned pleading), and for failure to comply with therequiredcertificationagainstforumshopping.Thisrequirementismandatory,andcannot be excused by the fact that a party has not actually resorted to forumshopping.Goodfaithisnotanexcuse.



14

Moreover, respondent’s petition was a pre‐proclamation case, which may nolonger be entertained by the COMELEC after the winning candidates have beenproclaimed. By resorting to the wrong remedy, respondent may be claimed tohaveabandonedthepre‐proclamationcasethathefiled.PETITIONGRANTED.37 PAPANDAYAN,JR.V.COMELEC

381SCRA133(BAUTISTA)

FACTS:

PetitionerPapandayanandrespondentBaltwerecontendingcandidatesformayorofTubaran,LanaodelSurintheMay14,2001elections.

COMELEC 2nd Division issued a resolution declaring petitioner to bedisqualified based on affidavits submitted by respondent as evidence;orderedpetitioner’snametobestrickenoffthelistofcandidatesandallvotescastinhisfavornottobecountedbutconsideredasstrayvotes.

On election day, petitioner was voted by the electorate as municipalmayor. The following day, he received a telegram from the COMELECnotifyinghimthattheCOMELECenbancdeniedhisMR.

Petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC 1st Division seeking theissuanceofanorderdirecting theBoardofElection Inspectors tocountand tally the ballots cast in his favor during the elections pursuant toCOMELECResolution4116.Resolutionprovidesthatifthedisqualificationcasehasnotbecomefinalandexecutoryonthedayoftheelection,BEIshalltallyandcountthevotesofthecandidatedeclareddisqualified.

Respondent filed pre‐proclamation case; COMELEC issued an ordersuspending the proclamation of petitioner but despite said order,MunicipalBoardofCanvassersstillproclaimedpetitioneraswinner.

Uponmotionofrespondent,COMELEC1stDivisionsetasidepetitioner’sproclamation;COMELECenbancsustainedannulmentofproclamationofpetitioner

HELD:

Petitionershouldn'tbedisqualified.

# At the time the elections were held in May 14, 2001, the assailedresolution, had not become final and executory. Hence, the Board ofElectionInspectors(BEI)wasdutyboundtotallyandcountthevotescastinfavorofpetitioner.

# COMELEC Resolution 4116 pertains to the finality of decisions orresolutionsoftheCommissionenbancordivision,particularlyonSpecialActions(Disqualificationcases)

#Sec.13,paragraphs(b)and(c)ofsaidresolutionprovide:(b)InSpecialActionsandSpecialcases,adecisionorresolutionoftheCommissionenbanc shall become final and executory after five (5) days from itspromulgation unless restrained by the Supreme Court. (c) Unless amotionforreconsiderationisseasonablyfiled,adecisionorresolutionofaDivisionshallbecomefinalandexecutoryafterthelapseoffive(5)daysinSpecialActionsandSpecialcasesandafterfifteen(15)daysinallotheractionsorproceedings,followingitspromulgation.”

#COMELECResolution4116furtherprovides that:3.wherethegroundfor the disqualification case is by reason of non‐residence, citizenship,violationofelection laws andotheranalogouscasesandonthedayoftheelection the resolutionhasnotbecome finalandexecutory, theBEIshalltallyandcountthevotesofsuchdisqualifiedcandidate.

# Respondent, therefore, is in error in assuming that the issuance of atemporary restraining order by this Courtwithin five (5) days after thedateof thepromulgationof the assailed resolution is theoperative actthatpreventsitfromattainingfinality.

# With due regard for the expertise of the COMELEC, we find theevidence tobe insufficient to sustain its resolution. Petitionerhasdulyproventhat,althoughhewas formerlya residentof theMunicipalityofBayang,he later transferred residence toTangcal in theMunicipalityofTubaran as shown by his actual and physical presence therein for 10yearspriortotheMay14,2001elections.

# The principle of animus revertendi has been used to determinewhetheracandidatehasan“intentiontoreturn”totheplacewherehe



15

seeks tobeelected. Corollary to this isadeterminationwhether therehas been an “abandonment” of his former residencewhich signifies anintentiontodeparttherefrom.

# Caasi v. Court of Appeals: respondent’s immigration to the UnitedStatesin1984constitutedanabandonmentofhisdomicileandresidencein the Philippines. Being a green card holderwas proof that hewas apermanentresidentorimmigrantoftheUnitedStates.

# Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives: this Court,citing Faypon v. Quirino, applied the concept of animus revertendi or“intenttoreturn,”Thefactthatrespondentmadeperiodicaljourneystohis home province in Laoang revealed that he always had animusrevertendi.

#Romualdezv.RTC,Br.7,TaclobanCity:Theterm“residence,”asusedintheelectionlaw, importsnotonlyanintentiontoresideinafixedplacebutalsopersonalpresenceinthatplace,coupledwithconductindicativeof such intention. “Domicile” denotes a fixed permanent residence towhich when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, oneintendstoreturn.

#TheCourtexplainedthatinordertoacquireanewdomicilebychoice,theremustconcur(1)residenceorbodilypresenceinthenewlocality,(2)an intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon the olddomicile. There must be animus manendi coupled with animus nonrevertendi. Thepurposetoremain inorat thedomicileofchoicemustbe for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must bevoluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicilemustbeactual.

# The record shows that when petitioner and his wife Raida GuinaDimaporogotmarried in1990, they resided inTangcal, Tubaran. Fromthenon,therewasmanifestintentiononthepartofpetitionertoresideinTubaran,whichhedeemedtobetheplaceofhisconjugalabodewithhiswife.ThefactthatheandhiswifetransferredresidencefromBayangto Tubaran shows that petitionerwas relinquishing his former place ofresidence in Bayang and that he intended Tubaran to be his place ofdomicile.Althoughpetitionerworkedasaprivatesecretaryofthemayor

ofBayang,hewenthometoTubaraneverydayafterwork.Thisisproofofanimusmanendi.

