Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The COMELEC determined that the following the Justices resigned on May 1982 (*SC trivia:
party-list participants, despite their having
over allegations that the bar exam results of
obtained at least 2% of the total votes cast, have
failed to meet the 8-point guidelines set forth in Justice Ericta's son were changed in his favor -
our Decision: Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga there was pre-decoding of his grades before
(MAD), Association of Philippine Electric official decoding and publication)
Cooperatives (APEC), Veterans Federation Party
(VFP), Abag Promdi (PROMDI), Nationalist HELD:
Peoples Coalition (NPC), Lakas NUCD-UMDP,
and Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC). The ban on the intervention of political parties in
the election of barangay officials is NOT violative
The OSG, acting on behalf of the Comelec, in its of the constitutional guarantee of the right to form
Consolidated Reply dated October 15, 2001 and in associations and societies for purposes not
a Manifestation dated December 5, 2001, modified contrary to law.
its position and recommended that APEC and
CIBAC be declared as having complied with the Under the Barangay Election Act of 1982, the right to
8-point guidelines organize is intact. Political parties may freely be
formed although there is a restriction on their
ELECTION OF LOCAL OFFICIALS activities, i.e., their intervention in the election of
26 OCCEA V. COMELEC barangay officials on May 17, 1982 is prescribed.
127 SCRA 404 But the ban is narrow, not total. It operates only on
(ZUIGA) concerted or group action of political parties. The ban
against the participation of political parties in the
FACTS: barangay election is an appropriate legislative
Samuel Occena filed a etition for response to the unwholesome effects of partisan bias
prohibition to declare as unconstitutional in the impartial discharge of the duties imposed on
the provisions in the Barangay Election the barangay and its officials as the basic unit of our
Act of 1982 (BP 222) which prohibited: political and social structure. It would definitely
enhance the objective and impartial discharge of their the prohibition was to avoid the denial of the equal
duties for barangay officials to be shielded form protection of the laws. The sponsors of the
political party loyalty. provision emphasized that under this provision,
the poor candidate has an even chance as against
Some reasons for the restriction: the rich candidate. Equality of chances may be
better attained by banning all organization support.
- "the barangay is the basic unit not only of our The ban was to assure equal chances to a
social structure but also of our political structure. candidate with talent and imbued with patriotism
It would be a more prudent policy to insulate the as well as nobility of purpose, so that the country
barangays from the influence of partisan politics. can utilize their services if elected.
The barangays, although it is true they are already
considered regular units of our government, are Fernando's Concurring Opinion:
non-partisan; they constitute the base of the
pyramid of our social and political structure, and Test of the permissible limitation on freedom of
in order that base will not be subject to instability association: How should the limitation 'for
because of the influence of political forces, it is purposes not contrary to law' be interpreted? It is
better that we elect the officials thereof through a submitted that it is another way of expressing the
non-partisan system." (Deliberations on clear and present danger rule for unless an
Parliamentary Bill 2125 which later became BP association or society could be shown to create an
Blg. 222) imminent danger to public safety, there is no
justification for abridging the right to form
- The Barangay Captain and the Barangay associations or societies."
Council, apart from their
legislative and consultative powers, also act as an Teehankee's Dissenting Opinion:
agency for The restriction denies "non-political" candidates
neutral community action such as the distribution the very freedoms of effectively appealing to the
of basic foodstuff electorate through the public media and of being
and as an instrument in conducting plebiscites and
supported by organized groups that would give
referenda.
them at least a fighting chance to win against
- The Barangay Captain, together with the candidates of the political kingpins. The political
members of the Lupon Tagapayapa appointed by bigwigs are meanwhile left to give their
him, exercises administrative supervision over the "individual" blessings to their favored candidates,
barangay conciliation panels in the latter's work of which in actuality is taken by all as the party's
settling local disputes. The Barangay Captain blessings.
