ADMIN

QUALIFICATION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF VOTERS

Sec. 9. Who may Register. - All citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law
who are

at least eighteen (18) years of age, and who shall have

resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year,

and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six (6) months immediately
preceding the election, may register as a voter.

Any person who temporarily resides in another city, municipality or country solely by reason of his
occupation, profession, employment in private or public service, educational activities, work in the
military or naval reservations within the Philippines, service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
the National Police Forces, or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance
with law, shall not be deemed to have lost his original residence.

Any person, who, on the day of registration may not have reached the required age or period of
residence but, who, on the day of the election shall possess such qualifications, may register as a
voter.

Sec. 11. Disqualification. - The following shall be disqualified from registering:

a. Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment of not less
than one (1) year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty:
Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall
automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of
sentence;
b. Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by a competent court or tribunal of
having committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such
as rebellion, sedition, violation of the firearms laws or any crime against national security,
unless restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance with law: Provided, That he
shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service
of sentence; and
c. Insane or incompetent persons declared as such by competent authority unless
subsequently declared by proper authority that such person is no longer insane or
incompetent.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
Sec. 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. - The personal filing of application of
registration of voters shall be conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer during
regular office hours. No registration shall, however, be conducted during the period starting
one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a
special election.
 Challenges to right to register – any voter, candidate or representative of a registered
political party may challenge in writing any application for registration, stating the grounds
therefore.

The challenge shall be under oath and be attached to the application, together with the proof of
notice of hearing to the challenger and to the applicant The oppositions to the challenge must, in
all cases, be filed not later than the second Monday of the month in which the same is scheduled to
be heard or processed by the ERB. If this day will fall on a non-working holiday, oppositions may be
filed on the next following working day.

The hearing shall be heard on the third Monday of the month and the decision shall be rendered
before the end of the month.

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR MANDATORY BIOMETRICS VOTER REGISTRATION

Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is the policy of the State to establish a clean, complete,
permanent and updated list of voters through the adoption of biometric technology.

Section 2. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act:

a. Commission refers to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

b. Biometrics refers to the quantitative analysis that provides a positive identification of an
individual such as voice, photograph, fingerprint, signature, iris and/or such other
identifiable features.
c. Data Capture Machine (DCM) is the device which captures the biometrics of an individual.
d. Validation is the process of taking the biometrics of registered voters whose biometrics
have not yet been captured.
e. Deactivation refers to the removal of the registration record of the registered voter from the
corresponding precinct book of voters for failure to comply with the validation process as
required by this Act.
f. Reactivation refers to the reinstatement of a deactivated voter.

Section 3. Who Shall Submit for Validation. - Registered voters whose biometrics have not been
captured shall submit themselves for validation.

Section 4. Who Shall Conduct the Validation. - The City or Municipal Election Officer shall conduct
the validation.

Section 5. Commencement of Validation.- The Commission shall conduct validation beginning July
1, 2013, consistent with the continuing registration under Republic Act No. 8189.

Section 6. Publication and Notice Requirement. - The Commission shall cause the publication of
the commencement of the validation in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. The City or
Municipal Election Officer shall serve individual written notices by registered mail with return card
to the voters concerned at their latest address in the voter's registration record and post the list of
the voters concerned in the city or municipal bulletin board and in the local COMELEC office.

Section 7. Deactivation. - Voters who fail to submit for validation on or before the last day of filing
of application for registration for purposes of the May 2016 elections shall be deactivated pursuant
to this Act.

Section 8. Reactivation.- Those deactivated under the preceding section may apply for reactivation
after the May 2016 elections following the procedure provided in Section 28 of Republic Act No.
8189.

Section 9. Database Security. - The database generated by biometric registration shall be secured
by the Commission and shall not be used, under any circumstance, for any purpose other than for
electoral exercises.

Section 10. Mandatory Biometrics Registration.- The Commission shall implement a mandatory
biometrics registration system for new voters.

Section 11. Prohibited Acts. - The following shall be election offenses punishable under
Sections 263 and 264 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, as amended, otherwise known as the
"Omnibus Election Code":

a. Any person who shall prohibit, impede, obstruct or prevent a registered voter or a new
voter from submitting his or her biometrics for capture through the use of force,
intimidation or monetary consideration; and
b. Any public official or person who, under the guise of implementing this Act, shall
unjustifiably and without due process, cause the deactivation or reactivation of any
registered voter.

Section 12. Rules and Regulations. - The Commission shall, within sixty (60) days after the
effectivity of this Act, promulgate the implementing rules and regulations.

Section 13. Separability Clause.- If any part of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, the other
parts or provisions hereof shall remain valid and effective.

Section 14. Repealing Clause.- All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations
inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 15. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at
least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

MAGNA CARTA FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITY RA NO. 10366

MANILA, Philippines – Among some 60 million registered voters for the May 13 elections are
persons with disabilities (PWDs) and senior citizens.
It's the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) duty to ensure that they are able to participate in the
electoral process. (READ: PWDs appeal to Comelec for ‘barrier-free’ elections)
Republic Act (RA) 10366 or “An Act Authorizing the Comission on Elections to Establish Precincts
Assigned to Accessible Polling Places Exclusively for Persons With Disabilities and Senior Citizens,”
signed into law in 2013, was established precisely for this purpose.
According to Comelec, there are 49,395 PWDs and senior citizens registered to vote at accessible
polling places (APPs). Only these PWDs and senior citizens will be given access to APPs during the
elections in May. So what exactly does the law provide for these voters?
Accessible polling places
An APP is a polling place located on the ground floor, preferably near the entrance, and has no
physical barriers. There should be sufficient signage to make APPs easier to identify.
Assistive devices such as headphones for the visually-impaired and wheelchairs for the
handicapped should also be available to facilitate easier voting for PWDs and senior citizens.
What about other PWDs and senior citizens who failed to notify the Comelec about their conditions
during the voter registration period?
If an APP is not established in the building or voting center, a makeshift or temporary polling place
“shall be built inside or in close proximity to the voting center,” as per Comelec Resolution No.
10486. These makeshift polling places must also be near the entrance of medical help desks, if any.
These makeshift polling centers or emergency APPs, as per the Comelec resolution, are supposed to
cater to PWDs, senior citizens, and heavily pregnant women who were unable to register to vote in
APPs during the voter registration period in 2018.

Assistance
Should the PWD, senior citizen, or illiterate require help filling out the ballot, the following people
are allowed to assist them:

 A relative within the 4th degree of consanguinity or affinity

 A person who is of their confidence belonging to the same household
 A member of the Electoral Board (EB) present at the voting center
All of these people must be of voting age to be allowed to assist. The members of the EB to assist
these voters are also required to have gone through sensitivity training organized by the National
Council on Disability Affairs and the Commission on Human Rights.
In voting centers where voters with visual, speech, and hearing impairment are registered, there
should be sign language interpreters or lists of candidates transcribed in Braille.

Theory versus practice

These measures are what RA 10366 and Comelec Resolution No. 10484 seek to provide PWDs,
seniors, and even pregnant women. But there is much room for improvement.
In an opinion piece for Rappler, Paula Bianca Lapuz of The Asia Foundation wrote, “The current
alternative voting mechanisms offered by the Comelec will mostly only offer ‘physical accessibility.’
This means that these polling places will only be located at the ground floor and be barrier-free at
best.”

“So, if you are blind, deaf, and/or with psychosocial disabilities, a safe assessment is that you will
have a more challenging experience than other [voters with disabilities] this coming elections,” she
also wrote. (READ: The 2016 elections and the road to a PWD-inclusive PH)
She added that the Comelec should take into account not only physicial disabilities but other
conditions as well. For this, she suggested that there would be a need for coordination with other
government agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Public Works and
Highways on the matter of renovating voting centers.
“Overall, government response to access issues must be holistic and decisive, otherwise the same
issues will keep resurfacing every 3 years,” she wrote. – Rappler.com

Voter’s Identification Card (VIC) – one issued to the registered voter which shall serve as
a document for his identification.
o In case of loss or destruction, no copy may be issued except to the registered voter
himself or only upon the authority of the Commission
o Design should be as much as possible tamper proof

DEACTIVATION, REACTIVATION AND CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION

Deactivation of registration – ERB shall deactivate the registration and remove the registration
records of the following persons:

1. Any person sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than 1 year –
automatically regains the right to vote after 5 years of service of sentence
2. Any person adjudged by final judgment by a competent court or tribunal of having
caused/committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government –
automatically regains right to vote 5 years after service of sentence
3. Any person declared by competent authority to be insane or incompetent – subsequently removed
by a declaration of a proper authority
4. Any person who did not vote in the 2 successive preceding regular elections
5. Any person whose registration has been ordered excluded by the court
6. Any person who has lost his Filipino citizenship

The corresponding clerk of court has the duty to furnish the Election Officer of the necessary list
which contains the persons disqualified (as enumerated above) at the end of each month
COMELEC may request a certified list of those who have lost their Filipino citizenship or have been
declared as insane / incompetent from other government agencies

EO must post a certified list of deactivated voters and send a copy to the corresponding local head,
central file, provincial file, and the voter concerned
 Reactivation of registration – any voter whose registration is deactivated may file with the EO a
sworn application for reactivation of his registration in the form of an affidavit stating that the
grounds for the deactivation no longer exist.

May not file for reactivation 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election
EO must submit the application to the ERB for appropriate action
If approved, EO must retrieve the inactive record and send necessary notices to persons and
agencies concerned

Cancellation of Registration – the Board shall cancel the registration of those who have died as
certified by the Local Civil Registrar

Local Civil Registrar has the duty of sending monthly lists of persons who died during the previous
month to the EO of the place where the deceased is registered
o In the absence of proof of place of registrations, must be send to the EO of the place of residence
o In all cases, a list must be sent to the national central file and the proper provincial file
EO shall post a certified list in the bulletin board of his office and furnish copies thereof to the local
heads concerned, national central file, and the provincial file.

CASES:
Akbayan Youth vs Comelec
Akbayan-Youth, et. al. vs. Comelec

Facts:
Akbayan-Youth seeks to direct the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to conduct a
special registration before the 14 May 2001 General Elections, of new voters ages 18 to 21.

According to petitioners, around four million youth failed to register on or before the 27
December 2000 deadline set by the COMELEC under RA 8189.

Acting on the clamor of the students and civic leaders, Senator Raul Roco, Chairman of the
Committee on Electoral Reforms, Suffrage, and People’s Participation, through a Letter dated
25 January 2001, invited the COMELEC to a public hearing for the purpose of discussing the
extension of the registration of voters to accommodate those who were not able to register
before the COMELEC deadline.

Thereafter on 29 January 2001, Commissioners Tancangco and Lantion submitted

Memorandum 2001-027 on the Report on the Request for a Two-day Additional Registration
of New Voters Only.

On 8 February 2001, the COMELEC issued Resolution 3584, which denied the request to
conduct a two-day additional registration of new voters on February 17-18, 2001.

Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners AKBAYAN-Youth, SCAP, UCSC, MASP, KOMPIL II

(YOUTH) et al. filed before this Court the instant Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus, which
seeks to set aside and nullify respondent COMELEC’s Resolution and/or to declare Section 8
of RA 8189 unconstitutional insofar as said provision effectively causes the
disenfranchisement (to prevent a person from having the right to vote) of petitioners and
others similarly situated. Likewise, petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing COMELEC to conduct a special registration of new voters and to admit for
registration petitioners and other similarly situated young Filipinos to qualify them to vote
in the 14 May 2001 General Elections.

Issue:
Whether the COMELEC may be directed, through mandamus, to hold a registration of
new voters for the 14 May 2001 General Elections on 17-18 February 2001

Held:

No.

In a representative democracy, the right of suffrage, although accorded a prime niche in the hierarchy
of rights embodied in the fundamental law, ought to be exercised within the proper bounds and
framework of the Constitution and must properly yield to pertinent laws skillfully enacted by the
Legislature, which statutes for all intents and purposes, are crafted to effectively insulate such so
cherished right from ravishment and preserve the democratic institutions our people have, for so
long, guarded against the spoils of opportunism, debauchery and abuse.

The right of suffrage is not at all absolute. The exercise of the right of suffrage, as in the enjoyment of
all other rights, is subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements embodied in our
Constitution, statute books and other repositories of law.

As to the procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain
procedural requirements he must undergo: among others, the process of registration.

Since Section 8 of RA 8189 explicitly provides that no registration shall be conducted during the
period starting 120 days before a regular election, the assailed COMELEC Resolution should be
upheld.

Truly, it is an accepted doctrine in administrative law that the determination of administrative

agency as to the operation, implementation and application of a law would be accorded great weight
considering that these specialized government bodies are, by their nature and functions, in the best
position to know what they can possibly do or not do, under prevailing circumstances.
 Kabataan Party-List vs Comelec

PONENTE: Perlas-Bernabe

TOPIC: Biometrics validation

FACTS:

RA 10367 mandates the COMELEC to implement a

mandatory biometrics registration system for new voters in order to establish a clean,
complete, permanent, and updated list of voters through
the adoption of biometric technology.

RA 10367 likewise directs that “registered voters whose biometrics have not been
captured shall submit themselves for validation.” “Voters who fail to submit for validation
on or before the last day of filing of application for registration for purposes of the May 2016
elections shall be deactivated x x x.”

COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9721 as amended by Resolutions No. 9863 and
10013. Among others, the said Resolution provides that: “the registration records of voters
without biometrics data who failed to submit for validation on or before the last day of filing
of applications for registration for the purpose of the May 9, 2016 National and Local
Elections shall be deactivated.

Herein petitioners filed the instant petition with application for temporary
restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (WPI) assailing
the constitutionality of the biometrics validation requirement imposed under RA 10367, as
well as COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9721, 9863, and 10013, all related thereto.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the statutory requirement of biometrics validation is an unconstitutional

requirement of literacy and property.
2. Whether or not biometrics validation passes the strict scrutiny test.
3. Whether or not Resolution No. 9863 which fixed the deadline for validation on October 31,
2015 violates Section 8 of RA 8189.
HELD:

FIRST ISSUE: No.

The Court held that biometrics validation is not a “qualification” to the exercise of
the right of suffrage, but a mere aspect of the registration procedure, of which the State has
the right to reasonably regulate.

The Court reiterated their ruling in several cases that registration regulates the
exercise of the right of suffrage. It is not a qualification for such right. The process
of registration is a procedural limitation on the right to vote.

Thus, although one is deemed to be a “qualified elector,” he must nonetheless still

comply with the registration procedure in order to vote.

Thus, unless it is shown that a registration requirement rises to the level of a literacy,
property or other substantive requirement as contemplated by the Framers of the
Constitution -that is, one which propagates a socio-economic standard which is bereft of any
rational basis to a person’s ability to intelligently cast his vote and to further the public good
-the same cannot be struck down as unconstitutional, as in this case.

SECOND ISSUE: Yes.

In applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than
substantial, governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving
that interest, and the burden befalls upon the State to prove the same.

Presence of compelling state interest

Respondents have shown that the biometrics validation requirement under RA

10367 advances a compelling state interest. It was precisely designed to facilitate the
conduct of orderly, honest, and credible elections by containing -if not eliminating, the
perennial problem of having flying voters, as well as dead and multiple registrants. The
foregoing consideration is unquestionably a compelling state interest.

Biometrics validation is the least restrictive means for achieving the above-said
interest

Section 6 of Resolution No. 9721 sets the procedure for biometrics validation,
whereby the registered voter is only required to: (a) personally appear before the Office of
the Election Officer; (b) present a competent evidence of identity; and (c) have his photo,
signature, and fingerprints recorded.
 Moreover, RA 10367 and Resolution No. 9721 did not mandate registered voters to
submit themselves to validation every time there is an election. In fact, it only required the
voter to undergo the validation process one (1) time, which shall remain effective in
succeeding elections, provided that he remains an active voter.

Lastly, the failure to validate did not preclude deactivated voters from exercising
their right to vote in the succeeding elections. To rectify such status, they could still apply for
reactivation.

THIRD ISSUE: No.

Section 8 of RA 8189 provides that:

System of Continuing Registration of Voters. – x x x No registration shall, however, be

conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular
election and ninety (90) days before a special election.