# It is the fact of residence that is the decisive factor in determiningwhether or not an individual has satisfied the Constitution’s residencyqualificationrequirement.

#When the evidenceof the alleged lack of residencequalification of acandidate for an elective position isweak or inconclusive and it clearlyappearsthatthepurposeofthelawwouldnotbethwartedbyupholdingthe victor’s right to the office, the will of the electorate should berespected.

38 MAGNOV.COMELEC

390SCRA495(GO)

FACTS:

Petitioner Nestor Magno ran for MAYOR of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija in2001.

PrivateRespondentfiledapetitionfordisqualificationofMagnobecausehewasconvictedbytheSandiganbayanof4countsofDirectBriberyandsentenced.MagnoappliedforprobationandwasdischargedonMarchof1998.

COMELEC disqualified petitioner based on a provision of BP 881(Omnibus Election Code) disqualifying a candidate convicted of a crimeinvolvingmoralturpitudeuntilafterthelapseof5yearsfromtheserviceofsentence.

MagnoclaimsSec40(a)RA7160(LocalGovernmentCode)shouldapplyinstead of BP 881: A person convicted of a crime involving moralturpitudemayrunafterthelapseof2yearsaftertheserviceofsentence.

SoniaIsidrowasdeclaredMayorwhilethecasewaspending.HELD:First,Directbriberyisacrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude.



16

Noteverycriminalactinvolvesmoralturpitude.Black’sLawDictionarydefinesitas‘anactofbaseness,vilenessordepravity in theprivatedutieswhichamanoweshis fellow men or society in general…’ Direct bribery contemplates takingadvantage of his position and is a betrayal of the trust reposed to him by thepublic.Second,heisnotqualified.RA7160shouldapply.First,RA7160isthemorerecentlaw.ItimpliedlyrepealsBP881shouldtherebeanyinconsistencies.Second,RA7160isaspeciallawapplyingspecificallytolocalgovernmentunits.BP881appliesfortheelectionofanypublicoffice. Special law prevails. Since he was discharged on March 1998, Magno’sdisqualificationceasedonMarch2000.*Courtdeclared that it couldnot ruleonMagno’sprayer forhisproclamationaswinnerofthemayoraltyrace,itbeingoutsideitsjurisdiction.39 CODILLA,SR.V.DEVENECIA

393SCRA639(AGUINALDO)

FACTS:Petitionerand respondentwereopposing candidates for representative. A voterfiled with the COMELEC a petition to disqualify petitioner on the ground thatpetitioner, who was then a mayor, violated Section 68 of the Omnibus ElectionCodebydistributinggravelandsandtovoterstoinducethemtovoteforhim.TheCOMELEC delegated the hearing to the Regional Director. On election day, nohearing has been done yet. Petitioner won. Respondent intervened in thedisqualification case and prayed for the suspension of the proclamation ofpetitioner. Petitioner was not furnished a copy of the motion. COMELECsuspendedtheproclamationbecauseoftheseriousnessoftheallegationsagainstpetitioner. Petitioner has not been served any summons. Petitioner filed hisanswer. He alleged that the repair of the roads was undertaken without hisauthority. After a hearing on the motion to suspend the proclamation ofpetitioner,theCOMELECissuedaresolutiondisqualifyingpetitioneranddeclaringtheimmediateproclamationofthecandidatewhoreceivedthehighestnumberofvotes. Thevotesofpetitionerweredeclared stray. Respondentwasproclaimedelectedandsheassumedoffice.Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration.TheCOMELEC en banc nullified the proclamation of respondent and ordered the

proclamation of petitioner. Respondent didn’t appeal from the decision. Sheargued that since she assumed office, the COMELEC doesn’t have jurisdiction toannulherproclamation.

HELD:Petitioner was not notified of the petition for his disqualification through theserviceofsummonsnoroftheMotionstosuspendhisproclamation.Therecordsofthecasedonotshowthatsummonswasservedonthepetitioner.Theydonotcontainacopyofthesummonsallegedlyservedonthepetitioneranditscorrespondingproofofservice.Furthermore,privaterespondentneverrebuttedpetitioner'srepeatedassertionthathewasnotproperlynotifiedofthepetitionforhisdisqualificationbecausehenever received summons.71Petitioner claims thatpriortoreceivingatelegraphedOrderfromtheCOMELECSecondDivisiononMay22,2001,directingtheDistrictBoardofCanvasserstosuspendhisproclamation,hewasneversummonednorfurnishedacopyofthepetitionforhisdisqualification.HewasabletoobtainacopyofthepetitionandtheMay22OrderoftheCOMELECSecondDivisionby personally going to theCOMELECRegionalOffice onMay23,2001.Thus,hewasabletofilehisAnswertothedisqualificationcaseonlyonMay24,2001.More, the proclamation of the petitioner was suspended in gross violation ofsection72oftheOmnibusElectionCodewhichprovides:"Sec. 72. Effects of disqualification cases and priority.‐ The Commission and thecourts shall givepriority to casesofdisqualificationby reasonof violationof thisAct to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than seven daysbeforetheelectioninwhichthedisqualificationissought.Anycandidatewhohasbeendeclaredbyfinaljudgmenttobedisqualifiedshallnotbevotedfor,andthevotescastforhimshallnotbecounted.Nevertheless, if foranyreason,acandidateisnotdeclaredbyfinaljudgmentbeforeanelectiontobedisqualifiedandheisvotedforandreceivesthewinningnumberofvotes insuchelection,hisviolationoftheprovisionsoftheprecedingsectionsshallnotpreventhisproclamationandassumptiontooffice."(emphasessupplied)Intheinstantcase,petitionerhasnotbeendisqualifiedbyfinaljudgmentwhentheelectionswereconductedonMay14,2001.TheRegionalElectionDirectorhasyetto conduct hearing on the petition for his disqualification. After the elections,