himself settles or helps settle local controversies
within the barangay either through mediation or 27 KANDUM V. COMELEC
arbitration. GR 136969, JANUARY 18, 2000
(CHOTRANI)
The case of Imbong v. COMELEC also involved FACTS:
the restriction as that prescribed in Sec. 4 of BP
222. In upholding the constitutionality of what Petitioner Amilhamja Kandum and respondent
was then Sec. 8(a) of Republic Act No. 6132, the Hadji Gapur Ballaho were candidates for Punong
court said that "While it may be true that a party's Barangay in Barangay Look Bisaya, Tipo-Tipo,
support of a candidate is not wrong per se, it is Basilan in the 1997 barangay elections. Petitioner
equally true that Congress in the exercise of its garnered 61 votes over respondent's 59 votes.
broad law-making authority can declare certain When petitioner was proclaimed the winner by the
acts as mala prohibita when justified by the BBC, respondent filed an election protest in the
exigencies of the times." The primary purpose of MCTC and secured a favorable decision.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the RTC. But proclaimed by the Board of Election Tellers as the
when the RTC dismissed the appeal for lack of duly elected SK Chairman.
jurisdiction, petitioner filed a notice of appeal to
the COMELEC through the MCTC . On May 13 Gorospe filed before the MCTC of
Lazi, Siquijor an election protest which seeks the
The COMELEC issued a resolution dismissing the annulment of the proclamation of Buhisan and to
appeal for having been filed out of time. (Appeal declare the former the duly elected SK Chairman.
was filed 37 days after petitioner received copy of MCTC nullified Buhisan's proclamation and
the decision of the MCTC) declared Gorospe as the SK Chairman.
36 SOON-RUIZ V. COMELEC
GR 144323, SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 Yes. Close scrutiny of the receipts show that
(TAN, E.) respondent failed to pay the filing fee of P300.
FACTS: Thus, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
over respondents election protest. COMELEC
erred in not ordering the dismissal of respondents Election Inspectors to count and tally the
protest case. Errors in the payment of filing fees in ballots cast in his favor during the elections
election cases is no longer excusable.
pursuant to COMELEC Resolution 4116.
The protest should have also been dismissed for Resolution provides that if the
lack of proper verification (tantamount to filing an disqualification case has not become final
unsigned pleading), and for failure to comply with and executory on the day of the election,
the required certification against forum shopping. BEI shall tally and count the votes of the
This requirement is mandatory, and cannot be candidate declared disqualified.
excused by the fact that a party has not actually Respondent filed pre-proclamation case;
resorted to forum shopping. Good faith is not an
COMELEC issued an order suspending the
excuse.
proclamation of petitioner but despite said
Moreover, respondents petition was a pre- order, Municipal Board of Canvassers still
proclamation case, which may no longer be proclaimed petitioner as winner.
entertained by the COMELEC after the winning Upon motion of respondent, COMELEC
candidates have been proclaimed. By resorting to 1st Division set aside petitioners
the wrong remedy, respondent may be claimed to proclamation; COMELEC en banc
have abandoned the pre-proclamation case that he sustained annulment of proclamation of
filed. petitioner
Petitioner was not notified of the petition for his In the instant case, petitioner has not been
disqualification through the service of summons disqualified by final judgment when the elections
nor of the Motions to suspend his proclamation. were conducted on May 14, 2001. The Regional
Election Director has yet to conduct hearing on the
The records of the case do not show that summons petition for his disqualification. After the
was served on the petitioner. They do not contain a elections, petitioner was voted in office by a wide
copy of the summons allegedly served on the margin of 17,903. On May 16, 2001, however,
petitioner and its corresponding proof of service. respondent Locsin filed a Most Urgent Motion for
Furthermore, private respondent never rebutted the suspension of petitioner's proclamation. The
petitioner's repeated assertion that he was not Most Urgent Motion contained a statement to the
properly notified of the petition for his effect that a copy was served to the petitioner
disqualification because he never received through registered mail. The records reveal that no
summons.71 Petitioner claims that prior to registry receipt was attached to prove such
receiving a telegraphed Order from the service.72 This violates COMELEC Rules of
COMELEC Second Division on May 22, 2001, Procedure requiring notice and service of the
directing the District Board of Canvassers to motion to all parties.