The Court held that the 120-and 90-day periods stated therein refer to the
prohibitive period beyond which voter registration may no longer be conducted. The subject
provision does not mandate COMELEC to conduct voter registration up to such time; rather,
it only provides a period which may not be reduced, but may be extended depending on the
administrative necessities and other exigencies

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS

Jurisdiction in inclusion and exclusion cases

– MTC and Metropolitan TC shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of
inclusion and exclusion of voters in their respective cities or municipalities
o May be appealed to the RTC within 5 days from notice
RTC must decide within 10 days
RTC decision shall immediately become final and executory
No MR shall be entertained
o No appeal after 5 days, it will become final and executory

Petition for inclusion of voters in the list – any person whose application has been
disapproved or whose name has been stricken out from the list may file with the court a petition
to include his name
o May not be filed 105 days prior to a regular election or 75 days prior to a special election
o Must be supported by a certificate of disapproval of application and proof of service of notice
of his petition upon the Board o Shall be decided within 15 days from filing

Petition for exclusion of voters in the list – any registered voter, representative, of a political
party or the Election Officer, may file with the court a sworn petition for the exclusion of a voter
from the permanent list
o May not be filed 100 days prior to a regular election or 65 days prior to a special election
o Must be accompanied by a proof of notice to the Board and to the challenged voter
o Must be decided within 10 days from filing
Verification of list of registered voters – the EO shall file exclusion proceedings when necessary
and verify the list of the registered voters of any precinct by regular mail or house to house
canvass
o COMELEC may enlist the help of NGOs, etc. and deputize them to assist in the verification

Voter excluded through inadvertence or registered with an erroneous or misspelled name

o Voter may file on any date with the proper MTC or Metropolitan TC a petition for an order
directing that the voter‟s name be entered or corrected in the list
o Must attach the necessary documents and proof of notice
o the citizenship of a person to be stricken out may be decided in the exclusion proceedings

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS SUMMARY IN CHARACTER

The summary character of an exclusion case makes the decision that a court may render
thereon even if final and unappealable does not acquire the nature of res judicata.
o Exception: in cases where the right to remain in the list of voters or for being excluded
therefrom for the particular election in relation to which the proceedings had been held acquires
the nature of res judicata

Factual findings and conclusions of TC are not conclusive on COMELEC

The authority to order the inclusion in or exclusion from the list of voters necessarily carries
with it the power to inquire into and settle all matters essential to the exercise of said authority

The jurisdiction of lower court is limited only to determining the right of the voter to remain in
the list if voters or to exclude him/her. The lower court has no jurisdiction to order the change
or transfer or registration from one place of residence to another.

BOOK OF VOTERS
Books of voters – compilation of all registration records in a precinct

Sealing – ERB shall notify within 15 days before the start of the campaign period
representatives of all registered political parties and members of the Board of Election inspectors
to inspect and verify the completeness of the voter‟s registration records
o After verification and certification, the Board shall seal the book of voters in the presence of
the Board inspectors at the start of the campaign period and take custody of the same until their
distribution to the Board on the day of the election
o EO must deliver the sealed precinct book of voters to the Chairman of the Board of Election
Inspectors

Annulment – COMELEC shall, upon verified petition of any voter or election officer or duly
registered political party and after notice and hearing, annul any book of voters that is not
prepared in accordance with RA 8189 or was prepared through fraud, bribery, forgery,
 impersonation, intimidation, force or any similar irregularity, or which contains data that are
statistically improbable

CASES:

Domino vs. Comelec

Facts: Petitioner Domino filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of
Representative of the lone legislative district of the Province of Sarangani indicating
that he has resided in the constituency where he seeks to be elected for 1 year and 2
months. Private respondents Narciso Ra. Grafilo et al, filed a petition seeking to cancel
the certificate of candidacy of Domino, alleging that Domino, contrary to his declaration
in the certificate of candidacy, is not a resident, much less a registered voter, of the
province of Sarangani where he seeks election. Thereafter, the COMELEC promulgated a
resolution declaring Domino disqualified as candidate for the position of representative
of the lone district of Sarangani in the May 11, 1998 polls for lack of the one-year
residency requirement and likewise ordered the cancellation of his certificate of
candidacy based on his own Voter’s Registration Record and his address indicated as
24 Bonifacio St., Ayala Hts., Old Balara, Quezon City.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner has resided in Sarangani Province for at least 1 year
immediately preceding the May 11, 1998 elections

Held: The term “residence,” as used in the law prescribing the qualifications for
suffrage and for elective office, means the same thing as “domicile,” which imports not
only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place,
coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. “Domicile” denotes a fixed
permanent residence to which, whenever absent for business, pleasure, or some other
reasons, one intends to return.

Records show that petitioner’s domicile of origin was Candon, Ilocos Sur and that
sometime in 1991, he acquired a new domicile of choice in Quezon City, as shown by
his certificate of candidacy for the position of representative of the Third District of
Quezon City in the May 1995 election. Petitioner is now claiming that he had effectively
abandoned his residence in Quezon City and has established a new domicile of choice in
the Province of Sarangani.

A person’s domicile, once established, is considered to continue and will not be deemed
lost until a new one is established. To successfully effect a change of domicile, one must
demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona fide intention of
abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts
which correspond with the purpose.

The contract of lease of a house and lot entered into sometime in January 1997 does not
adequately support a change of domicile. The lease contract may be indicative of
Domino’s intention to reside in Sarangani, but it does not engender the kind of
permanency required to prove abandonment of one’s original domicile. The mere
absence of individual from his permanent residence, no matter how long, without
the intention to abandon it does not result in loss or change of domicile. Thus, the date
of the contract of lease of a house and lot in Sarangani cannot be used, in the absence of
other circumstances, as the reckoning period of the one-year residence requirement.
Further, Domino’s lack of intention to abandon his residence in Quezon City is
strengthened by his act of registering as voter in Quezon City. While voting is not
conclusive of residence, it does give rise to a strong presumption of residence especially
in this case where Domino registered in his former barangay.

DATU INOCENCIO C. SIAWAN vs. JUDGE AQUILINO A. INOPIQUEZ, JR.

A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056
May 21, 2001

FACTS:

This is a complaint filed by Datu Inocencio Siawan against Judge Aquilino. A. Inopiquez,
Jr. of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Kananga-Matag-ob, Leyte, for gross ignorance of
the law, gross abuse of power, and misconduct in connection with the latter's handling
of a criminal case (Crim. Case No. 584) and two election cases for inclusion of voters

In Crim. Case No. 584 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Julia Enriqua Seco . . ., the
accused then was charged of Usurpation of Authority and Official Functions , involving,
as the complaint states, a "paquiao" contract in which the accused Julia Seco allegedly
signed as the Barangay Captain of Brgy. Cansuso, Matag-ob, Leyte; In the course of the
proceedings after the prosecution had already presented its witnesses, the complaint
was dismissed on the basis of an Affidavit of Desistance executed by complainant
Restituto C. Pedrano.

This Affidavit of Desistance is opposite to the earlier affidavit of the same complainant,
which was made the basis of the Complaint. Prior to the issuance of the Affidavit of
Desistance ,accused Seco had filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court a Motion for
Inhibition of the Presiding Judge now respondent in this case .The meat of this motion
for inhibition is that the father-in-law of the Presiding Judge, herein respondent, was
conspicuously present in the proceedings during which time he gave consultation to the
complainant. Without addressing the issues raised by accused Seco, respondent denied
her motion for inhibition in his order, dated May 22, 1987.

Apparently realizing that the motion for disqualification was meritorious, respondent,
after partially hearing the case, dismissed it on the basis of an affidavit of desistance of
the complainant, Restituto Pedrano. But, as Seco sued Pedrano for damages for filing
the criminal case, respondent judge ordered the withdrawal of Pedrano's affidavit of
desistance from the record and recalled his order dismissing the criminal case.

Respondent then revived Criminal Case No. 584 only to dismiss it again, saying the
complainant in the criminal case could always refile it. He then inhibited himself on the
ground of delicadeza citing his relationship to counsel for the private prosecutor. When
Criminal Case No. 1181 was filed against accused Seco, based on the same facts as
Criminal Case No. 584, respondent, to whom the case was again assigned, issued an
order, dated April 28, 1994, inhibiting himself, reiterating that he is related to the
private prosecutor which was later denied by the RTC of Ormoc city and soon
thereafter, respondent judge in an Order dated September 5, 1994 dismissed Criminal
Case No. 1181. A Motion For Reconsideration re the Order of dismissal was filed by the
private complainant. The respondent judge issued the Order of November 14, 1994
denying the motion for reconsideration complainant to which the respondent judge
directed accused's counsel, to file comment to the motion; a second motion for
reconsideration was again filed by the private complainant and the respondent in an
Order dated December 23, 1994 directed anew the accused's counsel for another
comment; Atty. Custodio Cañete complied and filed his comment dated December 26,
1994 and later a supplemental comment. Criminal Case No. 1181 was finally laid to rest
on February 17, 1995 as per admission of complainant

(b)Election Case Nos. 333 was a petition for inclusion of a voter in the voter's list.
Respondent judge admits that the petitioner, retired Judge Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr., is
his uncle. Nonetheless, he justifies his failure to recuse himself on the ground that the
petition of Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr. was meritorious.

(c) In Election Case No. 292, on the other hand, the seven petitioners, all surnamed
Herbas, alleged that they were refused registration on February 1, 1992 at Brgy. San
Sebastian, Matag-ob, Leyte by the Board of Election Inspectors; and that they have not
voted for two consecutive elections.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr is guilty of grave abuse of

authority and ignorance of the law for his mishandling of the 3 cases mentioned above. .
HELD:

Respondent Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr. is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine of

P20,000.00 for violation of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and is SUSPENDED without
pay for a period of three months for abuse of authority and ignorance of the law

(a) Complainant's counsel in Criminal Case No. 584 was Atty. Eusebio Otadoy, Jr.
Respondent admits that he is related to Atty. Otadoy. Although respondent is not
related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to Atty Otadoy, the
evidence shows that because of his relationship not only to Atty Otadoy but also to
those helping the complainant, Restituto Pedrano, one of whom, Guillermo Laurente, is
respondent's father-in-law, while the other one, Atty. Felix Sun, is his brother-in-law,
respondent judge acted with obvious partiality for complainant in the criminal case.

It is obvious that respondent got entangled in his own maneuverings in his desire to
favor and protect the complainant Restituto Pedrano and those helping the latter
.Respondent could have recused himself from the moment his disqualification was
sought by the accused Seco in Criminal Case No. 594. Respondent hung on to the case as
long as he could until this case was filed against him. But then he realized that it was
untenable for him to continue hearing the criminal case not only because of his
relationship to Atty. Otadoy but also to Atty. Felix Sun and Edgardo Laurente, both of
whom were his brothers-in-law, who were actively participating in the prosecution of
the criminal case.

Indeed, although the disqualification of judges is limited only to cases where the judge
is related to counsel within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, the Rules
nonetheless provide that a judge may, in the exercise of his discretion, disqualify
himself from sitting in a case for other just and valid reasons. (Rule 137, §1 of the Rules
of Court.)
It may also be added that a well-meaning judge may not just order the reopening of an
already dismissed criminal case or direct the removal of a vital evidence on record
without first going over the record of the case.
We are referring to the irregular actuations of respondent in the same Crim. Case No.
584 wherein he granted the motion of the private prosecutor to withdraw or detach the
Affidavit of Desistance executed by the private complainant 1) without the approval of
the private prosecutor; 2) despite the fact that the dismissal of the case was already
final; and 3) stating in the order that the accused was not yet arraigned, when the truth
is the prosecution has already rested when the case was dismissed on December 22,
1992

(b) Respondent judge's contention is without merit. Rule 137, §1 of the Rules of Court
provides:
No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is
pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to
either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the
fourth degree, computed according to the rules of civil law, or in which he has been
executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any
inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written
consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a
case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
Similarly, Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:
A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might
reasonably be questioned. These cases include, among others, proceedings where:
....
(d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth
degree or to counsel within the fourth degree;
....
In every instance the judge shall indicate the legal reason for inhibition.

Under these provisions, respondent judge was disqualified from hearing the petition of
his uncle and it was immaterial that the petition was meritorious. The purpose of the
prohibition is to prevent not only a conflict of interest but also the appearance of
impropriety on the part of a judge.

(c) The records show that neither of the petition in Election Case No. 333 and Election
Case No. 292 named the board of election inspectors a party to the proceedings. Nor is
there any showing that the board of election inspectors was ever notified of hearings to
be conducted on such inclusion proceedings either by registered mail or by personal
delivery, or by notice posted in a conspicuous place in the city hall or municipal building
and in two other conspicuous places within the city or municipality at least 10 days
prior to the day set for the hearing as required in paragraph (b) of the above provision.
The Omnibus Election Code provides:
Section 143. Common rules governing judicial proceedings in the matter of inclusion,
exclusion, and correction of names of voters. --- (a) Outside of regular office hours, no
petition for inclusion, exclusion, or correction of names of voters shall be received.
(b) Notices to the members of the board of election inspectors and to challenged voters
shall state the place, day and hour in which such petition shall be heard, and such notice
may be made by sending a copy thereof by registered mail or by personal delivery…
The failure of respondent to observe the requirements of the Election Code is
inexcusable. As a judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court vested with the jurisdiction
to hear and decide petitions for inclusion or exclusion of voters, he is expected to be
familiar with these requirements because it can be assumed that these election cases
were not the first cases he has decided.

ABSENTEE VOTING
RA 7166 provides for synchronized national and local elections
Sec. 12. Absentee Voting. - Absentee voting as provided for in Executive Order No. 157 dated
March 30, 1987 shall apply to the elections for President, Vice-President and Senators only and
shall be limited to members of the (APO) Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine
National Police and other government officers and employees who are duly registered voters and
who, on election day, may temporarily be assigned in connection with the performance of
election duties to place where they are not registered voters.

SUMMARY of RA 8189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003)

o This law ensures equal opportunity to all qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad in the
exercise of their right to participate in the election of President, VicePresident, Senators, and
Party-list Representatives

Absentee voting
o refers to the process by which qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad exercise their right
to vote

Who are covered?

o All citizen of the Philippines abroad, who are not otherwise disqualified by law, at least 18 years
of age on the day of the elections.

Who are disqualified?

1. Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with Philippine laws
2. Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship and who have pledged
allegiance to a foreign country
3. Those who have committed and are convicted in a final judgment by a court or tribunal of an
offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than 1 year, including those who have been found
guilty of Disloyalty as defined under Art. 137 of the RPC, such disability not having been removed
by plenary pardon or amnesty; Provided that the person disqualified according to this shall
automatically reacquire the right to vote upon the expiration of 5 years after service of sentence;
provided, further, that COMELEC may take cognizance of final judgments issued by foreign courts
of tribunals only on the basis of reciprocity and subject to the formalities and processes
prescribed by the Rules of Court on execution of judgments
4. An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host country, unless
he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the purpose by COMELEC declaring
that he/she shall resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than 3
years from approval of his/her registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall also state that
he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be the cause for
 the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the National Registry of
the Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to vote in absentia
5. Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared insane or incompetent by competent
authority in the Philippines or abroad, as verified by the Philippines embassies, consulates or
foreign service establishments concerned, unless such competent authority subsequently
certifies that such person is no longer insane or incompetent

How may a Filipino citizen become a registered overseas absentee voter?

o Filipino citizens abroad or Filipino citizens in the Philippines who will be abroad on Election
Day may become registered overseas absentee voters by filing an application for registration or
certification as overseas absentee voters

Is a registered overseas absentee voter automatically entitled to vote?

o No, a registered overseas absentee voter must have an approved application to vote in absentia
to be entitled to vote

REPUBLIC ACT No. 10380

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR LOCAL ABSENTEE VOTING FOR MEDIA

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Declaration of Policy. – The State shall ensure the free exercise of the right of suffrage by
all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law.

Section 2. Local Absentee Voting for Members of Media. – The Commission on Elections shall extend
the right to vote under the local absentee voting system provided under existing laws and executive
orders to members of media, media practitioners, including the technical and support staff, who are
duly registered voters and who, on election day, may not be able to vote due to the performance of
their functions in covering and reporting on the elections: Provided, That they shall be allowed to
vote only for the positions of President, Vice President, Senators and Party-List Representative.