17

petitioner was voted in office by a wide margin of 17,903. On May 16, 2001,however, respondent Locsin filed a Most Urgent Motion for the suspension ofpetitioner'sproclamation.TheMostUrgentMotioncontainedastatement to theeffectthatacopywasservedtothepetitionerthroughregisteredmail.Therecordsrevealthatnoregistryreceiptwasattachedtoprovesuchservice.72ThisviolatesCOMELEC Rules of Procedure requiring notice and service of the motion to allparties.Respondent'sMostUrgentMotiondoesnotfallundertheexceptionstonoticeandserviceofmotions.First,thesuspensionofproclamationofawinningcandidateisnot amatter which the COMELEC Second Division can dispose ofmotu proprio.Second,therightofanadverseparty,inthiscase,thepetitioner,isclearlyaffected.GiventhelackofserviceoftheMostUrgentMotiontothepetitioner,saidMotionisamerescrapofpaper.Under section 6 of R.A. No. 6646, the COMELEC can suspend proclamation onlywhen evidence of thewinning candidate's guilt is strong. In the case at bar, theCOMELEC Second Division did not make any specific finding that evidence ofpetitioner's guilt is strong. Its only basis in suspending the proclamation of thepetitioneristhe"seriousnessoftheallegations"inthepetitionfordisqualification.Absentanyfindingofevidencethattheguiltisstrong,thenclearly,therewasgraveabuseofdiscretiononthepartofCOMELEC.

REGISTRATIONOFVOTERS;PRECINCTSANDPOLLINGPLACES;BOARDOFELECTIONINSPECTORS;WATCHERS;OFFICIALBALLOTSANDELECTIONRETURNS;

CASTINGANDCOUNTINGOFVOTES40 BAUTISTAV.COMELEC

298SCRA480(SINGSON)

FACTS:

Petitioner Cipriano “Efren” Bautista and private respondent were dulyregistered candidates for thepositionofMayorofNavotas in the 1998Elections. Aside from them, a certain Edwin “Efren” Bautista (EdwinBautista)alsofiledacertificateofcandidacyforthesameposition.

Petitioner filed a petition praying that Edwin Bautista be declared anuisancecandidate.

COMELEC declared Edwin Bautista as nuisance candidate andconsequentlyorderedthecancellationofhiscertificateofcandidacyforthepositionofMayor.

MRwasfiledbyEdwinBautista;subsequentlydenied. Before final determination of Edwin Bautista’s MR, upon request of

petitioner’s counsel, the Regional Election Director of NCR gaveinstructions to the BEI to tally separately either in someportion of thesameelectionreturnnotintendedforvotesformayoraltycandidatesorinaseparatepaperthevotes“EfrenBautista”,“Efren”,“E.Bautista”and“Bautista”,consideredasstrayvotes.

Whenthecanvassoftheelectionreturnswascommenced,theMunicipalBoard of Canvassers of Navotas refused to canvass as part of the validvotes of petitioner the separate tallies of votes onwhichwerewritten“EfrenBautista”,“Efren”,“E.Bautista”and“Bautista”.

Petitioner filed with COMELEC a Petition to Declare Illegal theProceedingsof theMunicipalBoardofCanvassers;dismissed for lackofmerit.

HELD:Therewasgraveabuseofdiscretionindenyingtheinclusionaspartofpetitioner’svalid votes the Bautista stray votes that were separately tallied by the BEI andBoardofCanvassers.

# It must be emphasized that the case at bar involves a ground fordisqualificationwhichclearlyaffectsthevoter’swillandcausesconfusionthatfrustratesthesame.

#ElectionLawsgiveeffectto,ratherthanfrustrate,thewillofthevoter.Thus, extreme caution should be observed before any ballot isinvalidated.

# In the appreciation of ballots, doubts are resolved in favor of theirvalidity.

# Matters tend to get complicated when technical rules are strictlyapplied–technicalitiesshouldnotbepermittedtodefeattheintentionofthe voter, especially so if that intention is discoverable from the ballotitself,asinthiscase.



18

# Sec. 69 of the Omnibus Election Code – the COMELEC may motupropriooruponaverifiedpetitionofan interestedparty,refusetogiveduecoursetoorcancelacertificateofcandidacy1)ifitisshownthatsaidcertificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery ordisrepute,2)ortocauseconfusionamongvotersbythesimilarityofthenames of registered candidates; 3) or by other circumstances or actswhichclearlydemonstratethatacandidatehasnobonafideintentiontorunfortheofficeforwhichthecertificateofcandidacyhasbeenfiledandthuspreventafaithfuldeterminationofthetruewilloftheelectorate.

#Fatualcircumstancesand logicdictate that the“Bautista”and“Efren”voteswhich weremistakenly deemed as stray votes refer only to onecandidate, herein petitioner. Such votes, which represent the voice ofapprox.21,000electorscouldnothavebeenintendedforEdwinBautista,allegedlyknowninNavotasasatricycledriverandworseadrugaddict,notknownas“Efren”asstatedinhiscertificateofcandidacy,butBoboy”or “Boboy Tarugo” as his known appellation or nickname, andsatisfactorilyandfinallyshownasacandidatewithnopoliticallineup,nopersonal funds that could have supported his campaign, and noaccomplishmentswhichmaybenotedbandconsideredbythepublic,asagainst a known former public officer who had served the people ofNavotasasBrgy.Official,councilorandvicemayor.

#Toruleotherwisewilldefinitelyresultinthedisenfranchisementofthewillof theelectorate,which is,aswementioned, thesituation thatourelectionlawsareenactedtoprevent.