suspend his proclamation, he was never
summoned nor furnished a copy of the petition for Respondent's Most Urgent Motion does not fall
his disqualification. He was able to obtain a copy under the exceptions to notice and service of
of the petition and the May 22 Order of the motions. First, the suspension of proclamation of a
COMELEC Second Division by personally going winning candidate is not a matter which the
to the COMELEC Regional Office on May 23, COMELEC Second Division can dispose of motu
2001. Thus, he was able to file his Answer to the proprio. Second, the right of an adverse party, in
disqualification case only on May 24, 2001. this case, the petitioner, is clearly affected. Given
the lack of service of the Most Urgent Motion to
the petitioner, said Motion is a mere scrap of counsel, the Regional Election Director of
paper. NCR gave instructions to the BEI to tally
separately either in some portion of the
Under section 6 of R.A. No. 6646, the COMELEC
can suspend proclamation only when evidence of same election return not intended for votes
the winning candidate's guilt is strong. In the case for mayoralty candidates or in a separate
at bar, the COMELEC Second Division did not paper the votes Efren Bautista, Efren,
make any specific finding that evidence of E. Bautista and Bautista, considered as
petitioner's guilt is strong. Its only basis in stray votes.
suspending the proclamation of the petitioner is When the canvass of the election returns
the "seriousness of the allegations" in the petition
was commenced, the Municipal Board of
for disqualification. Absent any finding of
evidence that the guilt is strong, then clearly, there Canvassers of Navotas refused to canvass
was grave abuse of discretion on the part of as part of the valid votes of petitioner the
COMELEC. separate tallies of votes on which were
written Efren Bautista, Efren, E.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS; PRECINCTS Bautista and Bautista.
AND POLLING PLACES; BOARD OF Petitioner filed with COMELEC a Petition
ELECTION INSPECTORS; WATCHERS;
to Declare Illegal the Proceedings of the
OFFICIAL BALLOTS AND ELECTION
Municipal Board of Canvassers; dismissed
RETURNS; CASTING AND
for lack of merit.
COUNTING OF VOTES
HELD:
40 BAUTISTA V. COMELEC
298 SCRA 480
There was grave abuse of discretion in denying the
(SINGSON)
inclusion as part of petitioners valid votes the
FACTS: Bautista stray votes that were separately tallied by
the BEI and Board of Canvassers.
Petitioner Cipriano Efren Bautista and
# It must be emphasized that the case at bar
private respondent were duly registered involves a ground for disqualification
candidates for the position of Mayor of which clearly affects the voters will and
Navotas in the 1998 Elections. Aside from causes confusion that frustrates the same.
them, a certain Edwin Efren Bautista # Election Laws give effect to, rather than
(Edwin Bautista) also filed a certificate of frustrate, the will of the voter. Thus,
extreme caution should be observed before
candidacy for the same position.
any ballot is invalidated.
Petitioner filed a petition praying that
# In the appreciation of ballots, doubts are
Edwin Bautista be declared a nuisance
resolved in favor of their validity.
candidate.
# Matters tend to get complicated when
COMELEC declared Edwin Bautista as
nuisance candidate and consequently technical rules are strictly applied
ordered the cancellation of his certificate technicalities should not be permitted to
of candidacy for the position of Mayor. defeat the intention of the voter, especially
MR was filed by Edwin Bautista; so if that intention is discoverable from the
subsequently denied. ballot itself, as in this case.
Before final determination of Edwin # Sec. 69 of the Omnibus Election Code
Bautistas MR, upon request of petitioners the COMELEC may motu proprio or upon
a verified petition of an interested party, 41 PUNZALAN V. COMELEC
refuse to give due course to or cancel a 289 SCRA 702
(FERNANDEZ)
certificate of candidacy 1) if it is shown
that said certificate has been filed to put FACTS:
the election process in mockery or Manalastas, Meneses and Punzalan were
disrepute, 2) or to cause confusion among among of the 4 candidates for mayor of the
voters by the similarity of the names of municipality of Mexico Pampanga
registered candidates; 3) or by other Municipal Board of Canvassers
circumstances or acts which clearly (MBC) proclaimed Meneses as the duly
demonstrate that a candidate has no bona elected mayor.