Section 3. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The Commission on Elections shall, within thirty
(30) days from the effectivity of this Act, promulgate the implementing rules and regulations which
shall include a system of accreditation and verification of the members of media, media
practitioners, the technical and support staff, who are qualified to avail of local absentee voting.

Section 4. Appropriations. – The initial funding of this Act shall be charged against the current
year’s appropriations or from any available savings of the Commission on Elections. Thereafter,
such amount as may be necessary for the continued implementation of this Act shall be included in
the annual General Appropriations Act.

Section 5. Separability Clause. – If any part or provision of this Act shall be declared
unconstitutional or invalid, other provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to
be in full force and effect.
Section 6. Repealing Clause. – All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, resolutions, rules and
regulations, other issuances, and parts thereof, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act, are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 7. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in at least
two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

POLITICAL PARTIES
What is the meaning of political party under the Code?

Political party or party means an organized group of persons pursuing the same ideology, political
ideas or platforms of government and includes its branches and divisions. This requires that the
group be joined in a party corporate, articulate with the attributes of social personality, set of by-
laws, rules, or charter, or agreement as to how the group shall function, be presided over and express
its collective will.

A political party may refer to a local, regional or national party existing and duly registered and
accredited by the COMELEC.

Registration of political parties:

To acquire juridical personality, qualify it for subsequent accreditation, and entitle it to right and
privileges granted to political parties, a political party shall first be duly registered with the
COMELEC.

Any registered political party that, singly or in coalition with other, fails to obtain at least 10% of
the votes cast in the Constituency in which it nominated and supported a candidate or candidates in
the election next following its registration shall, after notice and hearing, be deemed to have forfeited
such status as a registered political party in such Constituency.

Any organized group of persons seeking registration as a national or regional political party may
file with the COMELEC a verified petition attaching thereto its Constitution and by-laws, platforms or
program of government and such other relevant information as may be required by the Commission.
The Commission shall after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition within 10 days from the date
it is submitted for decision.

No religious sect shall be registered as a political party and no political party which seeks to achieve
its goal through violence shall be entitled to accreditation.
The COMELEC shall require publication of the petition for registration or accreditation in at least
three newspapers of general circulation and shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition
within 15 days from the date it is submitted for decision.
Disputes as to party nominations:
Decision as to which member shall be nominated as its candidate a party concern; not cognizable
by courts

A political party has the right to identify the people who constitute the association and to select a
standard bearer who represents their ideologies and preference

Political parties are free to conduct their internal affairs free from judicial supervision (judicial
restraint)

No controlling statute or clear legal right = no jurisdiction of the court but can leave the matter to
the proper tribunals of the party itself or to the electorate

In determining whether an irregularity in nomination of a winning candidate prevented the free

expression of public will, it must appear that noncompliance with the law did not prevent a fair and
free vote.

Intra-party leadership and membership disputes:

COMELEC may intervene only to exercise its constitutional powers (incident to its power to register
political parties)
o Ascertain identity of political party and it legitimate officers responsible for it acts

o Register political parties determine who may act on its behalf

COMELEC can’t intervene in the expulsion of a member

The party-list system

Constitutional provision – Section 5(1) of Article VI of the Constitution: “The House of
Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law,
shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.”

Implementing law – RA 7941: Provides for the election of party-list representatives through the
party-list system and requires the Commission to undertake various activities within the prescribed
periods which activities are difficult to accomplish within the periods prescribed therein.

Definition of terms – Under RA 7941:

o Party-list system – mechanism of proportional representation /in the election of representatives

to the House of Representative /from national, regional, and sectoral parties, organizations and
coalitions thereof registered with the COMELEC. Component parties or organizations of a coalition
may participate independently provided the coalition of which they from part does not participate in
the party-list system.

o Party – either a political party or sectoral party or a coalition of parties,

o Political party – organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and
policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing
their adoption regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates
for public office.
i. National party – when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a
majority of the regions.

ii. Regional party – when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a
majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region.

o Sectoral party – organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section
2 of the Act hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interests and concerns of their
sector.

o Sectoral organization – a group of citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens who share similar
physical attributes or characteristics, employment, interests or concerns.

o Coalition –aggrupation of duly registered, national, regional, sectoral parties or organizations for
political and/or election purposes.

Registration – Under COMELEC Resolution No. 2847 (June 25, 1996)

o Any organized group of persons desiring to participate in the party-list systems as a national,
regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations may register
as a party, organization, or coalition, by filing with the Commission, not later than 180 days before
the election, a petition verified by its president or secretary, attaching thereto its Constitution, by-
laws, platforms or program of government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other relevant
information as the Commission may require.

o The sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.

Petition and manifestation; filing fee – Every petition or manifestation shall be filed by any
authorized representative of the political or sectoral party, organization, coalition thereof with any
of the following offices of the Commission:

o Law department – if the petition involves national Constituency; or o The Office of the Regional
Election Director – regional Constituency.

No petition or manifestation shall be accepted without a filing fee of P1000 and a research fee of P20.
 Procedure:

o Upon receipt of the petition, the Law Department or the Regional Election Director, as the case may
be, shall determine whether the petition is in due form and substance and thereafter shall verify the
existence of the petitioner in the Constituency and all matters required, and within 7 days after such
inquiry, submit the petition and its supporting documents, filing fee, together with his findings and
recommendations to the Commission, through the Law Department;

o The Commission shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition within 15 days from the
date it was submitted for decision but not later than 90 days before the election day.

Manifestation to participate in the party-list system – Any party, organization, or coalition already
registered with the Commission need not register anew. However, such party organization or
coalition shall file with the Commission, not later than 90 days before the election, a manifestation of
its desire to participate in the party-list system.

Removal and/or cancellation of registration – Any Commission may motu proprio or upon verified
complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of
any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:

1. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes;

2. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
3. It is a foreign party or organization;
4. It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation,
organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or member or indirectly through third
parties for partisan election purposes;
5. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
6. It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
7. It has ceased to exist for at least 1 year; or
8. It fails to participate in the last 2 preceding elections for the Constituency in which it was
registered.

Certified list of registered parties – The Commission shall, not later than 15 days before election,
prepare a certified list of national, regional, or sectoral parties, organizations or coalition which have
applied or manifested their desire to participate under the party list system and distribute copies
thereof to all precincts for posting in the polling places on election day. The names of the party-list
nominees shall not be shown on the certified list.

Nomination of party-list representative – Each registered party, organization, or coalition shall

submit to the Commission not later than 90 days before the election a list of names, not less than 5,
from which partylist representative shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes.

Limitations of party-list nominations:

o A party may be nominated by one party, organization/coalition in one list only. Any person giving
consent to be nominated more than once shall be disqualified.

o Only persons who have given their consent in writing may be named in the list;

o The list shall not include any candidate for any elective office in the same election or a person who
has not lost his bid for an elective office in the immediately preceding elections;

o No change of name or alteration in the order of nominees shall be allowed after the same has been
submitted to the Commission EXCEPT in cases where the nominee dies, his nomination is withdrawn
in writing and under oath, or become incapacitated, in which case the name of the substitute nominee
shall be placed last in the list; and
o Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of Representatives who are nominated in the
party-list system shall not be considered resigned.

Qualifications of party-list nominees:

1. A natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
2. A registered voter;
3. A resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day
of the election;
4.Able to read and write;
5. A bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least 90 days
preceding the day of the election; and
6. At least 25 years of age on the day of the election. In a case of a nominee of the youth sector, he
must at least be 25 but not more than 30 years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral
representative who attains the age of 30 during his term shall be allowed to continue in the office
until the expiration of his term.

Manner of voting – Every voter shall be entitled to 2 votes. The first is a vote for the candidate for
member of the House of Representatives in his legislative district, and the second, a vote for the party,
organization or coalition he wants represented in the House of Representatives. A vote cast for a
party, sectoral organization, or coalition not entitled to be voted shall not be counted.

Number of party-list representative – The party-list representatives shall Constitute 20% of the
total number of the members of the House of Representative including those under the party-list.

In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the following procedures shall be observed:

The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on
the number of votes they garnered during the elections; and

The parties, organizations receiving at least 2% of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall
be entitled to one seat. Those garnering more than 2% of the votes shall be entitled to additional
seats in proportion to their total number of vote. However, each party, organization or coalition shall
be entitled to not more than 3 seats.
 Procedure in allocating seats fir party-list representatives – The Commission shall tally all the votes
for the parties, organizations, and coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them according to the
number of votes received and allocate a party-list representatives proportionately according to the
percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization, and coalition as against the total
nationwide votes cast for the party-list system.

How party-list representatives are chosen – According to their ranking in said list.

Term of office – they shall serve for a term of 3 years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided
for by law, at noon on the 30th day of June next following their election. No party-list representative
shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length
of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term.

Change of affiliation;effect – any selected party-list representative who changes his political party
or sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat. If he changes his political or
sectoral affiliation within 6 months before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-
list representative under his new party or organization.

Vacancy – the vacancy shall automatically be filled by the next representative from the list of
nominees in the order submitted to the Commission by the same party, organization, or coalition,
such representative shall serve for the unexpired term. If the list is exhauster, the party, organization,
or coalition shall submit additional nominees.

Rights of party-list representatives – entitled to the same salaries and emoluments as the regular
members of the House of Representative.

Governing laws; other matters – for purposes of the election of Members of the House of
Representative under the party-list system and other matters in connection therewith which are not
provided in the Act, the relevant provisions of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended, shall apply.

CASES:

G.R. No. 147589 June 26, 2001

ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY (under the acronym OFW), represented
herein by its secretary-general, MOHAMMAD OMAR FAJARDO, petitioner,
vs. ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY GO! GO! PHILIPPINES; THE
TRUE MARCOS LOYALIST ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES; PHILIPPINE
LOCAL AUTONOMY; CITIZENS MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE, ECONOMY,
ENVIRONMENT AND PEACE; CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION; SPORTS & HEALTH ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION, INC.; ANG
LAKAS NG OVERSEAS CONTRACT WORKERS (OCW); BAGONG BAYANI
ORGANIZATION and others under "Organizations/Coalitions" of Omnibus Resolution
No. 3785; PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO; LAKAS NUCD-UMDP; NATIONALIST
PEOPLE'S COALITION; LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO; AKSYON
DEMOKRATIKO; PDP-LABAN; LIBERAL PARTY; NACIONALISTA PARTY; ANG
BUHAY HAYAANG YUMABONG; and others under "Political Parties" of Omnibus
Resolution No. 3785. respondents.

x---------------------------------------------------------x

G.R. No. 147613 June 26, 2001

BAYAN MUNA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; NATIONALIST
PEOPLE'S COALITION (NPC); LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LDP);
PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO (PMP); LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP; LIBERAL PARTY;
MAMAMAYANG AYAW SA DROGA; CREBA; NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
SUGARCANE PLANTERS; JEEP; and BAGONG BAYANI
ORGANIZATION, respondents.

Facts:

Petitioners challenged the Comelec’s Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, which approved the
participation of 154 organizations and parties, including those herein impleaded, in the 2001
party-list elections. Petitioners sought the disqualification of private respondents, arguing mainly
that the party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented; not the
mainstream political parties, the non-marginalized or overrepresented. Unsatisfied with the pace
by which Comelec acted on their petition, petitioners elevated the issue to the Supreme Court.

Issue: WON political parties may participate in the party-list elections?

HELD: YES. Political parties – even the major ones -- may participate in the party-list elections
subject to the requirements laid down in the Constitution and RA 7941, which is the statutory
law pertinent to the Party List System.

Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-
list elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the
Constitution provides that members of the House of Representatives may "be elected through a
party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations”.

It is however, incumbent upon the Comelec to determine proportional representation of the

“marginalized and underrepresented”, the criteria for participation, in relation to the cause of the
party list applicants so as to avoid desecration of the noble purpose of the party-list system.
 BANAT V. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009
Facts:

 Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) filed

before the National Board of Canvassers(NBC) a petition to proclaim the full
number of party list representatives provided by the Constitution. However, the
recommendation of the head of the legal group of COMELEC’s national board of
canvassers to declare the petition moot and academic was approved by the
COMELEC en banc.
 BANAT filed for petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the resolution of
COMELEC to their petition to proclaim the full number of party list representatives
provided by the Constitution.
 The COMELEC, sitting as the NBC, promulgated a resolution proclaiming thirteen
(13) parties as winners in the party-list elections in May 2007. The COMELEC
announced that, upon completion of the canvass of the party-list results, it would
determine the total number of seats of each winning party, organization, or
coalition in accordance with Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC formula.
 Bayan Muna, Abono, and Advocacy for Teacher Empowerment Through Action,
Cooperation and Harmony Towards Educational Reforms (A Teacher) asked the
COMELEC, acting as NBC, to reconsider its decision to use the Veterans formula.
COMELEC denied the consideration.
 Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher filed for certiorari with mandamus and
prohibition assailing the resolution of the COMELEC in its decision to use the
Veterans formula.
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives in Section
5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or merely a ceiling
 Whether or not the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 is constitutional
 Whether or not the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 to
qualify for one seat is constitutional
 How shall the party-list representatives be allocated?
 Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties from participating in the
party-list elections? If not, can the major political parties be barred from participating
in the party-list elections?

RULING:
 The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list
representatives cannot be more than 20% of the members of the House of
Representatives.
 Yes, it is constitutional. The three-seat cap, as a limitation to the number of seats that a
qualified party-list organization may occupy, remains a valid statutory device that
prevents any party from dominating the party-list elections.
 The second clause of Section 11(b) of R. A. 7941 “those garnering more than two percent
(2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number
of votes” is unconstitutional. The two percent threshold only in relation to the
distribution of the additional seats presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full
implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment
of "the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House
of Representatives."
 In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under Section 11 of
R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall be observed:
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to
the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of
the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat
each.
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in
paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of
votes until all the additional seats are allocated.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3)
seats.
 Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits major political parties from
participating in the party-list system. On the contrary, the framers of the Constitution
clearly intended the major political parties to participate in party-list elections through
their sectoral wings. Also, in defining a "party" that participates in party-list elections as
either "a political party or a sectoral party," R.A. No. 7941 also clearly intended that major
political parties will participate in the party-list elections. Excluding the major political
parties in party-list elections is manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of the
Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. However, by the vote of 8-7, the Court
decided to continue the ruling in Veterans disallowing major political parties from
participating in the party-list elections, directly or indirectly.
CANDIDACY
The following is a simple list of the pertinent qualifications required for public elective
positions in the Philippines:
Qualification for Philippine President and Vice-President:
1. natural born citizen of the Philippines
2. registered voter
3. able to read and write
4. at least 40 years of age on the day of election
5. resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding the election.
Qualifications for Philippine Senators:
1. natural born citizen of the Philippines
2. at least 35 years old on the day of the election
3. able to read and write
4. registered voter
5. resident of the Philippines for not less than 2 years immediately preceding the day of the election
Qualification for Philippine Congressmen (District Representative):
1. natural born citizen of the Philippines
2. on the day of the election at least 25 years old
3. able to read and write
4. registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected
5. resident thereof a period of not less than 1 year immediately preceding the day of the election.
Qualification for Philippine Party-List Representative (Sectoral representative):
1. natural born citizen of the Philippines
2. able to read and write
3. a registered voter
4. resident of the Philippines for a period not less than 1 year immediately preceeding the ay of the
election
5. bona fide member of the sector he seeks to represent (must belong to their respective sectors,
or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors)
6. on the day of the election is at least 25 years old BUT in case of youth sectoral representative, at
least 25 years and not more than 30 years old at the day of the election
Qualifications for Philippine Local Officials:
1. citizen of the Philippines
2. on the day of election at least 23 years old for Governor, Vice-Governor, member of sangguniang
panlalawigan, mayor, vice-mayor, sangguniang panglungsod in highly urbanized cities; while at
least 21 years old for the said officials in component cities and municipalities; at least 18 years old
for members of the sangguniang panglungsod, sangguniang bayan and sangguniang barangay and
punong barangay; at least 15 years old and not more than 21 years of age for Sangguniang
kabataan.
3. able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect
4. registered voter in the constituency in the locality
5. resident thereof for a period of not less than 1 year immediately preceding the day of the election
WHO IS A NATURAL BORN FILIPINO CITIZEN?