41 PUNZALANV.COMELEC289SCRA702(FERNANDEZ)

FACTS:

Manalastas,MenesesandPunzalanwereamongofthe4candidatesformayorofthemunicipalityofMexicoPampanga

Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimedMeneses as the dulyelectedmayor

Manalastas and Punzalan separately siled election protests challengingthe results of the elections; Meneses filed his answer to both withcounterprotests:orderedconsolidatedandjointlytriedbythecourt

Election contests sought the nullification of the election of Menesesallegedly due tomassive fraud, irregularities and other illegal electoralpracticesduringtheregistrationandvotingaswellasduringthecountingofvotes

Because of irregularities (massive fraud, illegal electoral practices andseriousanomalies;ballots,electionreturnsandtallysheetsdisappearedunder mysterious circumstances and filled up ballots with undetachedlower stubs and groups of ballotwith stubs cut outwith scissorswerefoundinsideballotboxes)foundafterhearingtheprotests,thetrialcourtwasconstrained toexamine thecontestedballotsand thehandwritingsappearingthereonandcameupwiththedeclarationthatPunzalanwasthewinnerintheelections

variousnoticesofappeal,motionsforexecution,petitionsforcertiorari,prohibition with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining orderand/orpreliminaryinjunction

Comelec promulgated a resolution affirming the proclamation ofMeneses

HELD:Onthefirstissue…

While RA 7166 (An Act Providing for Synchronized National and LocalElectionsandForElectoralReforms)requirestheBEIchairmantoaffixhissignature at the back of the ballot, themere failure to do so does notinvalidate the same although it may constitute an election offenseimputabletosaidBEI

Failure of the BEI chairman or any of the members of the board tocomply with their mandated administrative responsibility should notpenalizethevoterwithdisenfranchisement

A ballot without BEI chairman's signature at the back is valid and notspurious



19

For as long as the ballot bears any one of the following authenticatingmarks,itisconsideredvalid:

o TheComelecwatermarko SignatureorinitialsorthumbprintoftheChairmanoftheBEIo Where thewatermarks areblurredornot readily apparent to

thenakedeye,thepresenceofredorbluefibersintheballots Everyballotshallbepresumedtobevalidunlessthereisaclearandgood

reasontojustifyitsrejectionOnthesecondissue…

The appreciation of the contested ballots and election documentsinvolvesaquestionoffactbestlefttothedeterminationoftheComelec

TheComelecneednotconductanadversarialproceedingorahearingtodeterminetheauthenticityofballotsor thehandwriting foundthereon;neither does it need to solicit the help of the handwriting experts inexamining or comparing the handwriting; even evidence aliunde is notnecessarytoenabletheCommissiontodeterminetheauthenticityoftheballots and the genuineness of the handwriting on the ballots as anexaminationoftheballotsthemselvesisalreadysufficient

Minor and insignificant variations in handwritingmust be perceived asindiciaofgenuinenessratherthanoffalcity

Carelessness, spontaneity, unpremeditation and speed in signing areevidenceofgenuineness

DOCTRINE:

thelawsandstatuesgoverningelectioncontestsespeciallyappreciationofballotsmustbeliberallyconstruedtotheendthatthewilloftheelectorateinthechoiceofpublicofficialsmaynotbedefeatedbytechnicalinfirmities

anelectionprotests is imbuedwithpublic interest somuch so that theneedtodispeluncertaintieswhichbecloudtherealchoiceofthepeopleisimperative

ELECTORALCONTRIBUTIONSANDEXPENDITURES

42 PILARV.COMELEC245SCRA759(OBERIO)

FACTS:PetitionerPilarfiledhiscertificateofcandidacyforthepositionofmemberoftheSangguniangPanlalawiganoftheProvinceofIsabela.3dayslater,hewithdrewhiscertificate of candidacy. COMELECimposed upon petitioner a fine of P10,000 forfailure to file his statement of contributions and expenditures. Petitioner filedmotion for reconsideration which was denied by COMELEC. Petitioner went toCOMELECenbancwhichdeniedthepetitioninitsResolution.Hence,thispetitionforcertiorari.HELD:Petitionershouldbeheldliableforfailuretofilehisstatementofcontributionsandexpenditures.

Petitioner argues that he cannot be held liable for failure to file astatement of contribution and expenditures because he was a "non‐candidate,"havingwithdrawnhiscertificateofcandidacy3daysafteritsfiling.Petitionerpositsthat"itisxxxclearfromthelawthatthecandidatemusthaveenteredthepoliticalcontest,andshouldhaveeitherwonorlost".Petitoner'sargumentiswithoutmerit.

Section 14 of RA No. 7166 states that "every candidate" has theobligationtofilehisstatementofcontributionsandexpenditures.Wherethe law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. The term"everycandidate"mustbedeemedtorefernotonlytoacandidatewhopursuedhiscampaign,butalsotoonewhowithdrewhiscandidacy.

Section13ofResolutionNo.2348oftheCOMELEC,inimplementationoftheprovisionsofRA7166,categoricallyrefersto"allcandidateswhofiledtheircertificatesofcandidacy."

Furthermore, Section 14 of the lawuses theword "shall". Such impliesthatthestatuteismandatory,particularlyifpublic interestis involved—state has an interest in seeing that the electoral process is clean andexpressive of the true will of the electorate. One way to attain such



20

objective is to pass a legislation regulating contributions andexpenditures, and compelling the publication of the same. It is notimprobable that a candidatewhowithdrewhis candidacy has acceptedcontributions and incurred expenditures, even in the short span of hiscampaign. The evil sought to be prevented by the law is not all tooremote.

ResolutionNo.2348alsocontemplates the situationwherea candidatemaynothavereceivedanycontributionormadeanyexpenditure.Suchcandidateisnotexcusedfromfilingastatement.

BP Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code provides that "the filing orwithdrawal of certificate of candidacy shall not affect whatever civil,criminal or administrative liabilities which a candidate may haveincurred."Petitioner'swithdrawalofhiscandidacydidnotextinguishhisliabilityfortheadministrativefine.

ELECTIONOFFENSES

43 LAURELV.HONORABLEPRESIDINGJUDGE

323SCRA779(AQUINO,P.)

FACTS: Hon. Bernardo P. Pardo sent a verified letter‐complaint to Jose P.

Balbuena charging Herman Tiu Laurel with "Falsification of PublicDocuments"andviolationof[Section74]oftheOmnibusElectionCode.

ItallegedthatbothhisfatherandmotherwereChinesecitizensbutwhenpetitioner filed a certificateof candidacy for thepositionof Senator hestatedthathisanatural‐bornFilipinocitizen

AninvestigationwasconductedbytheCOMELECLawDepartmentandaReportwasmaderecommendingthefilingofInformation.