Manalastas and Punzalan separately siled
fide intention to run for the office for
which the certificate of candidacy has been election protestschallenging the results of
filed and thus prevent a faithful the elections; Meneses filed his answer to
determination of the true will of the both with counter protests: ordered
electorate. consolidated and jointly tried by the court
Election contests sought the nullification of
# Fatual circumstances and logic dictate that the the election of Meneses allegedly due to
Bautista and Efren votes which were massive fraud, irregularities and other
mistakenly deemed as stray votes refer only to one illegal electoral practices during the
candidate, herein petitioner. Such votes, which registration and voting as well as during
represent the voice of approx. 21,000 electors the counting of votes
could not have been intended for Edwin Bautista,
allegedly known in Navotas as a tricycle driver B
and worse a drug addict, not known as Efren as ecause of irregularities (massive fraud,
stated in his certificate of candidacy, but Boboy illegal electoral practices and serious
or Boboy Tarugo as his known appellation or anomalies; ballots, election returns and
nickname, and satisfactorily and finally shown as
tally sheets disappeared under mysterious
a candidate with no political line up, no personal
circumstances and filled up ballots with
funds that could have supported his campaign, and
undetached lower stubs and groups of
no accomplishments which may be noted band
ballot with stubs cut out with scissors were
considered by the public, as against a known
found inside ballot boxes) found after
former public officer who had served the people of
hearing the protests, the trial court was
Navotas as Brgy.
constrained to examine the contested
Official, councilor and vice mayor. ballots and the handwritings appearing
thereon and came up with the declaration
# To rule otherwise will definitely result in that Punzalan was the winner in the
the disenfranchisement of the will of the elections
electorate, which is, as we mentioned, the
situation that our election laws are enacted various notices of appeal, motions for
to prevent. execution, petitions for certiorari,
prohibition with prayer for issuance of
temporary restraining order and/or
preliminary injunction
Comelec promulgated a resolution need to solicit the help of the handwriting
affirming the proclamation of Meneses experts in examining or comparing the
handwriting; even evidence aliunde is not
HELD:
necessary to enable the Commission to
On the first issue determine the authenticity of the ballots
and the genuineness of the handwriting on
While RA 7166 (An Act Providing for the ballots as an examination of the ballots
Synchronized National and Local Elections themselves is already sufficient
and For Electoral Reforms) requires the Minor and insignificant variations in
BEI chairman to affix his signature at the handwriting must be perceived as indicia
back of the ballot, the mere failure to do so of genuineness rather than of falcity
Carelessness, spontaneity, unpremeditation
does not invalidate the same although it
and speed in signing are evidence of
may constitute an election offense genuineness
imputable to said BEI DOCTRINE:
Failure of the BEI chairman or any of the
members of the board to comply with their the laws and statues governing election
mandated administrative responsibility contests especially appreciation of ballots
should not penalize the voter with must be liberally construed to the end that
disenfranchisement the will of the electorate in the choice of
A ballot without BEI chairman's signature public officials may not be defeated by
at the back is valid and not spurious technical infirmities
For as long as the ballot bears any one of an election protests is imbued with public
the following authenticating marks, it is interest so much so that the need to dispel
considered valid: uncertainties which becloud the real choice
The Comelec watermark of the people is imperative
Signature or initials or thumbprint of the
Chairman of the BEI ELECTORAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND
Where the watermarks are blurred or not EXPENDITURES
42 PILAR V. COMELEC
readily apparent to the naked eye, the
245 SCRA 759
presence of red or blue fibers in the (OBERIO)
ballots
Every ballot shall be presumed to be valid FACTS:
unless there is a clear and good reason to
justify its rejection Petitioner Pilar filed his certificate of candidacy
for the position of member of the Sangguniang
On the second issue Panlalawigan of the Province of Isabela. 3 days
The appreciation of the contested ballots later, he withdrew his certificate of candidacy.
and election documents involves a question COMELECimposed upon petitioner a fine of
of fact best left to the determination of the P10,000 for failure to file his statement of
Comelec contributions and expenditures. Petitioner filed
The Comelec need not conduct an motion for reconsideration which was denied by
adversarial proceeding or a hearing to COMELEC. Petitioner went to COMELEC en
determine the authenticity of ballots or the banc which denied the petition in its Resolution.
handwriting found thereon; neither does it Hence, this petition for certiorari.