-is one who does not have to perform any act to acquire or perfect his/her Filipino citizenship.
NUISANCE CANDIDATE
It would be an arduous task to separate the nuisance candidates from the rest of the pile.
How should we define “nuisance”? Comelec Chair Andres Bautista told the media that
candidates for national office must show proof of their “ability to mount a national
campaign.” Comelec spokesperson James Jimenez chimed in and said that one can be
considered a nuisance candidate (in the modern sense of causing “petty annoyance”) if he or
she makes a mockery of the elections, causes confusion, or demonstrates no genuine
intention to run for public office.

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/89413/nuisance-candidates#ixzz5zf7DTJS5

Certificates of Candidacy

CANDIDATE – any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate
or candidacy by himself or through an accredited political party, organization, or coalition of
parties.

NOTE: Any person who files his CoC within the period for filing shall only be considered a
candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his CoC.

FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY (CoC)

(1) No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a sworn CoC within the
period fixed by the Omnibus Election Code.

(2) No person shall be eligible for more than 1 office to be filled in the same election.

(3) If he files his CoC for more than 1 office, he shall not be eligible for any of them. Provided that
before the expiration of the period to file a CoC, the person who has filed such may declare under
oath the office which he desires to be eligible and cancel the CoC for the other office/s.
(4) Any vote in favor of a person who has not filed a CoC or in favor of a candidate for any office for
which he did not present himself is void and counted as a stray vote but DOES NOT INVALIDATE
the whole ballot.

(5) COMELEC or its designated officer has the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt
of the CoC but has jurisdiction over a petition to deny due course to or cancel CoC provided due
process is observed.

TIME AND PLACE OF FILING

Under RA 7166 which provides for synchronized national and local elections, the CoCs shall be filed
in 5 legible copies with the COMELEC not later than the day before the date legally fixed for the
beginning of his campaign period.

(1) CoCs for President, Vice-President and Senators – COMELEC main office in Manila

(2) CoCs for Members of the House of Representatives – provincial election supervisor of the
province concerned

(3) CoCs for provincial offices – provincial election supervisor concerned

(4) CoCs for city and municipal offices – city or municipal election registrar concerned

NOTE: A CoC filed beyond the deadline is not valid.

o A CoC shall be filed by the candidate personally or by his duly authorized representative.

PRINTING OF CANDIDATES’ NAMES IN ELECTION RETURNS

(1) Names of registered candidates for local position shall be printed in the election returns.
(2) If a candidate has been disqualified or declared a nuisance candidate, it shall be the duty of the
COMELEC to instruct without delay the appropriate election officials to delete the name of said
candidate as printed in the election return.

IMPORTANCE OF A VALID CoC

(1) Requirement absolutely mandatory

(2) The evident purposes of the law in requiring the filing of CoCs and in fixing the time limit
therefor are:
a. To enable the voters to know, at least 60 days before the regular election, the candidates
b. To avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cast

WITHDRAWAL OF THE CoC

How? By submitting, prior to the election, to the office concerned a written declaration under oath
which shall not affect whatever criminal, civil or administrative liabilities which a candidate may
have incurred.

Effect – The withdrawal of a CoC does not necessarily render the CoC void ab initio. Once filed, the
permanent legal effects produced thereby remain even if the certificate itself be subsequently
withdrawn.
AUTOMATIC RESIGNATION

(1) Any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the AFP,
and officers and employees in GOCC shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the
filing of his CoC.
(2) Forfeiture is automatic and permanently effective upon the filing of the CC for another office.
Only the moment and act of filing are considered.
(3) The automatic and permanent loss of office by any elective official makes no exception for
officials under suspension when they file CC for another office.
(4) An official who is considered as resigned upon the filing of his CC is not restored to his position
by withdrawal of the same.

[Flores v. COMELEC] – Under R.A. No. 6679, the person who wins the highest number of votes as
kagawad becomes by operation of law the punong barangay. In the particular case of the petitioner,
it should be noted that he was in fact not even elected in 1982 as one of the six councilmen but
separately as the barangay captain. He was thus correctly deemed resigned upon his filing of a
certificate of candidacy for kagawad in 1989, as this was not the position he was holding, or was
incumbent in, at the time he filed such certificate.

CERTIFIED LIST OF CANDIDATES

The COMELEC shall cause to be printed a certified list of candidates containing the names of all the
registered candidates for each office to be voted for in each city or province or municipality
immediately followed by the nickname or stage name of each candidate duly registered in his CoC
and his political party affiliation, if any.

CANDIDATES IN CASE OF DEATH, DISQUALIFICATION OR WITHDRAWAL OF ANOTHER

(1) If after the last day for the filing of the CC, an official candidate of a registered or accredited
political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to, and
certified by, the same political party may file a CoC to replace the candidate.

(2) The substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may file his CoC for the
office affected not later than mid-day of the day of the election.

(3) If it occurs between the day before the election and mid-day of election day, said CoC may be
filed with any board of election inspectors in the political subdivision where his is a candidate.

(4) The substitute candidate need not be a member of the political party concerned prior to his
nomination as its official candidate.

VOTES CAST FOR SUBSTITUTED CANDIDATES

(1) In case of valid substitutions after the official ballots have been printed, the votes cast for the
substituted candidates shall be considered as stray votes but shall not invalidate the whole ballot.
For this purpose, the official ballots shall provide spaces where the voters may write the name of
the substitute candidates if they are voting for the latter.
(2) If the substitute candidate has the same family name, the above rule shall not apply.

NOTE: Under the new law (Automated and Election System Act), in case of valid substitutions after
the official ballots shall have been printed, the votes cast for the substituted candidates shall be
considered votes for the substitutes.

PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE TO OR CANCEL A CoC

Who may file? Any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained
therein as required is false.

When? At any time not later than 25 days from the time of the filing of the CoC and shall be decided,
after due process and hearing, not later than 15 days before the election.

CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE BY COMMISSION

The COMELEC may motu propio or upon verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due
course to or cancel a CoC if the following situations are extant: (1) If it is shown that the CoC has
been filed to put an election process in mockery or disrepute; (2) If CoC was filed to cause confusion
among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidate; (3) If there are any
other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide
intention to run for the office which the CoC has been filed and thus prevent faithful determination
of the true will of the electorate.

Note: A cancelled CoC cannot give rise to a valid candidacy, and much less to valid votes. Where,
however, the ruling is not yet final on election day, the duty of the court is to ascertain the will of
the electorate under the factual circumstances of the case. (COMELEC decisions in pre-proclamation
controversies and petitions to deny course to or to cancel CoC shall become final and executory
after the lapse of 5 days from their promulgation.)

VOTES FOR CANDIDATES WITH DISQUALIFICATION CASE

(1) Candidates who are disqualified by final judgment before the election shall not be voted for and
the votes cast for them shall not be counted.
(2) Those against whom no final judgment of disqualification had been rendered may be voted for
and proclaimed, unless on motion of the complainant, the COMELEC suspends their proclamation
because the grounds for their disqualification or cancellation of their CoCs are strong.

MATERIAL AND FALSE REPRESENTATION – The false representation must be made with the
intention to deceive the electorate as to the would-be candidate‟s qualifications for public office.
RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT OF A CANDIDATE – COMELEC cannot base its decisions solely on very
personal assessment standards.

SIMILARITY/DIFFERENCE OF PROCEEDING WITH QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDING

(1) SC has likened a proceeding under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code to a quo warranto
proceeding since they both deal with the qualifications of a candidate. (2) The petition questioning
the qualifications of a registered candidate to run for the office for which his CoC was filed can be
raised (a) before the election and (b) after the election.

SECTION 78 SECTION 253 Deals with the qualifications of a candidate Deals with the qualifications
of a candidate Time of filing: Before the election After the election Grounds: Misrepresentation
Ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines *Petition for quo warranto not barred
by failure to file petition to disqualify

REMEDY WHERE CANDIDATE HAS BEEN PROCLAIMED

If winning candidate is NOT eligible because of failure to file properly his CoC as required by law
– contest his election after he has been duly proclaimed.

It has been held that the defects of the CoC should be questioned on or before the election and not
after the will of the people has been expressed through the ballots.

Where a candidate has received popular mandate, overwhelmingly and clearly expressed, all
possible doubts should be resolved in favor of the candidate‟s eligibility for to rule otherwise is to
defeat the will of the people. (The true will of the electorate should be paramount.)

DISQUALIFICATIONS

(1) Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been
sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he
has been sentenced to a penalty of more than 18 months or for a crime involving moral turpitude.
(2) Any candidate who, in action or protest in which he is a party, is declared by final decision guilty
of or found by COMELEC of having: a. Given money or other material consideration to influence,
induce or corrupt the voters of public officials performing electoral functions b. Committed acts of
terrorism to enhance his candidacy c. Spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of the
allowed d. Solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under the Omnibus Election
Code (3) Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country, unless
said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country

NOTE: The Dual Citizenship Act of 2003 expressly provides for the conditions before those who re-
acquired Filipino citizenship may run for a public office in the Philippines. (At the time of the filing
of a CoC, made a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any
public officer authorized to administer an oath.)

RULES GOVERNING CASES OF DISQUALIFICATIONS BEFORE THE ELECTION

(1) Complaint filed before election – The complaint shall be inquired into by the Commission for the
purpose of determining whether the acts complained of have in fact been committed. Where the
inquiry results in a finding that the respondent candidate did in fact commit the acts complained,
COMELEC shall order the disqualification of the respondent candidate from continuing as such
candidate.
(2) Complaint not resolved before election – COMELEC may motu propio or on motion of any of the
parties refer the complaint to the Law Department of the Commission.
(3) Complaint filed after election and proclamation of winner – The complaint shall be dismissed as
a disqualification case. However, the complaint shall be referred for preliminary investigation to the
Law Department.
(4) Complaint filed after election but before proclamation of winner – The complaint shall be
dismissed as a disqualification case. However, the complaint shall be referred for preliminary
investigation to the Law Department. If the Law Department make a prima facie finding of guilt and
the corresponding information has been filed with the trial court, the complainant may file a
petition for suspension of the proclamation of the respondent.
(5) Submission of recommendation to Commission en banc – The Law Department shall terminate
the preliminary investigation within 30 days from receipt of the referral and shall submit its study,
report and recommendation to the Commission en banc within 5 days from the conclusion of the
preliminary investigation. If it makes a prima facie finding of guilt, it shall submit with such study
the Information for filing with the appropriate court.

Bagatsing v. COMELEC

There is a difference between a disqualification case filed before and after an election. Why there is
a difference between a petition for disqualification filed before and after the election proceeds from
the fact that before the election, the question of disqualification is raised as an issue before the
electorate and those who vote for the candidate assume the risk that should said candidate be
disqualified after the election, their votes would be declared stray or invalid votes. Such would not
be true in the case of one filed after the electorate has already voted.

The mere filing of a petition for disqualification is not a ground to suspend the proclamation of the
winning candidate. In the absence of an order suspending the proclamation, the winning candidate
who is sought to be disqualified is entitled to be proclaimed as a matter of law.

EFFECTS OF DISQUALIFICATION
(1) After final judgment – The candidate shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not
be counted.

(2) Before final judgment – The Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of
the action, inquiry or protest and upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may, during
the pendency thereof, order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the
evidence of his guilt is strong.

(3) Candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes – if the candidate who obtained the
highest number of votes is later disqualified, this does not mean that the one who obtained the 2nd
highest number of vote will be declared as the elective officer.
o Sound public policy dictates that the public offices are filled by those who have received the
highest number of votes

CASES:

Penera vs. COMELEC GR 181613 September 11, 2009 & November 25, 2009
Premature Campaigning

FACTS:

Penera and private respondent Edgar T. Andanar were mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica
during the 14 May 2007 elections. On 2 April 2007, Andanar filed before the Office of the
Regional Election Director, Caraga Region (Region XIII), a Petition for
Disqualification against Penera, as well as the candidates for Vice-Mayor and Sangguniang
Bayan who belonged to her political party, for unlawfully engaging in election campaigning
and partisan political activity prior to the commencement of the campaign period.

Rosalinda A. Penera’s filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Decision of 11

September 2009.The assailed Decision dismissed Penera’s petition and affirmed the
Resolution dated 30 July 2008 of the COMELEC En Banc as well as the Resolution dated 24
July 2007 of the COMELEC Second Division. The Decision disqualified Penera from running
for the office of Mayor in Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte and declared that the Vice-Mayor
should succeed Penera.

ISSUE:

Is Penera guilty of premature campaigning? May premature campaigning be committed by

a person who is not a candidate?
RULING:

No to both. Under the assailed September 11, 2009 Decision, a candidate may already be
liable for premature campaigning after the filing of the certificate of candidacy but even
before the start of the campaign period. Thus, such person can be disqualified for
premature campaigning for acts done before the start of the campaign period. In short, the
Decision considers a person who files a certificate of candidacy already “candidate” even
before the start of the campaign period.

Now the Court holds that the assailed Decision is contrary to the clear intent and letter of
the law. In Lanot v. COMELEC,it held that a person who files a certificate of candidacy is
not a candidate until the start of the campaign period. Lanot was decided on the
ground that one who files a certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the start of the
campaign period.

Congress elevated the Lanot doctrine into a statute by specifically inserting it as the second
sentence of the third paragraph of the amended Section 15 of RA 8436. In RA 9369,
Congress inserted the word “only” so that the first proviso now reads:

x x x Provided, that, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect
only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period x x x.

Thus, Congress not only reiterated but also strengthened its mandatory directive that
election offenses can be committed by a candidate “only” upon the start of the campaign
period. This clearly means that before the start of the campaign period, such election
offenses cannot be so committed.

In layman’s language, this means that a candidate is liable for an election offense only for
acts done during the campaign period, not before. The law is clear as daylight — any
election offense that may be committed by a candidate under any election law cannot be
committed before the start of the campaign period. In ruling that Penera is liable for
premature campaigning for partisan political acts before the start of the campaigning, the
assailed Decision ignores the clear and express provision of the law.
Quinto V. COMELEC

COMELEC issued a resolution declaring appointive officials who filed their certificate of
candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their positions.

FACTS:

Petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition against the COMELEC for issuing a resolution declaring appointive officials who
filed their certificate of candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their positions. In this
defense, the COMELEC avers that it only copied the provision from Sec. 13 of R.A. 9369.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the said COMELEC resolution was valid.

HELD:

(The Motion for Reconsideration Ruling)

On December 1, 2009, the Supreme Court voting 8-6 declared as unconstitutional the second provision in the third

paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, Section 66 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 and Section 4(a) of

COMELEC Resolution No. 8678, for being violative of the equal protection clause and for being overbroad. The

ponente of the decision was Justice Antonio B. Nachura.

On February 22, 2010, voting 10-5, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier ruling, granted the motions for

reconsideration of its December 1, 2009 decision and upheld the constitutionality of the three provisions in election

laws that deemed appointive officials automatically resigned once they filed their certificates of candidacy (CoCs).

The ruling was penned by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno with a dissent from Justice Nachura.

Speaking for the Court, Chief Justice Puno rationalized that the issue as to equal protection has been addressed in

the earlier case of case of Farinas v. Executive Secretary, (G.R. No. 147387, December 10, 2003) where the Court

stated that “the equal protection of the law clause in the Constitution is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable

classification. If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class

may be treated and regulated differently from the other. x x Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective
officials and appointive officials. The former occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are

elected to an office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom only upon stringent conditions. On the other

hand, appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto by an appointing authority. Some

appointive officials hold their office in a permanent capacity and are entitled to security of tenure while others

serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. x x Another substantial distinction between the two sets of

officials is that under Section 55, Chapter 8, Title I, Subsection A. Civil Service Commission, Book V of the

Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), appointive officials, as officers and employees in the civil

service, are strictly prohibited from engaging in any partisan political activity or take (sic) part in any election

except to vote. Under the same provision, elective officials, or officers or employees holding political offices, are

obviously expressly allowed to take part in political and electoral activities.”

The Court goes on to state that “By repealing Section 67 but retaining Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code,

the legislators deemed it proper to treat these two classes of officials differently with respect to the effect on their

tenure in the office of the filing of the certificates of candidacy for any position other than those occupied by them.

Again, it is not within the power of the Court to pass upon or look into the wisdom of this classification. x x x Since

the classification justifying Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006, i.e., elected officials vis-à-vis appointive officials, is

anchored upon material and significant distinctions and all the persons belonging under the same classification are

similarly treated, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is, thus, not infringed.”