During en banc, COMELEC resolved to file the necessary informationagainst respondent and to file a criminal complaint against respondentforfalsification

Director Balbuena filed an information for Violation of Section 74, inrelationtoSection262oftheOmnibusElectionCode

PlaintifffiledaMotionforInhibition,seekingtheinhibitionoftheentireCOMELECbecauseofitsbiasinrenderingaresolution.

Plaintiff filed on 07 May 1996 a Motion to Quash alleging lack ofjurisdictionandlackofauthorityonthepartofDirectorBalbuenatofiletheinformation.

Courtdenied. PetitionerthenfiledapetitionforcertioraribeforetheCourtofAppeals. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court and ruled that the proper

procedurewas followedby theCOMELECbutdirectedthetrialcourt toremandthecasetotheCOMELECforreceptionofpetitioner'smotionforreconsideration of the COMELEC resolution dated January 25, 1996,whichapprovedthefilingofacriminalcomplaintagainstpetitioner.

HELD:1.ItwaserrorfortheCourtofAppealstoholdtherewasnoflawintheprocedurefollowedbytheCOMELECintheconductofthepreliminaryinvestigation.‐No.Therearetwowaysthroughwhichacomplaint forelectionoffensesmaybeinitiated. It may be filed by the COMELEC motu proprio, or it may be filed viawritten complaintbyany citizenof thePhilippines, candidate, registeredpoliticalparty, coalition of political parties or organizations under the partylist system oranyaccreditedcitizensarmsoftheCommission‐Motu proprio complaintsmay be signedby the Chairmanof the COMELEC andneednotbeverified.On theotherhand, complaints filedbypartiesother than theCOMELECmustbeverifiedandsupportedbyaffidavitsandotherevidence.‐ThecomplaintinquestioninthiscaseisonefiledbyPardoinhispersonalcapacityandnotaschairmanoftheCOMELEC.‐ There is nothing in the rules that require that only the COMELEC en bancmayreferacomplainttotheLawDepartmentforinvestigation.



21

‐ There is no rule against the COMELEC chairman directing the conduct of apreliminary investigation, even if he himself were the complainant in his privatecapacity.2. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner's protestations onCOMELEC's having acted as complainant, investigator, prosecutor, judge andexecutionerintheconductofthepreliminaryinvestigationringhollow.‐No. therecordsshowthat there isbasis toat least findprobablecause to indictthepetitionerforviolationoftheOmnibusElectionCodeanditappearsfromtherecordsthatChairmanPardohadnootherparticipation intheproceedingswhichledtothefilingoftheInformation.‐The entire COMELEC cannot possibly be restrained from investigating thecomplaint filed against petitioner, as the latter would like the courts to do. TheCOMELEC is mandated by no less than the Constitution to investigate andprosecute, when necessary, violations of election laws. This power is lodgedexclusively with the COMELEC. For the entire Commission to inhibit itself frominvestigating the complaint against petitioner would be nothing short of anabandonment of its mandate under the Constitution and the Omnibus ElectionCode.44 FAELNARV.PEOPLE

331SCRA429(CRUZ)

FACTS:Eugenio Faelnar filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of barangaychairman during the 1997 barangay elections in Cebu. One day after filing suchcertificate (april 9), a basketball tournament was held in the sports complexdubbedas,“2ndJing‐JingFaelnar’sCup”whichlasteduntilApril30,1997.Thisgaverise to a complaint for electioneering against petitioner and Gillamac filed byAntonio Luy. Itwasalleged that itwasactuallya formof campaigndoneoutsidetheofficialcampaignperiodwhichshouldstartonMay1,1997.1.thattherewasastreamer bearing the name of petitioner placed at the façade of the venue. 2.petitionersnamewasrepeatedlymentionedoverthemicrophone.3.itwaswidelypublishedinthelocalnewspaper.4.arafflesponsoredbyGillamacwasheldwithhomeappliancesasprize. It constitutedanelectionoffense. Initially,Comelecenbanc inaResolutionresolvedtodismissthefilingofthecase intheRTC.Antonio

LuymovedforreconsiderationpromptingtheComelectoproceedwiththefilingofthe case against petitioner. Petitioner moved to quash on the basis that thepreviousdismissalof theComelecenbanc,was immediately finalandexecutory.And that Luy’s motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading underCommission’srulesofprocedure.HELD:AMotionforReconsiderationisallowedinelectionoffensecases.Section1,Rule13ofComelec’sRulesofProcedurestates,“thefollowingpleadingsarenotallowed,…(d)motionforreconsiderationofanenbancruling,resolution,orderordecisionexceptinelectionoffensecases…ItwasalsoheldthattheComelecenbancistheonethatdeterminestheexistenceofprobablecauseinanelectionoffense.ButitmayalsobedelegatedtotheStateProsecutor or to the Provincial or City Fiscal but may still be reviewed by theComelec.

45 COMELECV.TAGLE

397SCRA618(LIM)

FACTS:

FlorentinoBautistaranforthepositionofMayorinKawitCavite He filed a complaint against the incumbentMayor Poblete and others

supported by affidavits of 44 witnesses attesting to vote‐ buyingactivities.

ThecasewashandledbyaprosecutoroftheCOMELEC’slawdepartment. A separate complaint was filed by Rodelas and Macapagal with the

provincialprosecutoragainstthewitnesses(vote‐selling) COMELECenbancdeclaredtheresolutionoftheprovincialprosecutorto

institutecriminalactionsagainstthewitnessesasnullandvoid.COMELECcitedRA6646otherwiseknownas“TheElectoralReforms lawof1987”which grants immunity from criminal prosecution persons whovoluntarily give information andwillingly testify against those liable forvote‐buyingorvote‐selling.



22

LawdepartmentofCOMELEC filedamotion todismiss thecaseagainstthewitnesses.ThiswasdeniedbyrespondentjudgeTAGLE.