HELD: contributions and incurred expenditures,
Petitioner should be held liable for failure to file even in the short span of his campaign. The
his statement of contributions and expenditures.
evil sought to be prevented by the law is
Petitioner argues that he cannot be held not all too remote.
liable for failure to file a statement of Resolution No. 2348 also contemplates the
contribution and expenditures because he situation where a candidate may not have received
was a "non-candidate," having withdrawn any contribution or made any expenditure. Such
his certificate of candidacy 3 days after its candidate is not excused from filing a statement.
filing. Petitioner posits that "it is xxx clear
from the law that the candidate must have BP Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code
entered the political contest, and should provides that "the filing or withdrawal of
have either won or lost". certificate of candidacy shall not affect
whatever civil, criminal or administrative
Petitoner's argument is without merit.
liabilities which a candidate may have
incurred." Petitioner's withdrawal of his
Section 14 of RA No. 7166 states that candidacy did not extinguish his liability
"every candidate" has the obligation to file for the administrative fine.
his statement of contributions and
ELECTION OFFENSES
expenditures. Where the law does not
distinguish, courts should not distinguish. 43 LAUREL V. HONORABLE PRESIDING
The term "every candidate" must be JUDGE
deemed to refer not only to a candidate 323 SCRA 779
who pursued his campaign, but also to one (AQUINO, P.)
who withdrew his candidacy. FACTS:
Section 13 of Resolution No. 2348 of the
COMELEC, in implementation of the Hon. Bernardo P. Pardo sent a verified
provisions of RA 7166, categorically refers letter-complaint to Jose P. Balbuena
to "all candidates who filed their certificates charging Herman Tiu Laurel with
of candidacy." "Falsification of Public Documents" and
Furthermore, Section 14 of the law uses violation of [Section 74] of the Omnibus
the word "shall". Such implies that the Election Code.
statute is mandatory, particularly if public It alleged that both his father and mother
interest is involvedstate has an interest were Chinese citizens but when petitioner
in seeing that the electoral process is clean filed a certificate of candidacy for the
and expressive of the true will of the position of Senator he stated that his a
electorate. One way to attain such natural-born Filipino citizen
objective is to pass a legislation regulating An investigation was conducted by the
contributions and expenditures, and COMELEC Law Department and a Report
compelling the publication of the same. It was made recommending the filing of
Information.
is not improbable that a candidate who
During en banc, COMELEC resolved to
withdrew his candidacy has accepted
file the necessary information against
respondent and to file a criminal complaint On the other hand, complaints filed by parties
against respondent for falsification other than the COMELEC must be verified and
Director Balbuena filed an information for supported by affidavits and other evidence.
Violation of Section 74, in relation to
Section 262 of the Omnibus - The complaint in question in this case is one filed
by Pardo in his personal capacity and not as
Election Code chairman of the COMELEC.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Inhibition, - There is nothing in the rules that require that only
seeking the inhibition of the entire the COMELEC en banc may refer a complaint to
COMELEC because of its bias in the Law Department for investigation.
rendering a resolution.
Plaintiff filed on 07 May 1996 a Motion to - There is no rule against the COMELEC chairman
Quash alleging lack of jurisdiction and directing the conduct of a preliminary
lack of authority on the part of Director investigation, even if he himself were the
Balbuena to file the information. complainant in his private capacity.
Court denied.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari 2. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that
before the Court of Appeals. petitioner's protestations on COMELEC's having
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court acted as complainant, investigator, prosecutor,
and ruled that the proper procedure was judge and executioner in the conduct of the
preliminary investigation ring hollow.
followed by the COMELEC but directed
the trial court to remand the case to the -No. the records show that there is basis to at least
COMELEC for reception of petitioner's find probable cause to indict the petitioner for
motion for reconsideration of the violation of the Omnibus Election Code and it
COMELEC resolution dated January 25, appears from the records that Chairman Pardo had
1996, which approved the filing of a no other participation in the proceedings which led
criminal complaint against petitioner. to the filing of the Information.