In view of these pronouncements, Justice Puno states that the case at bar is “a crass attempt to resurrect a dead

issue.” And that “the miracle is that the (our) assailed Decision gave it new life. We ought to be guided by the

doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere. This doctrine, which is really “adherence to precedents,” mandates

that once a case has been decided one way, then another case involving exactly the same point at issue should be

decided in the same manner.”

“The Farinas ruling on the equal protection implications of the deemed-resigned provisions cannot be minimalized

as mere obiter dictum. It is trite to state that an adjudication on any point within the issues presented by the case

cannot be considered as obiter dictum. This rule applies to all pertinent questions that are presented and resolved

in the regular course of the consideration of the case and lead up to the final conclusion, and to any statement as

to the matter on which the decision is predicated.”

The concern, voiced by Justice Nachura, in his dissent, that elected officials (vis-à-vis appointive officials) have

greater political clout over the electorate, is indeed a matter worth exploring – but not by the Court. The remedy

lies with the Legislature. “It is the Legislature that is given the authority, under our constitutional system, to

balance competing interests and thereafter make policy choices responsive to the exigencies of the times. It is

certainly within the Legislature’s power to make the deemed-resigned provisions applicable to elected officials,

should it later decide that the evils sought to be prevented are of such frequency and magnitude as to tilt the
balance in favor of expanding the class. The Court cannot and should not arrogate unto itself the power to

ascertain and impose on the people the best state of affairs from a public policy standpoint.”

MIKE A. FERMIN, petitioner, 
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and UMBRA RAMIL

BAYAM DILANGALEN, respondents.
G.R. No. 182369 December 18, 2008

MIKE A. FERMIN, petitioner, 
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and UMBRA RAMIL

BAYAM DILANGALEN, respondents.

FACTS:
Mike A. Fermin, the petitioner in both cases, was a registered voter of Barangay
Payan, Kabuntalan. On December 13, 2006, claiming that he had been a resident of Barangay
Indatuan for 1 year and 6 months, petitioner applied with the COMELEC for the transfer of
his registration record to the said barangay. In the meantime, the creation of North
Kabuntalan was ratified in a plebiscite on December 30, 2006, formally making Barangay
Indatuan a component of Northern Kabuntalan.
Thereafter, on January 8, 2007, the COMELEC approved petitioner's application for
the transfer of his voting record and registration as a voter of Barangay Indatuan, Northern
Kabuntalan. On March 29, 2007, Fermin filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for mayor of
Northern Kabuntalan in the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections. Private respondent
filed a disqualification case against petitioner. The petition alleged that the petitioner did not
possess the period of residency required for candidacy and that he perjured himself in his
CoC and in his application for transfer of voting record. Elections were held without any
decision being rendered by the COMELEC in the said case. After the counting and canvassing
of votes, Dilangalen emerged as the victor. Fermin subsequently filed an election protest with
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13 of Cotabato City.
On June 29, 2007, the COMELEC 2nd Division, disqualified Fermin for not being a
resident of Northern Kabuntalan. It ruled that, based on his declaration that he is a resident
of Barangay Payan as of April 27, 2006 in his oath of office before Datu Andal Ampatuan,
Fermin could not have been a resident of Barangay Indatuan for at least one year.
Petitioner argues that he has been a resident of Barangay Indatuan long before the
creation of Northern Kabuntalan. This change of residence prompted him to apply for the
transfer of his voter’s registration record from Barangay Payan to Barangay Indatuan.
Moreover, the one year residency requirement under the law is not applicable to candidates
for elective office in a newly created municipality, because the length of residency of all its
inhabitants is reckoned from the effective date of its creation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion when it declared petitioner
as not a resident of the locality for at least one year prior to the May 14, 2007 elections

HELD: YES.
The Court finds the COMELEC to have gravely abused its discretion when it
precipitately declared that Fermin was not a resident of Northern Kabuntalan for at least one
year prior to the said elections. COMELEC relied on a single piece of evidence to support its
finding that petitioner was not a resident of Barangay Indatuan, Northern Kabuntalan, i.e.,
the oath of office subscribed and sworn to before Governor Datu Andal Ampatuan, in which
petitioner indicated that he was a resident of Barangay Payan, Kabuntalan as of April 27,
2006. However, this single piece of evidence does not necessarily support a finding that
petitioner was not a resident of Northern Kabuntalan as of May 14, 2006, or one year prior
to the May 14, 2007 elections. Petitioner merely admitted that he was a resident of another
locality as of April 27, 2006, which was more than a year before the elections. It is not
inconsistent with his subsequent claim that he complied with the residency requirement for
the elective office, as petitioner could have transferred to Barangay Indatuan after April 27,
2006, on or before May 14, 2006.
Neither does this evidence support the allegation that petitioner failed to comply with
the residency requirement for the transfer of his voting record from Barangay Payan to
Barangay Indatuan. Given that a voter is required to reside in the place wherein he proposes
to vote only for six months immediately preceding the election, petitioner’s application for
transfer on December 13, 2006 does not contradict his earlier admission that he was a
resident of Barangay Payan as of April 27, 2006.
The mere filing of a petition and the convenient allegation therein that a candidate
does not reside in the locality where he seeks to be elected is insufficient to effect the
cancellation of his CoC. Convincing evidence must substantiate every allegation.

TALAGA V COMELEC

FACTS

In focus are the disqualification of a substitute who was proclaimed the winner of a
mayoralty election and the ascertainment of who should assume the office following the
substitute’s disqualification.
Ramon Talaga and Philip Castillo filed their certificates of candidacy (COC) for the position
of Mayor of Lucena City for the 2010 elections.

Castillo filed with the COMELEC a petition to cancel the COC of Talaga on the ground that he
has already served as mayor of Lucena for three consecutive terms (2001, 2004, 2007)
without interruption.

Talaga countered by saying that the Sandiganbayan had preventively suspended him from
office during his second and third terms, which he claims to have amounted to an
interruption.

Thereafter, Talaga withdrew his candidacy. On May 4, 2010, Barbara Ruby filed her own
COC to substitute Talaga. Talaga’s name remained printed on the ballots and votes in his
favor were counted for Barbara Ruby, who won against Castillo.

But it was only on May 13, 2010 when the Comelec gave due course to Ruby’s COC to
include her in the official list of candidates. Ruby was proclaimed newly elected mayor.

ISSUES

The core issue involves the validity of the substitution by Barbara Ruby as candidate for the
position of Mayor of Lucena City in lieu of Ramon, her husband.

Ancillary to the core issue is the determination of who among the contending parties
should assume the contested elective position.

RULING

1. Considering that a cancelled CoC does not give rise to a valid candidacy, there can be no
valid substitution of the candidate under Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code. It should
be clear, too, that a candidate who does not file a valid CoC may not be validly substituted,
because a person without a valid CoC is not considered a candidate in much the same way
as any person who has not filed a CoC is not at all a candidate.

All told, a disqualified candidate may only be substituted if he had a valid certificate of
candidacy in the first place because, if the disqualified candidate did not have a valid and
seasonably filed certificate of candidacy, he is and was not a candidate at all.
2. A permanent vacancy in the office of Mayor of Lucena City thus resulted, and such
vacancy should be filled pursuant to the law on succession defined in Section 44 of the LGC,
to wit:67

Section 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the Governor, Vice-Governor, Mayor, and
Vice-Mayor. – If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor, the
vice-governor or vice-mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor. x x x

On the other hand, the COMELEC En Banc properly disqualified Barbara Ruby from
assuming the position of Mayor of Lucena City. To begin with, there was no valid candidate
for her to substitute due to Ramon’s ineligibility. Also, Ramon did not voluntarily withdraw
his CoC before the elections in accordance with Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Lastly, she was not an additional candidate for the position of Mayor of Lucena City because
her filing of her CoC on May 4, 2010 was beyond the period fixed by law. Indeed, she was
not, in law and in fact, a candidate.

G.R. No. 195649 April 16, 2013

MAQUILING VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Facts:
Arnado was a natural born Filipino citizen, but lost his citizenship upon naturalization as
citizen of United States of America.

Sometime on 2008 and 2009, his repatriation was granted and he subsequently executed an
Affidavit of Renunciation of foreign citizenship.

On November 2009, Arnando filed for a certificate of candidacy and won the said election.
But prior from his declaration as winner, a pending action for disqualification was filed by
Balua, one of the contenders for the position.

Balua alleged that Arnando was not a citizen of the Philippines, with a certification issued by
the Bureau of Immigration that Arnando’s nationality is USA-American and a certified true
copy of computer-generated travel record that he has been using his American passport even
after renunciation of American citizenship.

A division of the COMELEC ruled against Arnando but this decision was reversed by the
COMELEC en Banc stating that continued use of foreign passport is not one of the grounds
provided for under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63 through which Philippine
citizenship may be lost.
Meanwhile, Maquiling petition that should be declared winner as he gained the second
highest number of votes.

Issue:
Whether or not continued use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign citizenship
affects one’s qualifications to run for public office.

Held:
Yes. The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is a positive and
voluntary act of representation as to one’s nationality and citizenship; it does not divest
Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation but it recants the Oath of Renunciation required
to qualify one to run for an elective position which makes him dual citizen.

Citizenship is not a matter of convenience. It is a badge of identity that comes with attendant
civil and political rights accorded by the state to its citizens. It likewise demands the
concomitant duty to maintain allegiance to one’s flag and country.

While those who acquire dual citizenship by choice are afforded the right of suffrage, those
who seek election or appointment to public office are required to renounce their foreign
citizenship to be deserving of the public trust.

Holding public office demands full and undivided allegiance to the Republic and to no other.
It is a continuing requirement that must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or
election or assumption of office but during the officer's entire tenure.

Once any of the required qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably challenged.
Therefore, the Court held Arnando disqualified for any local elective position as provided by
express disqualification under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code. Popular vote
does not cure this ineligibility of the candidate. Otherwise, substantive requirements set by
the Constitution are nugatory.

Furthermore, there is no second-placer to speak of because as reiterated in the case of

Jalosjos v. COMELEC, when the ineligibility was held to be void ab initio, no legal effect is
produced. Hence among the qualified candidates for position, Maquiling who garnered the
highest votes should be declared as winner.
CAMPAIGN
Election Campaign or Partisan Political Activity – an act designed to promote the election or defeat
of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office.

Election Period – Commences 90 days before the day of the election and ends 30 days thereafter

Campaign Period

1. President, Vice-President and Senators – 90 days before the day of the election
2. Members of the House of Representatives and elective provincial, city and municipal officials – 45
days before the day of the election

What does it include?

1. Forming organizations or group of persons
2. Holding political caucuses, meetings, rallies, or other similar assemblies;
3. Making speeches or commentaries; and
4. Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials for the purposes of soliciting votes
and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda to support or oppose the election of any
candidate.

What it DOES NOT include?

1. Public expressions of opinions or discussions of probable issues in a forthcoming election;
2. Attributes or criticisms of probable candidates proposed to be nominated in a forthcoming
political party convention.

What are the LIMITATIONS upon expenses?

The aggregate amount that a candidate or registered political party may spend for election
campaign shall be as follows:

For candidates – for every voter currently registered in the constituency where he filed his
certificate of candidacy:
a. President and Vice-President – Ten pesos;
b. For other candidates – Three pesos;
c. Candidate without any political party and without support from any political party – Five pesos;

For political parties – Five pesos for every voter currently registered in the constituency or
constituencies where it has official candidates.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, any contribution in cash or in kind to any
candidate or political party or coalition of parties for campaign purposes, duly reported to the
Commission shall not be subject to the payment of any gift tax.

What are prohibited donations by candidate?

Who are prohibited: Candidate, his or her spouse or any relative within the 2nd degree of
consanguinity or affinity, or his campaign manager, agent, or representative. The prohibition
applies to treasurers, agents or representatives of any political party.

When does the prohibition apply: During the campaign period, on the day before and on the day
of the election.

What are EXCLUDED from prohibited donations?

Direct or indirect donation, contribution or gift in cash or kind, or undertake or contribute to the
construction or repair of roads, bridges, schoolhouses, puericulture centers, pavements, or any
structure for public use or the use of any religious or civic organizations, such as religious stipends,
titles or collections on Sundays or other designated collection days, as well as periodic payments for
legitimate scholarships established and school contributions habitually made before the prohibited
period.

Statement of contributions and expenditures:

Time for filing – Every candidate and treasurer of a political party shall, within 30 days after the
day of the election, file in duplicate with the offices of the Commission, full, true and itemized
statements of all contributions and expenditures in connection with the election. It shall be the duty
of every city or municipal election registrar to advise in writing, by personal delivery or registered
mail within 5 days from the date of election all candidates residing in his jurisdiction to comply
with their obligation to file their statements of contributions and expenditures.

Effect of failure to file – No person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his
office until he has filed the statement of contributions and expenditures above required. The same
prohibition shall apply if the political party which nominated the winning candidate fails to file the
statement required within the period prescribed by the Act.

o Administrative fine ranging from P1,000 to P30,000 in the discretion of the Commission, EXCEPT
candidates for elective barangay office.

o The fine shall be paid within 30 days from receipt of notice of such failure; otherwise, it shall
enforceable by a writ of execution issued by the Commission against the properties of the offender;
o For the commission of a second or subsequent offense, the administrative fine shall be from
P2,000 to P60,000, in the discretion of the Commission. In addition, the offender shall be subject to
perpetual disqualification to hold public office.

PROHIBITED ACTS

1. It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or
association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity, except
during the campaign period.
2. It shall be unlawful for any foreigner, whether juridical or natural person, to aid any candidate or
political party, directly or indirectly, or take part in or influence in any manner any election, or to
contribute or make any expenditure in connection with any election campaign or partisan political
activity.

3. It shall be unlawful for any person during the campaign period to remove, destroy, obliterate, or
in any manner deface or tamper with, or prevent the distribution of lawful election propaganda.

4. It shall be unlawful for any candidate, political party, organization, or any person to give or
accept, free or charged, directly or indirectly, transportation, food or drinks or things of value
during the 5 hours before and after a public meeting, on the day preceding the election, and on the
day of the election; or to give or contribute, directly or indirectly, money or things of value for such
purpose.

LAWFUL ELECTION PROPAGANDA

1. Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers or other written or printed materials of a size not more
than 8 ½ inches in width and 14 inches in length.

2. Handwritten or printed letter urging voters to vote for or against any particular political party or
candidate;

3. Cloth, paper or cardboard posters, whether framed or posted, with an area not exceeding 2x3
feet;
Except: At the site and on the occasion of a public meeting or rally, or in announcing the holding of
said meeting or rally, streamers not exceeding 3x8 feet in size shall be allowed. However, said
streamers may not be displayed except one week before the date of meeting or rally that it shall be
removed within 72 hours after said meeting or rally; or

4. All other forms of election propaganda not prohibited by the Omnibus Election Code as the
COMELEC may authorize after due notice to all interested parties and hearing where all the
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard. The Commission‟s authorization shall be
published in two newspapers of general circulation throughout the nation for at least twice within
one week after authorization has been granted.

REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLISHED OR PRINTED ELECTION PROPAGANDA

1. Any newspaper, newsletter, newsweekly, gazette or magazine and advertising, posters,
pamphlets, circulars, handbills, bumper stickers, streamers, sample list of candidates or any
published or printed political matter for or against a candidate or group of candidates to any public
offices shall be bear and be identified by the word “paid for by” followed by the true and correct
name and address of the payor and by the words “printed by” followed by the true and correct
name and addresses of the printer.
2. If the broadcast is given free of charge, it shall be identified by the words “airtime for this
broadcast was provided free of charge by” followed by the true and correct name and address of the
broadcast entity. 3. Print, broadcast, or outdoor advertisements donated to the candidate or
political party shall not be printed, published, broadcast or exhibited without the written
acceptance by the said candidate or political party.

ELECTION SURVEYS

Elections surveys – measurement of opinions and perceptions of the voters as regards a

candidate‟s popularity, qualifications, platforms or a matter of public discussion in relation to the
election.

- Surveys affecting national shall not be published 15 days before an election and surveys affecting
local candidates shall not be published 7 days before an election.