According to Tagle, for the witnesses to be exempt to should havecommitted the overt act of divulging information regarding the votebuying

HELD:Witnessesareexemptfromcriminalprosecution.

Afree,orderly,honest,peaceful,andcredibleelectionisindispensableinademocraticsociety,aswithoutitdemocracywouldnotflourishandwouldbeasham.

Oneoftheeffectivewaysofpreventingthecommissionofvote‐buyingandofprosecutingthosecommittingitisthegrantofimmunityfromcriminalliabilityinfavorofthepartywhosevotewasbought.

TheCOMELEChastheexclusivepowertoconductpreliminaryinvestigationofallelectionoffensespunishableundertheelectionlawsandtoprosecutethesame,asmaybeotherwiseprovidedbylaw

WhentheCOMELECnullifiesaresolutionoftheProvincialProsecutorwhichisthebasisoftheinformationforvoteselling,itineffect,withdrawsthedeputationgrantedtotheprosecutor.

Wherecertainvotershavealreadyexecutedswornstatementsattestingtothecorruptpracticeofvote‐buyinginapendingcase,itcannotbedeniedthattheyhadalreadygiveninformationinthevote‐buyingcase.

FAILUREOFELECTION

46 LOONGV.COMELEC

257SCRA1(LAURENTE)

Under the present state of our election laws, the COMELEC has been grantedprecisely the power to annul elections. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166,otherwiseknownas,"TheSynchronizedElectionsLawof1991,"providesthattheCOMELEC sitting En Banc by amajority vote of itsmembersmay decide, amongothers,thedeclarationoffailureofelectionandthecallingofspecialelectionsas

provided inSection6of theOmnibusElectionCode. TheCOMELECmayexercisesuchpowermotupropriooruponaverifiedpetition.Thehearingofthecaseshallbesummaryinnature,andtheCOMELECmaydelegatetoitslawyersthepowertohearthecaseandtoreceiveevidence.FACTS:‐ This case stemmed from elections held in Sulu where LOONG and privaterespondentTanranforthepositionofGovernorwhilepet.Tulawieandp.r.EstinoranforVice‐Governor* Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) recommended to the COMELEC a re‐canvassoftheelectionreturnsofParangandTalipao.*COMELEC,accordingly,relievedalltheregularmembersoftheMunicipalBoardof Canvassers (MBC) and ordered such recanvass by senior lawyers from theCOMELECofficeinManila.Duringthere‐canvass,privaterespondentsobjectedtotheinclusioninthecanvassoftheelectionreturnsofParang.*ThereconstitutedMBC,however,merelynotedsaidobjectionsandforwardedthesametorespondentPBCforresolution.*PBCdeniedtheobjectionsofprivaterespondentsandstillincludedtheelectionreturnsofParangmunicipality.ThecanvassofrespondentPBCshowedpetitionerstohaveoverwhelminglywoninthemunicipalityofParang.‐ The private respondents filed petitions with the COMELEC regarding theinclusion of the questioned certificates of canvass and that there was failure ofelectioninsaidmunicipalityduetomassivefraudPetitioners,likewisefiledforfailureofelectionsin5othermunicipalitiesCOMELECruledannullingtheresultsoftheelectionsinParangaswellasholdinginabeyance the proclamation of the winning candidates for Governor and Vice‐Governoruntil furtherorders fromtheCommissionbutdismissedotherpetitionsforothermunicipalitieswhereitwasallegedthattherewerealsobadgesoffraudHELD:COMELECwasincorrectinannullingelectionsofParang,Sulubutnotorderingforspecialelectionsinthesamemunicipality.Itwasalsoincorrectindismissingotherpetitions for failure of elections in other municipalities where there were alsobadgesoffraud.



23

We hold that, before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking todeclarea failureofelection, two (2) conditionsmust concur: first,novotinghastakenplace in theprecincts concernedon thedate fixedby lawor,even if therewere voting, theelectionnevertheless resulted in a failure toelect; and, second,thevotesnotcastwouldaffecttheresultoftheelection.Wemustadd,however,that the causeof such failureof election shouldhavebeenanyof the following:force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes. This is animportant consideration for, where the propriety of a pre‐proclamationcontroversyends,theremaybegintherealmofaspecialactionfordeclarationoffailureofelections.WhiletheCOMELECisrestricted,inpre‐proclamationcases,toanexaminationof the election returns on their face and is without jurisdiction to go beyond orbehindthemandinvestigateelectionirregularities,theCOMELECisdutyboundtoinvestigateallegationsoffraud,terrorism,violenceandotheranalogouscauses inactionsforannulmentofelectionresultsorfordeclarationoffailureofelections,astheOmnibusElectionCodedenominatesthesame.Thus,theCOMELEC,inthecaseofactionsforannulmentofelectionresultsordeclarationof failureofelections,mayconduct technicalexaminationofelectiondocumentsandcompareandanalyzevoters'signaturesandfingerprintsinordertodeterminewhetherornot theelectionshad indeedbeen free,honestandclean.Needless to say, apre‐proclamationcontroversy isnot the sameasanaction forannulmentofelectionresultsordeclarationoffailureofelectionsThe COMELEC is HEREBY ORDERED TO CONDUCT SPECIAL ELECTIONS IN THEMUNICIPALITYOFPARANG,SULU,andisDIRECTEDTOSUPERVISETHECOUNTINGOF THE VOTES AND THE CANVASSING OF THE RESULTS TO THE END THAT THEWINNINGCANDIDATESFORGOVERNORANDVICE‐GOVERNORFORTHEPROVINCEOFSULUBEPROCLAIMEDASSOONASPOSSIBLE.The COMELEC is HEREBY ORDERED TO REINSTATE SPA 95‐289 AND TOCONDUCT THE NECESSARY TECHNICAL EXAMINATION, IF ANY, OF PERTINENTELECTION DOCUMENTS THEREIN AND TO HOLD SPECIAL ELECTIONS IN THEMUNICIPALITIESDISPUTEDINSPA95‐289INTHEEVENTtheCOMELECANNULSTHEELECTIONRESULTSTHEREINORDECLARESTHEREATFAILUREOFELECTIONS.47 HASSANV.COMELEC