48 PASANDALAN V. COMELEC
The concurrence of the following
384 SCRA 695
preconditions is necessary for declaring a (MACASAET)
failure of election: (1) that no voting has FACTS:
been held in any precinct or precincts W Petitioner Pasandalan and respondent Bai
because of force majeure, violence or salamona L.
Asum were candidates for mayor in the
terrorism, and (2) that the votes not cast municipality of
therein suffice to affect the results of the Lumbayanague, Lanao del sur- May 14, 2001
elections. elections
The COMELEC can not turn a blind eye to W On May 23, Pasandalan filed for
the fact that terrorism was so prevalent in nullification of election
the area.
Elections had to be set for the third time results in certain barangays (Deromoyod, Lagin,
because no members of the BEI reported Bualan etc) on the ground that, (1) while the
for duty due to impending threats of election was ongoing, some Cafgus stationed near
violence in the area. This in fact prompted the schools indiscriminately fired their firearms
COMELEC to deploy military men to act causing the voters to panic and leave the voting
as substitute members just so elections centers without casting their votes, (2) failure to
could be held; and to thwart these threats sign of BEIs to sign their initials on certain ballots
of violence, the COMELEC team, and (3) taking advantage of the fist fights, the
moreover, decided to transfer the polling supporters of Asum took the ballots and filled
places to Liangan Elementary School them up with the name of Asum.
which was 15 kilometers away from the
W Comelecs ruling: No credence given to the
polling place.
allegations of
The peculiar situation of this case
Pasandalan. The 3 instances wherein a failure of
cannot be overstated.
election could be declared is not present (1) The
The notice given on the afternoon of the day election is not held (election was still held), (2)
before the scheduled special elections and the election is suspended- (it was not), and (3) the
transferring the venue of the elections 15 election results in the failure to elect (Asum was
kilometers away from the farthest barangay/school elected through the plurality of votes). The
was too short resulting to the disenfranchisement evidence presented by Pasandalan were only
of voters. Out of the 1,546 registered voters in the affidavits made by his own pollwatchers- thus
five (5) precincts, only 328 actually voted.
considered as self serving and insufficient to annul W Petitioner Ampatuan and Respondent
the results. Candao were
candidates for the position of Governor of
W Hence the petition in this court Maguindanao
during the 2001 elections
W May 2001: respondents filed a petition with
HELD:
the comelec for
COMELEC didn't commit grave abuse of
discretion in annulling
the annulment of election results and/or
electionm.
declaration of
failure of elections in several municipalities. They
W The irregularities alleged should have been
raised as an claimed
election protest and not in a petition to declare the that the elections were completely sham and
nullity farcical.
of an election. The ballots were filled-up en masse by a few
W Instances to declare a failure of election does persons the
not exist (1) night before the election day, and in some
precincts, the
the election in a polling place has not been held on ballot boxes, official ballots and other election
paraphernalia were not delivered at all.
the date fixed on account of force majeure,
terrorism, violence or fraud, (2) the election was W Comelec suspended proclamation of
suspended on the same grounds in the 1st and (3) winning candidates
there was failure to elect still on the same grounds. W Petitioners filed a motion to lift suspension
of proclamation.
W The election was held in the precincts Comelec granted and proclaimed the petitioners s
protested as winners.
W June 2001: Respondents filed with SC a
scheduled, neither was it suspended (as proved by petition to set aside
Comelec order and prelim injunction to suspend
the testimony of one of the election officers) nor
effects of
was there failure to elect. The alleged terrorism the proclamation of petitioners.
was not of that scale to justify declaration of W July 2001: Comelec ordered the
failure of elections. consolidation of the
respondents petition for declaration of failure of
W Credibility of the affidavits questioned: (1) elections.
it was pre-typed, W Sept 2001: Petitioners filed the present
petition and
all that the poll watchers have to do is to fill it up
claimed that by virtue of the proclamation, the
and sign it. (2) identical statements- human
proper
perception is different for each. Persons when
remedy available to the respondents was not
asked about a same incident, although present in petition for
the incident, mat have different observations. declaration of failure of elections but an election
protest.