EQUAL ACCESS TO MEDIA TIME AND SPACE

All registered parties and bona fide candidates shall have equal access to media time and space. 1.
Print advertisements – Not exceed ¼ page in broadsheet and ½ page in tabloids, 3x a week per
newspaper, magazine or other publications 2. TV and radio advertisements – Not more than 120
minutes for TV and 180 minutes for radio whether by purchase or donation (national candidates
and registered political parties) 3. TV and radio advertisements – Not more than 60 minutes for TV
and 90 minutes for radio whether by purchase or donation (local candidates and registered
political parties) 4. All mass media entities shall furnish the COMELEC with a copy of all contracts
for advertising within 5 days after its signing. 5. No franchise or permit to operate a radio or
television station shall be granted or issued, suspended or cancelled during the election period. 6.
The COMELEC shall ensure that radio or television or cable television broadcasting entities shall
not allow the scheduling of any program or permit any sponsor to manifestly favor or oppose any
candidate or political party. However, in all instances the right of said broadcast entities to air
accounts of significant news or news worthy events and view on matters of public interest. 7. All
members of media, television, radio, or print shall scrupulously report and interpret the news,
taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper
emphasis.

8. Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, reporter, on-air correspondent or

personality who is a candidate for any elective public office or is a campaign volunteer for or
employed or retained in any capacity by any candidate or political party shall be deemed resigned,
if so required by their employer, or shall take a leave of absence from his/her work as such during
the campaign period. 9. No movie, cinematograph or documentary portraying the life or biography
of a candidate shall be publicly exhibited during the campaign period. 10. No movie, cinematograph
or documentary portrayed by an actor or movie personality who is himself a candidate shall
likewise be publicly exhibited during the campaign period.

NOTE: Right to Reply – All registered parties and bona fide candidates shall have the right to reply
to charges published against them. The reply shall be given publicly by the newspaper, television
and/or radio station which first printed or aired the charges with the same prominence or in the
same page or section or in the same time slot as the first statement.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY THE COMELEC

1. COMELEC shall procure the print space upon payment of just compensation from at least 3
national newspapers of general circulation wherein candidates for national office can announce
their candidacies free of charge equally and impartially.
2. COMELEC shall procure free airtime from at least 3 national television networks and 3 national
radio networks free of charge equally and impartially among all candidates for national office.
3. COMELEC may require national television and radio networks to sponsor at least 3 national
debates among presidential candidates and at least 1 national debate among vice-presidential
candidates.
4. COMELEC shall promulgate rules and regulations for holding such debates.

REGULATION OF ELECTION PROPAGANDA THROUGH MASS MEDIA

1. The COMELEC shall promulgate rules and regulations regarding the sale of air time for partisan
political purposes during the campaign period to insure that equal time as to duration and quality is
available to all candidates for the same officer or political parties at the same rates or given free of
charge.
2. All contracts for advertising in any newspaper, magazine, periodical or any form of publication
promoting or opposing the candidacy of any person for public office shall, before its
implementation, be registered by said newspaper, magazine, periodical or publication with the
Commission. In every case, it shall be signed by the candidate concerned or by the duly authorized
representative of political party.
3. No franchise or permit to operate a radio or television station shall be granted or issued,
suspended for cancelled during the election period.
4. Any radio or television station, including that owned or controlled by the government, shall give
free of charge equal time and prominence to an accredited political party or its candidates if it gives
free for charge air time to an accredited political party or its candidates for political purposes.
5. In all instances the COMELEC shall supervise the use and employment of press, radio and
television facilities as to give candidates equal opportunities under equal circumstances to make
known their qualifications and their stand on public issues within the limits set forth in the Code for
election spending.

RULES, MEETINGS, AND OTHER POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

1. Subject to the requirements of local ordinances on the issuances of permits, any political party
supporting official candidates or any candidate individually or jointly with other aspirants may hold
peaceful political rallies, meetings, and other similar activities during the campaign period. 2. Any
political party or candidate shall notify the election registrar concerned of any public rally said
political party or candidate intends to organize and hold in the city of municipality, and within 7
working days thereafter submit to the election registrar a statement of expenses incurred in
connection therewith.

COMELEC SPACE, POSTER AREA, TIME, AND INFORMATION BULLETIN

1. COMELEC SPACE – The COMELEC shall procure space in at least one newspaper of general
circulation in every province or city. In the absence of said newspaper, publication shall be done in
any other magazine or periodic in said province or city, wherein candidates can announce their
candidacy. Said space shall be allocated, free of charge, equally and impartially by the COMELEC
among all candidates within the area in which the newspaper is circulated.

The use of “COMELEC space” is personal to the candidate. He cannot delegate or transfer the use to
any other person.

2. The COMELEC shall designate common poster areas in strategic public places such as markets,
barangay center and the like wherein candidates can post, display, or exhibit election propaganda
to announce further their candidacy.

Whenever feasible, common billboards may be installed by the COMELEC and/or non-partisan
private or civic organizations which the COMELEC may authorize whenever available, after due
notice and hearing, in strategic places where it may be readily seen or read, with the heaviest
pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic in the city or municipality.

The space in such a common poster area or billboards shall be allocated free of charge, if feasible,
equitably and impartially among the candidates in the province, city, or municipality.

3. COMELEC TIME – The COMELEC shall procure radio and television time, which shall be allocated
equally and impartially among the candidates within the areas of coverage of said radio and
television stations. For this purpose, the franchise of all radio broadcasting and television stations
are hereby amended so as to require, radio or television time, free of charge, during the period of
the campaign.

4. COMELEC BULLETIN – The COMELEC shall cause the printing and supervise the dissemination of
bulletins, which shall be of such size as to adequately contain the picture, bio-data and program of
government of every candidate. Said bulletin shall be disseminated to the voters or displayed in
such places as to give due prominence thereto. Any candidate may reprint at his expense, any
“COMELEC bulletin” upon prior authority of the Commission. Said reprint shall be the exact replica
of the original and shall near the name of the candidate causing the reprint and the name of the
printer.

PUBLIC FORUM
The COMELEC shall encourage non-political, non-partisan private or civic organizations to initiate
and hold in every city and municipality, public for at which all registered candidates for the same
office may simultaneously and personally participate to present, explain, and/or debate in their
campaign platforms and programs and other like issues.

The Commission shall promulgate the rules and regulations for the holding of such to assure its
non-partisan character and the equality of access thereto by all candidates.

MASS MEDIA ADVERTISING FOR CANDIDATES

- R.A. NO. 9006 repealed Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646 which declares unlawful “for any
newspaper, radio broadcasting or television station, or other mass media, or any person making
use of the mass media to sell or to give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other
political purposes except to the Commission as provided under Sections 90 and 92 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881. Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcement or personality who is
a candidate for any elective public office shall take a leave of absence from his work as such during
the campaign period.” - The ban on mass media advertising for candidate was meant to prevent
well-funded candidates from unfairly dominating the use of mass media through paid
advertisements at the expense of candidates from less affluent strata of society.

NOTE: The experiences in the 1992, 1995 and 1998 elections have shown that the ban on media
advertisement diminished the chances of unknown candidates to get elected.

Board of election inspector

CONSTITUTION, COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT OF BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS

The comelec shall, directly or through its fully authorized representatives, Constitute a board of
election inspectors for each precinct to be composed of a chairman and a poll clerk who must be
public school teachers;

Done at least 30 days before the date when the voters list is to be prepared, in case of a regular
election of fifteen days before a special election;

The members of the board of election inspectors, whether permanent, substitute or temporary,
shall, before assuming their office, take and sign an oath.
POWERS OF THE BOARD OS ELECTION INSPECTORS

1. Conduct the voting and counting of votes

2. Act as deputies of the comelec in the supervision and control of the election, to assure the holding
of the same in a free, orderly and honest manner;

1. Perform such other functions prescribed by the code or the rules and regulations
promulgated by the commission.

CANVASS AND PROCLAMATION

BOARD OF CANVASSERS – there shall be a board of canvassers for each province, city and
municipality

PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS

1. Provincial election supervisor or a lawyer in the regional office of COMELEC – as chairman;
2. Provincial fiscal – as vice chairman
3. Provincial superintendent of schools – as member

CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS

1. City election registrar or a lawyer of the COMELEC – chairman;
2. City fiscal – vice chairman 3.
City superintendent of schools – member

In cities and more than one election registrar, the COMELEC shall designate the election registrar
who shall act as chairman.

MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS

1. Election registrar or representative of the COMELEC – chairman
2. Municipal treasurer – vice-chairman
3. Most senior district school supervisor or in his absence a principal of the school district or the
elementary school – member
CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE COMMISSION OVER THE BOARD
 Pursuant to its administrative functions, COMELEC has direct control and supervision over the
board of canvassers and its proceedings.

It has the power to investigate and act on the propriety or legality of the canvass of election
returns made by the board of canvassers.

Power of Commission plenary. Power of COMELEC over the board is plenary and not from its
appellate jurisdiction hence a superior body or office having supervision and control over another
may do directly what the latter is supposed to do or ought to have done.

Power of Commission ministerial. The function of a canvassing board in the canvass of returns is
purely MINISTERIAL in nature.

Equally ministerial is the function of the Comelec on the exercise of its supervisory power over
said board, pursuant to the Constitution and laws.
Power to see board perform its proper functions. The board of canvassers is a ministerial body. It
has been said, and properly, that its powers are limited generally to the mechanical or
mathematical function of ascertaining and declaring the apparent result of the election by adding or
compiling the votes cast for each candidate as shown on the face of the returns before them, and
then declaring or certifying the result so ascertained.

Power to annul canvass. The statutory power of supervision and control by the COMELEC over
the boards of canvasser includes the power to revise, reverse, and set aside the action of the boards.
It is within the legitimate concerns of COMELEC to annul a canvass or proclamation based on
incomplete returns, or on incorrect or tampered returns, a canvass or proclamation made in an
unauthorized meeting of the board of canvassers either because it lacked a quorum or because the
board did not meet at all. Neither Constitution nor statute has granted COMELEC or board of
canvassers the power, in the canvass of election returns, to look beyond the face thereof, once
satisfied of their authenticity.

REMEDIES AND JURISDICTION IN ELECTION LAW

PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE TO OR CANCEL A CoC

Who may file? Any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained
therein as required is false.
When? At any time not later than 25 days from the time of the filing of the CoC and shall be
decided, after due process and hearing, not later than 15 days before the election.

FAILURE OF ELECTION

THERE ARE ONLY THREE INSTANCES WHEN A FAILURE OF ELECTION MAY BE DECLARED:

If on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes:

1. The election is any polling place has not been held on the date fixed;
2. Had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting;
3. After the voting and during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in
the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases
the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election;

…The comelec shall, on the basis of a verified petitioner by any interested party and after due
notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or
which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not
held…but shall not be later that 30 days after the cessation of the election or failure to elect.

BEFORE THE COMMISSION CAN ACT ON A VERIFIED PETITIONER SEEKING TO DECLARE A

FAILURE OF ELECTION, THREE CONDITIONS MUST CONCURR:

1. No voting has taken place or even of there was voting, the election nevertheless results in
failure to elect;
2. The votes not cast would affect the result of the election;
3. The cause of such failure of election should have been force majeure, violence, terrorism,
fraud or other analogous causes.

The third condition is an important consideration for where the property of a pre-
proclamation controversy ends, there may begin the realm of a special action for declaration of
failure of elections.
 Meaning of Pre- proclamation controversy

Any question or matter pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers
which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition of
political parties before the board or directly with the COMELEC

Any matter raised under sections 233,234,235, and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code in
relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election
returns and election and certificate of canvass.

Limited to challenges directed against the board of canvassers and proceedings before said
board relating to particular election returns to which specific verbal objections subsequently
reduced to writing should be made.

Election controversy raised before proclamation because after proclamation, the controversy
becomes an election contest

Exclusive jurisdiction of the COMELEC

COMELEC shall have EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION over all preproclamation controversies

involving LOCAL elective officials.

o EXCEPTION: pre-proclamation cases are not allowed in elections for President, Vice-
President, Senator and member of the House of Representatives on matters relating to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of election returns or the
certificate of canvass, as the case may be, except as provided for in Sec. 30 thereof.

What is allowed is the correction of ―manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election
returns.‖ By virtue, however, of the amendments introduced by RA 9369, pre-proclamation
cases involving the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass are now allowed in
elections for President, Vice-President, and Senators.

Partial or total suspension or annulment of proclamation

May motu proprio or upon written petition, and after due notice and hearing:

o order the partial or total suspension of the proclamation of any candidate-elect or annul
partially or totally any proclamation, if one has been made, as the evidence shall warrant
 the reason for this is that unless the proclamation of a winning candidate is suspended, or if it
has been held, set aside, the policy behind the allowance of pre-proclamation controversies, i.e.
to prevent the losing candidates from grabbing the proclamation and delaying the resolution of
the electoral contest, will be defeated

Proclamation of other winning candidates

o Notwithstanding the pendency of any pre-proclamation controversy, the Commission may

motu propio or upon the filing of a verified petition and after due notice and hearing, order the
proclamation of other winning candidates whose election will not be affected by the outcome of
the controversy

Controversy to be first heard and decided by a Division of the Commission

o Under the Constitution Art IX-C Sec 3: ―All election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies x x x shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration shall be decided by the Commission en banc.‖

COMELEC division all such election cases first be heard and decided

COMELEC En banc does not have original jurisdiction, or authority to hear and decide the
same at the first instance. But a petition for correction of manifest error in the Statement of
Votes, or in the tabulation or tallying of the results, a pre-proclamation controversy may be filed
directly

Summary Hearing of pre-proclamation controversies

All pre-proclamation controversies shall be heard summarily by the COMELEC after due
notice and hearing, decision shall be executory after 5 days from receipt by the losing party of
the decision of COMELEC unless restrained by SC

Opportunity given to submit evidence in form of respective memoranda

o Required that the parties be notified and heard. Where the petitioners were also given an
opportunity to submit evidence in support of their allegations, the Commission cannot be
faulted for merely requiring the parties to submit their respective memoranda in amplification
of their respective positions. Such a procedure is fair and consistent with the summary
character of proceedings in election cases.

Decision based on records and evidence elevated to Commission

o A summary proceeding does not mean that the Commission can do away with requirements of
notice and hearing. However, presentation of evidence before the COMELEC is not at all
indispensable in order to satisfy the demands of due process.

o Under Sec 18, RA 7166 all that is required is that the COMELEC shall dispose of pre-
proclamation controversies ―on the basis of the records and evidence elevated by the board of
canvassers.‖

This is keeping with the policy of the law that cases of this nature should be summarily
decided and the will of the electorate as reflected on the election returns be determined as
speedily as possible.

Issues that may be raised

Not every question bearing or arising from the elections may constitute a ground for a pre-
proclamation controversy. Under the
Sec. 243 of the Omnibus Election Code, the following shall be proper issues that may raised in a
pre-proclamation controversy:
1. illegal composition or proceeding (due to non-inclusion of votes) of the board of canvassers
2. canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered
with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies
thereof as mentioned in sections 233-236 of Omnibus Election Code
3. election returns prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or obviously
manufactured or not authentic
4. when substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the
results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate/s

*the above enumeration is RESTRICTIVE AND EXCLUSIVE.

Where election returns on their face regular and authentic

GENERAL RULE – in a pre-proclamation controversy, it is axiomatic that the Commission is

not to look beyond or behind election returns which are on their face regular and authentic
returns and investigate alleged election irregularities.

o A party seeking to raise issues (eg. fraud, vote-buying, terrorism, tampering and falsification)
resolution of which would compel the Commission to pierce the veil, of the election returns
prima facie regular has his remedy in a regular election protest.
 EXCEPTION – principle does not apply where there is prima facie showing that the return is
not genuine.

o However, where election returns, though genuine or authentic in character are reflective of
fraudulent acts done before or carried out by the BEI, the returns would be deemed as
―obviously manufactured‖ which may be properly raised in a pre-proclamation controversy.

Where election returns obviously manufactured

Correction of manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of election returns or certificates of

canvass is an issue that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy.

Sec 243(c) in relation to Sec 242 of the Omnibus Election Code, in giving the Commission
jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies and allowing the suspension or annulment of
any proclamation, requires, if the basis of the controversy is that election returns are
manufactured, that this fact be obvious on the face of the returns.