264SCRA125

(LABAGUISPOGI)FACTS:

Petitioner, Hadji Nor Basher L. Hassan, and Private Respondent,MangondayaP.HassanBuatan,werecandidatesforVice‐MayorinLanaodelSur

However,duetothreatsofviolenceandterrorisminthearea,therewasafailureofelectionsinsix(6)outoftwenty‐four(24)precincts.Inoneofthe precincts, the ballot boxes were burned, while in the other 5precincts,themembersoftheBoardofElectionInspectors(BEI)failedtoreporttotheirrespectivepollingplaces

TheCOMELECteam,headedbyGarcillano,recommendedtheholdingofspecialelectionsinsaidprecinctsandscheduledit

ThemembersoftheBEIagainfailedtoreport The COMELEC team rescheduled the elections in Liangan Elementary

School,whichwas15kilometersawayfromthedesignatedpollingplaces The members of the BEI once more did not report for duty. This

constrained the COMELEC team to appoint police/military personnel tosubstitutefortheBEI

TheresultofthespecialelectionwasinfavorofthePrivateRespondent:Petitioner=879,Respondent=1,098

PetitionerfiledapetitionwiththeCOMELECassailingthevalidityofthere‐scheduledspecialelection

COMELECenbancdeniedthepetitionforadeclarationof failureoftheelections and ordered the Board of Canvassers to proclaim PrivateRespondentasthewinningvice‐mayoraltycandidate

Thus,thepetitionforcertiorariHELD:Therewasfailureofelections.

Theconcurrenceofthefollowingpreconditionsisnecessaryfordeclaringa failureofelection: (1) thatnovotinghasbeenheld inanyprecinctorprecincts because of forcemajeure, violence or terrorism, and (2) thatthevotesnotcastthereinsufficetoaffecttheresultsoftheelections.



24

TheCOMELECcannotturnablindeyetothefactthatterrorismwassoprevalentinthearea.

ElectionshadtobesetforthethirdtimebecausenomembersoftheBEIreportedfordutyduetoimpendingthreatsofviolenceinthearea.Thisinfact prompted COMELEC to deploy military men to act as substitutemembersjustsoelectionscouldbeheld;andtothwartthesethreatsofviolence, theCOMELEC team,moreover,decided to transfer thepollingplacestoLianganElementarySchoolwhichwas15kilometersawayfromthepollingplace.

Thepeculiarsituationofthiscasecannotbeoverstated.Thenoticegivenon theafternoonof thedaybefore the scheduled special electionsandtransferring the venue of the elections 15 kilometers away from thefarthest barangay/school was too short resulting to thedisenfranchisement of voters.Out of the 1,546 registered voters in thefive(5)precincts,only328actuallyvoted.

It was quite sweeping and illogical for the COMELEC to state that thevotes uncast would not have in any way affected the results of theelections.While thedifferencebetween the twocandidates isonly219outofthevotesactuallycast,theCOMELECtotallyignoredthefactthatthereweremorethanathousandregisteredvoterswhofailedtovote.

48 PASANDALANV.COMELEC

384SCRA695(MACASAET)

FACTS:

Petitioner Pasandalan and respondent Bai salamona L. Asum werecandidates for mayor in the municipality of Lumbayanague, Lanao delsur‐May14,2001elections

OnMay23,Pasandalanfiledfornullificationofelectionresultsincertainbarangays (Deromoyod,Lagin,Bualanetc)onthegroundthat, (1)whilethe election was ongoing, some Cafgu’s stationed near the schoolsindiscriminatelyfiredtheirfirearmscausingthevoterstopanicandleavethevotingcenterswithoutcastingtheirvotes,(2)failuretosignofBEIstosign their initials on certain ballots and (3) taking advantage of the fist

fights, the supportersofAsum took theballots and filled themupwiththenameofAsum.

Comelec’sruling:NocredencegiventotheallegationsofPasandalan.The3instanceswhereinafailureofelectioncouldbedeclaredisnotpresent(1)Theelection isnotheld– (electionwasstillheld), (2) theelection issuspended‐(itwasnot),and(3)theelectionresultsinthefailuretoelect(Asum was elected through the plurality of votes). The evidencepresented by Pasandalan were only affidavits made by his ownpollwatchers‐thusconsideredasselfservingandinsufficienttoannultheresults.

HencethepetitioninthiscourtHELD:COMELECdidn'tcommitgraveabuseofdiscretioninannullingelectionm.

Theirregularitiesallegedshouldhavebeenraisedasanelectionprotestandnotinapetitiontodeclarethenullityofanelection.

Instancestodeclareafailureofelectiondoesnotexist(1)theelectioninapollingplacehasnotbeenheldon thedate fixedonaccountof forcemajeure,terrorism,violenceorfraud,(2)theelectionwassuspendedonthesamegroundsinthe1stand(3)therewasfailuretoelectstillonthesamegrounds.

The election was held in the precincts protested as scheduled, neitherwas it suspended (as proved by the testimony of one of the electionofficers)norwastherefailuretoelect.Theallegedterrorismwasnotofthatscaletojustifydeclarationoffailureofelections.

Credibilityof theaffidavitsquestioned: (1) itwaspre‐typed,all that thepoll watchers have to do is to fill it up and sign it. (2) identicalstatements‐humanperceptionisdifferentforeach.Personswhenaskedabout a same incident, although present in the incident, mat havedifferentobservations.

49 AMPATUANV.COMELEC

375SCRA503(MARTINEZ)



25

FACTS:

PetitionerAmpatuanandRespondentCandaowerecandidatesforthepositionofGovernorofMaguindanaoduringthe2001elections

May2001:respondentsfiledapetitionwiththecomelecfortheannulmentofelectionresultsand/ordeclarationoffailureofelectionsinseveralmunicipalities.Theyclaimedthattheelectionswere“completelyshamandfarcical”.Theballotswerefilled‐upenmassebyafewpersonsthenightbeforetheelectionday,andinsomeprecincts,theballotboxes,officialballotsandotherelectionparaphernaliawerenotdeliveredatall.