49 The former is heard summarily while the latter
AMPATUAN V. COMELEC involves a
375 SCRA 503 full-blown trial.
(MARTINEZ)
FACTS:
W Oct 2001: Comelec ordered the suspension the technical examination was held in abeyance
of the 2 until the present.
assailed orders (with regard to respondents W In order not to frustrate the ends of justice,
petition fro we lift the TRO
failure of elections and directing the continuation and allow technical examination to proceed with
of deliberate
hearing and disposition of the consolidated SPAs dispatch.
on the Dissent: Justice Melo
failure of elections and other incidents related W Issue: is the declaration of failure of
thereto) elections by the
Comelec an executive-administrative function or a
W Nov 2001: Comelec lifts the suspension judicial
order function?
W SC issues TRO enjoining Comelec from W Held The authority given to Comelec to
lifting suspension declare a failure of
ISSUE: elections and to call for the holding and
continuation of
W/N The Comelec was divested of its jurisdiction the failed election falls under its admin fxn.
W There are only 3 instances where a failure
to hear and decide respondents petition for
of elections may
declaration for failure of elections after petitioners
had been proclaimed
be declared: 1) the election in any polling place
has not been declared 2) election in any polling
HELD: No. Petition dismissed
W The fact that a candidate proclaimed has place had not been suspended 3) after voting and
assumed office during transmission of ER, such election results in
does not deprive comelec of its authority to annul a failure to elect on the ground of force majeure,
any violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous cause
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo
Law 2D AY07-08 W Under the circumstances of the present case
27 and based on
canvas and illegal proclamation.
W Validity of the proclamation may be applicable law, an election protest is the
challenged even after appropriate remedy. Complex matters which
the irregularly proclaimed candidate has assumed necessarily entail the presentation of conflicting
office. testimony should not be resolved in random,
W In the case at bar, the Comelec is duty- technical and summary proceedings
bound to conduct
50 BASHER V. COMELEC
an investigation as to the veracity of respondents 330 SCRA 736
allegations of massive fraud and terrorism that (GONZALES)
attended the conduct of the May 2001 election. FACTS:
W It is well to stress that the Comelec has Failure of elections in Barangay Maidan, Lanao
started conducting del Sur was held twice (May and June 1997), and
a special elections was scheduled for August 30.
the technical examination on Nov 2001. However, During the said election, voting started only
by an urgent motion for a TRO filed by the around 9:00 pm because of the prevailing tension
petitioners, in virtue of which we issued a TRO, in the said locality. Election Officer Diana Datu-
Imam claimed that the town mayor was too
hysterical, yelled and threatened her to declare hours the following day, certainly such was not in
failure of election in Maidan as the armed accordance with the law.
followers pointed their guns at her and her military
escorts responded in the same manner. With the Third, Election Day was invalid because
arrival of additional troops, the election officer suspension of postponement of election is
proceeded to Maidan to conduct the election governed by law and it provides that when for any
starting at 9:00 pm until the early morning of the serious cause such as rebellion, insurrection,
following day at the residence of the former violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election
mayor. paraphernalia and any analogous causes such
nature that the free, orderly andhonest election
The tally sheet showed that respondent Ampatua should become impossible the COMELEC moto
got 250 votes; petitioner Basher got 15 votes and proprio or upon written petition by 10 registered
Razul got 10 votes. Respondent was proclaimed voter after summary proceedings shall suspend or
winner. Petitioner now assails the validity of the postpone the proceedings. The election officer is
COMELEC Resolution dismissing the Petition to without authority to declare a failure of election
Declare Failure o Election and to Call Special for it is only the COMELEC itself has legal
Election in Precinct No. 12 Baranggay Maidan. authority to exercise such awesome power.
Election Officer did not follow the procedure for
HELD: he postponement or suspension or declaration of
There was a failure of election. This failure of election. She did not conduct any
notwithstanding, there was an proceeding summary or otherwise to find out any
invalid postponement of election. legal grounds for the suspension or postponement
or declaration of failure of election.
First, the place where the voting was conducted
was illegal. Omnibus Election Code provides that Finally, the electorate was not given ample notice
election tellers shall designate the public school or of the exact schedule and venue of the election,
ay public building within the Barangay to be used mere announcement over the mosque is
as polling place, election was held in the residence insufficient.
of the former mayor which is located in Barangay
Pandarianao.