―obviously manufactured‖ = if all votes reported in the election returns are cast in favor of a
candidate or candidates of the same party, or if the results of the canvass are statistically
improbable. In such a case, the results of the election would be unascertainable, making it
necessary to conduct a require technical examination of the Voter‘s List and Voter‘s Affidavits

o Doctrine of statistical improbability – applied only where the unique uniformity of tally of all
the votes cast in favor of all the candidates belonging to one party and the systematic blanking
of all the opposing parties appear in the election returns. The doctrine has no application
where there is neither uniformity of tallies nor systematic blanking of the candidates of one
party.

Where election returns found to be spurious or falsified

Outright exclusion of election returns on the ground that they were fraudulently prepared by
some members or non-members of the BEI disenfranchises the votes. Hence, when election
returns are found to be spurious or falsified, Sec 235 Omnibus Election Code provides the
procedure which enables the COMELEC to ascertain the will of the electorate

o Sec 235. The Commission shall then, after giving notice to all candidates concerned and after
satisfying itself that nothing in that ballot box indicate that its identity and integrity have been
violated, order the opening of the ballot box and, likewise after satisfying itself that the integrity
of the ballots therein has been duly preserved, shall order the BEI to recount the votes of the
candidates affected and prepare a new return which shall then be used by the board of
canvassers as basis of the canvass.
If the integrity of the ballots have been violated, the COMELEC need not recount the ballots
but should seal the ballot box and order its safekeeping in accordance with Sec 237 of the
Omnibus Election Code.
Scope of pre-proclamation controversy

1) Issues limited to those enumerated under Sec 243 Omnibus Election Code

The enumeration may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy is restrictive and exclusive

o Reason underlying the delimitation both of substantive ground and procedure is the policy of
election laws that preproclamation cases should be summarily decided, consistent with the
law‘s desire that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as little as possible even if the
proclamation of the winning candidates can be provisional in nature in the sense that such
proclamation would be subject to the results of the election protest or protests that may be
effected to be filed.

Aside from the public interest that impels the prompt disposition of pre-proclamation cases,
the boards of canvassers particularly municipal, city and provincial, before which such
controversies are initiated, are ad hoc bodies that exist only for the interim task of canvassing
election returns

o the lack of innter paper seals in the election returns does not justify their exclusion from the
canvassing. It is not a proper subject of a pre-proclamation controversy.

2) Issues regarding errors in the Statement of Votes

Where the question raised is not as to the correctness of the election returns but that of the
statement of votes taken from the returns by the board of canvassers during the canvassing and
said error was not discovered by the protestant congressional candidate during the canvassing
but only when she received a copy of the statement of the number of votes and she wasted no
time in filing a protest with the board and then direct to the COMELEC since the board was not
available, it was held the duty of the COMELEC to see to it that the matter should be verified
from the election return as a pre-proclamation controversy, instead of requiring the protestant
to bring the matter to the electoral tribunal as an election protest.

The law is silent as to when the issue regarding errors on the Statement of Votes may be
raised. However, any such error would affect the proclamation made on the basis thereof and
primordially, in order to determine the true will of the electorate, the matter may be raised, as a
pre-proclamation controversy directly with the Commission which is empowered to order the
board of canvassers to reconvene and prepare a new Statement of Votes and Certificate of
Canvass.

o When so elevated, the Commission acts in the exercises of its original jurisdiction for which
reason it is not indispensable that the issue may be raised before the board during the
canvassing.

o The Commission is not discharging its appellate jurisdiction under Sec 245 of the Code, which
has to do with contests regarding the inclusion or exclusion in the canvass of any election
returns, with a prescribed appellate procedure to follow.

COMELEC Rules of Procedure which took effect on November 15, 1988, provides that the
matter of correction of the statement of votes may be subject of pre-proclamation case which
may be filed directly with the COMELEC.

Questions properly cognizable in an election protest

Questions as those involving the appreciation of the votes and the conduct of the balloting,
which require more deliberate and necessarily longer consideration, are left for examination in
the corresponding election protest.

1. Reopening of the ballot boxes is not a proper issue for a preproclamation controversy but
should be threshed out in an election protest

The Commission is duty to bound to investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence and
other analogous causes in actions for annulment of election results or for declaration of failure
of elections. This, it may conduct technical examination of election documents and compare and
analyze voters‘ signatures and fingerprints in order to determine whether or not the elections
had indeed there been free, honest, and clean

A pre-proclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of election results
or declaration of failure of elections
2. Returns will not be excluded on the occasion of a pre-proclamation controversy whose office
is limited to incomplete, falsified or materially defective returns which appear as such on their
face.

If there has been sham voting or minimal voting which was made to appear as normal
through the falsification of the election returns, such grounds are properly cognizable in an
election protest and not in a pre-proclamation controversy.
 But the COMELEC‘s findings on election returns, anchored on the ―manner of their
preparation,‖ which it found to be a sham and spurious, said ground is a pre-proclamation
issue, under Sec 241 & 243 in relation Sec 245 of the Code. Said returns cannot be accorded
prima facie status as genuine reports of the results of the counts of votes

3. A petition for recount must fail, in the absence of any clear showing or proof that the election
returns, instances where a pre-proclamation recount may be resorted to, granted the
preservation of the integrity of the ballot box and its contents are as follows:

i. canvassed are incomplete or contain material defects, ii. appear to have been tampered with,
falsified or prepared under duress, and/or iii. contain discrepancies in the votes credited to any
candidate, the difference of which affects the result of the election

Complete election returns whose authenticity is not in question, must be prima facie
considered valid for the purpose of canvassing the same and proclamation of the winning
candidates

To expand the issues beyond those enumerated under Sec 243 and allow a
recount/reappreciation of votes in every instance where a claim of misdeclaration of stray
votes is made would open the floodgates to such claims and paralyze canvass and proclamation
proceedings, given the propensity mandate that all pre-proclamation proceedings, shall be
heard summarily by the COMELEC after due notice law‘s desire that the canvass and
proclamation be delayed as little as possible.

The powers of the Commission are essentially executive and administrative in nature, and the
question of WON there had been terrorism, vote buying and other irregularities in the election
should be ventilated in a regular election protest (before the Senate Electoral Tribunal) and the
Commission is not the proper forum for deciding such matters.

Suspension of proclamation and period for filing of election protest

Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that the filing with the COMELEC of a
petition to annul/suspend the proclamation of any candidate shall SUSPEND the running of the
period within which to file an election protest or quo warranto proceedings.

COMELEC shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation controversies.

COMELEC may order the partial or total suspension of the proclamation of the candidate elect
or annul partially/totally any proclamation a) motuproprio b) upon written petition, and after
due notice and hearing
What are the grounds for the suspension of proclamation? a) filing of pre-proclamation
controversy(Section 248 Omnibus Election Code) b) when there is an action for
disqualification, when evidence of guilt is strong ( RA 6646) c) when there is ground for
denying or cancelling a candidate‘s certificate of candidacy (RA 6646)

NOTE: The order of COMELEC to suspend proclamation is merely provisional in nature and can
be lifted when evidence warrants. It is akin to a TRO which a court can issue ex parte under
exigent circumstances.

Is an action for declaration of failure of election in the nature of a preproclamation controversy?

NO!

Remedy after winning candidate has been proclaimed

After proclamation and assumption of office by the candidate, a preproclamation controversy

no longer viable and should be dismissed because the proper remedy is an electoral protest
where parties are to present witnesses subject to the right of confrontation instead of mere
affidavits to settle the controversy once and for all.

Proclaimed and installed candidate may be unseated when: 1. opponent is adjudged true
winner by final judgment of a court in the election contest 2. prevailing party is declared
ineligible or disqualified by final judgment of a court in a quo warrantocase 3. incumbent is
removed from office for cause 4. proclamation is null and void as declared by COMELEC

Contested composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers

Parties adversely affected by the ruling of the board of canvassers on the composition or
proceedings of the board may appeal the matter w/in 3 days from the ruling to COMELEC which
will summarily decide w/in 5 days from filing.

Procedure in disposition of contested election returns

(in pre-proclamation controversies, the rules on presenting evidence and appealing the rulings
of the Board of Canvassers are MANDATORY)

Procedure is taken from section 20 RA 7166 1. Any candidate, political party or coalition
contesting the inclusion or exclusion in the canvass of any election returns (under Sec 234-236
of Art. XIX of the Omnibus Election Code) shall submit their ORAL OBJECTION to the chairman
of the board of canvassers when the questioned returns are presented for inclusion in the
canvass. Objection recorded in the minutes of the canvass

2. Upon receipt of objection, the board shall DEFER the canvass of the contested returns and
proceed to canvass the uncontested returns. a. simultaneous with the oral objection, written
objections must also be entered b. w/in 24 hours from objection, must submit evidence
attached to the written objections c. w/in same 24 hours, any party may file written and
verified opposition to the objection, attaching supporting evidence; the board shall not
entertain objection or opposition unless in writing d. evidence attached admitted into the
records of the board by the chairman affixing his signature at the back of each evidence

3. upon receipt of evidence, the board shall take up the contested returns, written objections
thereto and opposition, and summarily RULE thereon (read Ruling by board on objections
below)

4. adverse party INFORM the board of intention to appeal said ruling, board shall enter said
information in the minutes of the canvass, set aside the returns and proceed to consider other
returns

5. after all uncontested returns have been canvassed and contested returns ruled upon, board
shall SUSPEND the canvass, and any adverse party may file a written and verified NOTICE OF
APPEAL with the board w/in 48 hours from suspension, and an appeal may be taken to
COMELEC w/in an non-extendible period of 5 days after filing of notice.

6. Upon receipt of notice, the board make a REPORT to Comelec, elevating the complete records
and evidence in the canvass, and serving parties with copies of the report

7. On the basis of records and evidence elevated, Comelec shall DECIDE summarily the appeal
w/in 7 days from receipt of records and evidence. An appeal w/o the accomplished forms and
evidence appended shall be
Election Law Reviewer (2012) 65
summarily dismissed. Decision shall be executory after 7 days from receipt of decision by losing
party.

8. Board of canvassers shall not PROCLAIM any candidate as winner unless authorized by
Comelec after ruling on the appeal of the losing party,otherwise, the proclamation is void ab
initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election.( this
particular rule applies only to a void proclamation in relation to contested returns and not to
contested qualifications of a candidate)

Requirements with respect to objections

1. In written form with supporting evidence attached thereto. Objections must be reduced in
writing. Evidence must also be presented within 24 hours. Non compliance with the mandatory
procedure will result in the summary dismissal of the appeal. Petitioner has burden to prove
that he has aa) prima facie case for his objection and b) the evidence he will present regarding
the exclusion will change the results of the election.

A mere allegation that certain returns are altered or are spurious will not operate to exclude it
from canvassing

2. Evidence must be CLEAR and CONVINCING

3. Reasons for the requirements: the requirements are crucial to the delivery of speedy and
equitable relief in pre-proclamation controversy.

Note: ABSENT any showing of grave abuse of discretion, findings of COMELEC or any admin
agency on this matter are binding on the SC.

Ruling by board on objections

Board of Canvassers must make a written ruling on the formal objections. Failure or refusal to
do so not prejudice objecting party‘s right to elevate case to Comelec for proper review.

When is a ruling improper or not necessary? Board ruling not necessary or proper where the
matter is beyond its competence, such as inclusion or exclusion in the canvass of election
returns. Immaterial that the inclusion of votes would affect the overall results, as long as the
returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished, the board cannot look beyond them to
verify irregularities in the casting or counting of votes. Board
has only the ministerial task of tallying the votes as reported in the election returns and cannot
judicially decide an election contest.

When is exclusion of election returns justified? To justify exclusion of election returns, the
alleged threats etc. which attended the preparation of said returns must have affected the
regularity or genuineness of the contested returns. If the election returns reflect the true results
of the voting at precint level, any coercion and intimidation that may give rise to legal, and
criminal liability, will not justify the exclusion of the returns.

Example: X obtained 5 votes in a precint, by reason of force and intimidation, the BEI was
compelled to make an entry of 50 votes for X. (in this case exclusion is proper) However, even if
there is coercion and intimidation but the same did not alter the returns, exclusion will not be
justified.

Pre-proclamation cases

1. Not allowed in elections for President, Vice President, Senator, and Members of the House of
Rep but does not preclude the canvassing body motuproprio or upon written complaint to
correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before it

Questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the Board of Canvassers may be initiated
in the board or directly with Comelec under Sec 17 of RA 7166

2. Pre-proclamation cases on provincial, city and municipal offices shall be allowed and
governed by sec 17-22 of RA 7166

3. General Rule: All pre-proclamation cases pending before Comelec deemed terminated at the
beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings of the Board of Canvassers deemed
affirmed, w/o prejudice to the filing of regular election protest by the aggrieved party.

Exceptions: Proceedings may continue when based on the evidence, Comelec determines that
the petition is meritorious and shall order to continue the proceedings, or when the Supreme
Court orders the continuance in a petition for certiorari. Running of the period to file election
protest suspended by the pendency of such cases before Comelec or the SC.

Note: after the winning candidates have been proclaimed and commenced their terms,
proclamation issues are rendered moot and academic.

4. To commence pre-proclamation case: Questions on the composition or proceedings of the

Board of Canvassers may be initiated in the board or directly with Comelec. Matters under sec
233-236 of the Omnibus Election Code related to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody
and appreciation of the election returns, and the certificates of canvass shall be brought in the
first instance before the board of canvassers ONLY.

5. All pre-proclamation cases on election returns or certificates of canvass shall, on the basis of
records and evidence elevated to Comelec by the board of canvassers, be disposed summarily
by Comelec w/in 7 days from receipt thereof. Decision executory after 7 days from receipt by
the losing party of the decision.

Jurisdiction of Comelec over pre-proclamation cases governed by less rigid standards of

administrative due process.
 NOTE: Election Protests vs. Petition for Quo warranto

Effect of filing an election protest or a petition for quo warranto

General Rule: the filing of an election protest or petition for quo warranto precludes subsequent
filing of a pre-proclamation case, or amounts to an abandonment of one earlier filed; thus
depriving Comelec of authority to inquire into the title of the protestee or the validity of his
proclamation.

Reason: once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election protest or petition
for quo warranto, all related questions will have to be decided in the case itself to prevent
confusion and conflict of authority. This is to prevent confusion and conflict of authority. NOTE:
After a proclamation has been made, a pre-proclamation case is no longer viable.

Exceptions to the GR: 1. Board of canvassers improperly Constituted 2. Quo warranto was not
proper remedy 3. What was filed was petition to annul a proclamation 4. Filing of the quo
warranto or election protest expressly made w/out prejudice to the pre-proclamation case or
was made ad cautelam 5. Proclamation was null and void

Actual and compensatory damages may be awarded in election contests or quo warranto
proceedings.

Institution of Election Contest:

An election contest may be an election protest or a quo warranto. While these two are distinct
remedies, they have a common objective: to dislodge a winning candidate from office.

Right to institute election contest

1. Duties of Board of canvassers merely of ministerial nature and their certificate of election
being the prima facie evidence of election, it is competent for a defeated candidate who has not
caused or contributed to the irregularities or frauds, to institute proceedings for the
determination of the title to the office.

Sec 250 of Omnibus Election Code: protest must be filed by a candidate who ―has duly filed his
certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same office.‖ It does not require that the
matter be specifically alleged in the protest.

2. Election protest may be lodged only against a proclaimed candidate and which must be filed
w/in the period prescribed to ascertain whether the such candidate is really the lawful choice of
the electorate.

A counter protest is equivalent to a counterclaim and must be presented as part of the answer
w/in the time the protestee is required to answer, otherwise, the court acquires no jurisdiction
to entertain it.

3. When candidate has been proclaimed as elected, taken his oath and assumed the duties of his
office, the remedy of the defeated candidate is not pre-proclamation contest but electoral
protest, under the assumption of a valid proclamation.

Null and void proclamation due to clerical error and simple mathematical mistake in the
addition of votes, and not through the legitimate will of the electorate, Comelechas authority to
annul the canvass and the proclamation.

Validity of proclamation may be challenged even after the irregularly proclaimed candidate has
assumed office. Once proclamation nullified, case reverts to a pre-proclamation controversy.