Comelecsuspendedproclamationofwinningcandidates Petitionersfiledamotiontoliftsuspensionofproclamation.Comelec

grantedandproclaimedthepetitionersswinners. June2001:RespondentsfiledwithSCapetitiontosetasideComelec

orderandpreliminjunctiontosuspendeffectsoftheproclamationofpetitioners.

July2001:Comelecorderedtheconsolidationoftherespondents’petitionfordeclarationoffailureofelections.

Sept2001:Petitionersfiledthepresentpetitionandclaimedthatbyvirtueoftheproclamation,theproperremedyavailabletotherespondentswasnotpetitionfordeclarationoffailureofelectionsbutanelectionprotest.Theformerisheardsummarilywhilethelatterinvolvesafull‐blowntrial.

Oct2001:Comelecorderedthesuspensionofthe2assailedorders(withregardtorespondents’petitionfrofailureofelectionsanddirectingthecontinuationofhearinganddispositionoftheconsolidatedSPAsonthefailureofelectionsandotherincidentsrelatedthereto)

Nov2001:Comelecliftsthesuspensionorder SCissuesTROenjoiningComelecfromliftingsuspension

ISSUE:W/NTheComelecwasdivestedofitsjurisdictiontohearanddeciderespondents’petition for declaration for failure of elections after petitioners had beenproclaimedHELD:No.Petitiondismissed

Thefactthatacandidateproclaimedhasassumedofficedoesnotdeprivecomelecofitsauthoritytoannulanycanvasandillegalproclamation.

Validityoftheproclamationmaybechallengedevenaftertheirregularlyproclaimedcandidatehasassumedoffice.

Inthecaseatbar,theComelecisduty‐boundtoconductaninvestigationas to the veracity of respondents’ allegations of massive fraud andterrorismthatattendedtheconductoftheMay2001election.

ItiswelltostressthattheComelechasstartedconductingthetechnicalexaminationonNov2001.However,byanurgentmotionforaTROfiledby the petitioners, in virtue of which we issued a TRO, the technicalexaminationwasheldinabeyanceuntilthepresent.

In order not to frustrate the ends of justice,we lift the TRO and allowtechnicalexaminationtoproceedwithdeliberatedispatch.

Dissent:JusticeMelo Issue: is the declaration of failure of elections by the Comelec an

executive‐administrativefunctionorajudicialfunction? HeldTheauthoritygiventoComelectodeclareafailureofelectionsand

tocallfortheholdingandcontinuationofthefailedelectionfallsunderitsadminfxn.

Thereareonly3instanceswhereafailureofelectionsmaybedeclared:1) theelection inanypollingplacehasnotbeendeclared2)election inany polling place had not been suspended 3) after voting and duringtransmission of ER, such election results in a failure to elect on theground of forcemajeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogouscause

Under the circumstances of the present case and based on applicablelaw, an election protest is the appropriate remedy. Complex matterswhichnecessarilyentailthepresentationofconflictingtestimonyshouldnotberesolvedinrandom,technicalandsummaryproceedings

50 BASHERV.COMELEC

330SCRA736(GONZALES)

FACTS:Failure of elections in BarangayMaidan, Lanao del Surwas held twice (May andJune1997), anda special electionswas scheduled forAugust30.During the saidelection,votingstartedonlyaround9:00pmbecauseof theprevailing tension inthe said locality. ElectionOfficer DianaDatu‐Imam claimed that the townmayorwas too hysterical, yelled and threatened her to declare failure of election in



26

Maidanasthearmedfollowerspointedtheirgunsatherandhermilitaryescortsrespondedinthesamemanner.Withthearrivalofadditionaltroops,theelectionofficerproceededtoMaidantoconducttheelectionstartingat9:00pmuntil theearlymorningofthefollowingdayattheresidenceoftheformermayor.ThetallysheetshowedthatrespondentAmpatuagot250votes;petitionerBashergot15votesandRazulgot10votes.Respondentwasproclaimedwinner.Petitionernow assails the validity of the COMELEC Resolution dismissing the Petition toDeclareFailureoElectionandtoCallSpecialElectioninPrecinctNo.12BaranggayMaidan.HELD:Therewasafailureofelection.Thisnotwithstanding,therewasaninvalidpostponementofelection.First,theplacewherethevotingwasconductedwasillegal.OmnibusElectionCodeprovidesthatelectiontellersshalldesignatethepublicschooloraypublicbuildingwithintheBarangaytobeusedaspollingplace,electionwasheldintheresidenceoftheformermayorwhichislocatedinBarangayPandarianao.Second,the lawprovidesthatthecastingofvotesstartat7amandendat3pmexceptwhentherearevoterspresentwithin30metersinfrontofthepollingplacewhohavenoryetcast theirvotes.Electionwasheldafter9:00pmuntil theweehoursthefollowingday,certainlysuchwasnotinaccordancewiththelaw.Third,ElectionDaywasinvalidbecausesuspensionofpostponementofelectionisgovernedbylawanditprovidesthatwhenforanyseriouscausesuchasrebellion,insurrection,violence,terrorism, lossordestructionofelectionparaphernaliaandanyanalogouscausessuchnaturethatthefree,orderlyandhonestelectionshouldbecome impossible the COMELEC moto proprio or upon written petition by 10registered voter after summary proceedings shall suspend or postpone theproceedings.Theelectionofficeriswithoutauthoritytodeclareafailureofelectionfor it is only the COMELEC itself has legal authority to exercise such awesomepower. Election Officer did not follow the procedure for he postponement orsuspensionordeclarationoffailureofelection.Shedidnotconductanyproceedingsummary or otherwise to find out any legal grounds for the suspension orpostponementordeclarationoffailureofelection.

Finally,theelectoratewasnotgivenamplenoticeoftheexactscheduleandvenueoftheelection,mereannouncementoverthemosqueisinsufficient.