Election contest imbued with public interest

1. Deep public interest to determine true choice of people – election contest imbued with public
interest unlike an ordinary action. Time is of the essence in the disposition of an election
protest. Neither fair nor just that one whose right to the office is doubted should remain on that
office for uncertain period.The COMELEC in order to do justice and truly determine the rightful
winner in the elections, may suspend its rules if they stand in the way of finding the truth.
2. Election contest survives death of either party thereto—the right to a public office is personal
and exclusive to the public officer. BUT an election protest is NOT because it is imbued with
public interest.

3. Election laws liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public
officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections.

a. Failure to raise a ground in protest does NOT preclude Comelec from rejecting the protest on
that ground. It is not intended that the contest set forth the grounds of his protest with the same
precision as required of a pleading in ordinary civil cases.

b. Failure to perfect an appeal defeats the right of appeal of a party and precludes the appellate
court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. Nevertheless, the SC may give due course to
appeals on the basis of strong and compelling reasons such as serving the ends of justice and
preventing grave miscarriage of justice in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction. Rules involving
election cases are impressed with public interest thus must be construed liberally.

c. The power to annul an election should be exercised with the greatest care as it involves the
free and fair expression of the popular will. SC’s jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of
electoral tribunals (Comelec) operates only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.

The annulment of an election on the ground of fraud, irregularities, and violations of election
laws may be raised as an incident to an election contest. Such grounds may be invoked in an
election protest case.

d. Execution pending appeal—Rules of Court allows RTC to order execution pending appeal
upon good reasons stated in the special order, can be applied to election protests (rule 41
Comelec rules of procedure) decided by the courts. Motion for execution pending appeal may be
filed any time before the period for perfection of the appeal.

e. Pleading and Practice- the rules of civil procedure do not apply to election cases. They apply
only by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. Election
Contests are subject to the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which should be applied with
LIBERALITY. It is not required that a petition contesting the election of any municipal official be
accompanied by a certification of non-forum shopping.

f. Winning candidate‘s qualification- To challenge the winning candidate‘s qualifications, the

petitioner must clearly demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to
constitutional principles and legal principles that overriding such ineligibility and thereby
giving effect to the apparent will of the of the people would ultimately create greater prejudice
to the very democratic institutions and juristic traditions that our Constitutions and laws so
zealously protect and promote.

What is a demurrer to evidence?

A demurrer to evidence is an objection by a party to an action to the effect that the evidence
which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law to make out a case or sustain in the
issue in the case. It is equivalent to a motion to dismiss.

Rules of Civil Procedure is not applicable to election cases except by analogy or in suppletory
character.

Can the Rules on Demurrer to evidence be applied in election cases even by analogy or in
suppletory character? NO
Reason: the nature of election case is different from ordinary civil action. Estrada v. Domingo-
the early resolution of election cases should not be hampered by any unnecessary observance
of procedural rules.

Effects of demurrer to evidence of protestant

In election protests, the protestee should not be permitted to present a motion for dismissal or
a demurrer to the evidence of the protestant, unless he waives the introduction of his own
evidence in case the ruling on his motion or demurrer is adverse to him, in which case the court
that tries the case must definitely decide it.

Jurisdiction over election contests

1. Local officials – Comelec exercises exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relating to the
elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials,
appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial
courts of general jurisdiction, or elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction.

An original Special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus against a RTC in an
election contest may be filed only in the CA or SC.

2. Municipal and barangay officials—RTC and MTC exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over
election contest involving municipal and barangay officials respectively.
Decision of RTC (re: Municipal Officals) may be appealed to Comelec w/in 5 days from
promulgation or receipt of a copy of decision by aggrieved party.

Comelec shall decide the appeal w/in 60 days after it is submitted for decision, but not later
than 6 months after the filing of the appeal, which decision shall be final, unappealable, and
executory.

Motion for reconsideration in the trial court not allowed by the Omnibus Election Code sec 26
and the Comelec Rules of Procedure sec 20 rule 35, thus its filing will not suspend the period to
appeal.

Courts shall give preference to election contests over all other cases, except those of habeas
corpus, and shall hear and decide the case within 30 days from date of submission for decision
but not later than 6 months after filing.

3. Members of Congress – Senate and House of Rep shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which
shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective Members.

Electoral Tribunal = composed of 9 members: 3 are Justices of the SC designated by the Chief
Justice, 6 are members of the Senate OR House of Rep chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from political parties and organizations under the party-list system. The senior
Justice shall be the chairman.

RA 6646: Comelec does not lose jurisdiction to hear and decide a pending disqualification case
against a Congressional candidate.

Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal begins only after a candidate has become member of Senate or
House of Rep, once ha heas been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office.

The fact the electoral tribunal is the sole judge of all election contests involving members of
Congress does not bar the SC from entertaining petitions which charge the electoral body with
grave abuse of discretion,

4. President or Vice-President – SC en banc shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
election, returns, and qualifications of the P and VP, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.

Assumption of Office During Pendency of Election Protest

The pendency of an election contest is not a sufficient basis to enjoin one who has been
proclaimed as duly elected from assuming office as required of him by law, otherwise the
efficiency of public administration would be impaired.

Until the election protest is decided against the winning candidate, he has a lawful right to
assume and perform the duties and functions of the office. Rules of Court allows execution
pending appeal in election cases upon good reasons.

Expiration of term of the office contested renders the election contest moot and academic and is
a ground for its dismissal, unless rendering of decision on the merits would be of practical
value.

EXECUTION pending APPEAL in Protest Cases

What are the requisites in order to grant execution pending appeal?

The following requisites must concur a. There must be a motion by the prevailing party with
notice to the adverse party b. There must be ―good reasons‖ for the execution pending appeal
c. The order granting execution pending appeal must state the good reasons.

What are considered “good reasons”? a. The public interest involved or the will of the electorate
b. The shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office, and c. The length
of time that the election contest has been pending

* A combination of two or more of the above stated reasons will suffice to grant execution
pending appeal. * Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies in suppletory
character to election cases. Thus, allowing execution pending appeal in the discretion of the
court.

Distinctions between defective elections and defective returns

1. Return is set aside only when it is tainted with fraud, or with the misconduct of the election
officers, that the truth cannot be deduced from it. The duty still remains to let the election stand
and to ascertain from other evidence the true state of the vote.
The return may be excluded and set aside at the cost of disenfranchising the voters only on the
clearest and compelling showing of their nullity, otherwise, they shall be included and
considered prima facie valid for the purpose of canvassing the same and proclaiming the
winning candidate.

2. Election is only set aside when it is impossible from any evidence w/in reach to ascertain the
true result.

Annulment of an election can be justified where as a result of the irregularity many unqualified
voters have their names inscribed in the official list, and it was impossible to segregate the legal
from the illegal votes.

Power to throw an election should be exercised with the greatest care and only under
circumstances w/c demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the disregard of the law has
been so fundamental that it is impossible to
Election Law Reviewer (2012) 70
distinguish what votes are lawful and unlawful, or to arrive at any certain result whatsoever, or
that the great body of voters have been prevented by violence, intimidation and threats from
exercising their franchise.

Where illegality reflects more than 50% of the total number of votes cast, the annulment of the
election is justified because the remainder does not Constitute a valid Constituency.

Irregularities affecting election

Irregularities not from wrongful intent, in the manner of calling, holding or certifying the
election which do not affect the result, will be ignored.

1. Irregularities must have affected election result – protestant must be prepared to show that
the irregularities were of such a nature or the illegal votes were of such a number as to
materially alter the results, thus rendering the election void. 2. Mandatory provisions must be
observed—where the statute requires an act to be done as essential to the validity of the
election, or declares it void if not observed. However, election laws are considered directory
after elections to give effect to the will of the electorate. 3. Evidence must be convincing—in the
absence of clearly convincing evidence, the election returns and canvassing proceedings must
be upheld. 4. Intimidation or violence must justify exclusion of election returns—it must be
clearly appear that there was such a display of force as ought to have intimidated men of
ordinary firmness. Where such violence and intimidation are shown, election will be set aside.
But where election has actually been had and the mass of electors have voted, it must be shown
that the number of voters prevented was sufficient to change the result, otherwise the election
must stand.
To justify the exclusion of election returns, the alleged threats, intimidation or violence that
attended the preparation of the said returns must have affected the regularity or genuiness of
the contested returns.

Evidence on the election

Rule on Evidence: The protestant must stand or fall upon the issues he had raised in his
original or amended pleading filed PRIOR to the lapse of the statutory period for filing of
protest or counter protest. The court can only consider the evidence presented prior to the
submission of the case for decision or resolution. It must not take into account evidence
presented therafter without obtaining prior leave of court.
1. Election Returns – used in the canvass of votes. The ballots are the best evidence as to the
correctness of the number of votes of each candidate. But where ballots cannot be produced,
the election returns are the next best evidence.

a. Where actual voting had taken place, the election returns cannot be disregarded and have
prima facie status as bona fide reports of the results of the voting. Party alleging that election
results are fake or tampered must submit convincing proof. Only when election returns are
palpably irregular (not formal defects) may they be rejected.

b. It is presumed that the election officials have done their duty and the returns made are full
and fair statement of the true result, until they are shown to be unreliable.

Principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus—when the returns are shown to be fraudulent and
false in part they must be rejected altogether. Returns may be corrected by parol and by written
evidence.

2. Ballots – the election returns being rejected, the ballots are resorted to. The right of office
comes from the ballots and not from the certificate of returns. Recourse to the ballots
presupposes that they have been kept as required by law and that they still exist in the same
integrity as when cast.

When there is an allegation in an election protest that would require the perusal, examination,
or counting of ballots in evidence, it is the MINISTERIAL duty of the TRIAL COURT or the
COMELEC (or its division) to order the opening of the ballot boxes and the examination and
counting of the ballots therein.

Note: photocopies of ballots deemed not best evidence thereof.

3. Poll-books and tally sheets –required by law to be kept showing who has voted and who are
legally entitled to vote, resort may be had to these books or sheets to ascertain the number of
votes cast and persons who have voted.

4. Election officials—where the ballots not kept as required by law, after proof of loss of the
tally sheets and poll-books, the evidence of the election officers may be received to show what
was the result of the election as counted and declared by them

5. Voters—illegality in casting of vote by persons unqualified cannot be allowed to change the

result, unless it can be shown for whom they voted. While a voter who legally voted cannot be
compelled to state how he voted, a person who voted illegally may be compelled to disclose
how he voted except where his answer might tend to incriminate him.

6. Certificate of votes—issued by the Board of Election Inspectors to watchers. It shall be

admissible in evidence to prove tampering, alteration, falsification, or any other anomaly
committed in the election returns, when duly authenticated by testimonial or documentary
evidence presented to the board.

Failure to present certificate of votes is a bar to the presentation of other evidence of

authenticity of the election returns.

It is also evidence of the votes obtained by candidates. But it is not used where the integrity of
the election returns is not in question.

A certificate of votes does not constitute sufficient evidence of the true and genuine results of
the election. ONLY election returns are sufficient evidence pursuant to Sections 231, 233-236
and 238 of the Omnibus Election Code.

7. Thumbprints of Voters- The Examination of Thumbprints may be sanctioned by the SC,

where a recount or revision of the ballots will not be reflective of the sovereign will due to the
irregularities committed during the elections.

Rules on the use of ballots as evidence as against election returns Ballots cannot used to
overturn the official count as reflected in the election returns unless it is first shown
affirmatively that the ballots have been preserved with a care which precludes the opportunity
of tampering and all suspicion of change, abstraction or substitution

The burden of proving the integrity of the ballot has been preserved in such a manner is on
the protestant
 Where a mode of preserving the ballots is enjoined by law, proof must be made of such
substantial compliance with that law

It is only when the protestant has shown substantial compliance with the provisions of law on
the preservation of the ballots that the burden of proving the actual tampering or the likelihood
thereof shifts to the protestee
On if it appears to the satisfaction of court or COMELEC that the integrity of the ballots have
been preserved should it adopt the result as shown by the recount and not as reflected in the
election returns

Effect of ineligibility or death of candidate receiving majority of votes

English rule: If the ineligibility of the winner candidate was known to the voters, or if the fact
were so notorious that they must be presumed to have known it, the votes cast for him must
NOT be counted, hence the eligible candidate having the next highest number of votes must be
deemed elected.

Philippine jurisdiction: The fact that a majority of the votes cast for an ineligible candidate, or
a candidate is later declared to be disqualified, does NOT entitle the candidate with second
highest votes to be declared elected but results in the nullity of the election. A permanent
vacancy in the contested office is created which should be filled by succession.

But if the electorate cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate fully aware of the
other candidate‘s qualification, the electorate are deemed to have thrown away their votes, and
the eligible candidate obtaining the next highest votes may be deemed elected.

Votes cast for a candidate are presumed to have been cast in the belief that the candidate is
qualified, thus such votes cannot be void. The subsequent finding of disqualification cannot
retroact to the date of elections so as to invalidate the votes cast for him.

Right of winner in an election contest to recover damages

Omnibus Election Code: Actual or compensatory damages may be granted in all election
contests or in quo warranto proceedings.
Election Law Reviewer (2012) 72
Comelec Rules of Procedure: in all election contests the Court may adjudicate damages and
attorney‘s fees as it may deem just and as established by evidence if claimed in the pleadings.
 Art 2199 of Civil Code: Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved,
referred to as actual or compensatory damages.

Actual or compensatory damages are appropriate only in: 1. breaches of obligations in

contracts, quasi-contracts, crimes and quasi-delicts where the defendant may be held liable for
all damages the proximate cause of which is the act/omission complained of, otherwise, 2. the
claimant must point a provision of law authorizing a money claim for election protest expenses
against the losing party; such as Art 19, 20, and 32 of Civil Code governing human relations.

Rules: 1. Notwithstanding a subsequent ouster as a result of an election protest, an elective

official proclaimed as winner by the Comelec and assumed office, is entitled to compensation,
emoluments and allowances provided for the position. 2. Ousted elective official is not obliged
to reimburse the emoluments but liable for damages when found responsible for any unlawful
or tortuous acts in his proclamation. 3. The victorious party in an election case cannot be
indemnified for expenses in the electoral contest, unless a wrongful act or omission or breach of
obligation is clearly attributable to the losing party. 4. If damage had been suffered by the
private respondent due to execution of judgment pending appeal, the damage is damnum
absque injuria = damage w/out injury or damage inflicted w/out injustice, loss or violation of a
legal right, or wrong done for which the law provides no remedy.

ELECTION OFFENSES

Jurisdiction over election offenses:

An examination of the provisions of the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code reveals
the clear intention to place in the COMELEC exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute
election offenses committed by any person, whether private individual or public officer or
employee, and in the latter instance, irrespective of whether the offense is committed in
relation to his official duties or not.

It is the nature of the offense and not the personality of the offender that matters. As long as
the offense is an election offense, jurisdiction over the same rests exclusively with the
COMELEC, in view of its all-embracing power over the conduct of election.

Criminal and electoral aspects of an election offense:

 Criminal aspect – involves the ascertainment of the guilt or innocence of the accused
candidate like in any other criminal case, it usually entails a full-blown hearing and the
quantum of proof required to secure a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Electoral aspect – determination of whether the offender shall be disqualified from office.
This is done through an administrative proceeding which is summary in character and requires
only a preponderance of evidence. In a disqualification case, it is the electoral aspect that is
involved under which an erring candidate may be disqualified even without prior criminal
conviction.

Prohibited acts and election offenses under the Omnibus Election Code:

1. Vote buying and vote-selling.

o Any person who gives, offers, or promises money or anything of value, gives or promises any
office or employment, franchise, or grant, public or private, or makes or offers to make an
expenditure, directly or indirectly, or cause an expenditure to be made on any person,
association or corporation, entity or community in other to induce anyone or the public in
general to vote for or against
Election Law Reviewer (2012) 73
any candidate or withhold his vote in the election, or to vote for or against any aspirant for the
nomination or choice of a candidate in convention or similar selection process of a political
party; and

o Any person, association, corporation, group or community who solicits or receives, directly or
indirectly, any expenditure or promise of any office or employment, public or private, for any of
the foregoing consideration.

2. Grant of Transactional Immunity

o Any person guilty of vote-buying and vote-selling who voluntarily gives information and
willingly testifies on violations of Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code, shall be exempt
from prosecution and punishment for the offense with reference to which the information and
testimony were given, without prejudice to his liability for perjury and false testimony.

o The COMELEC is vested with the authority to exempt those who have committed election
offenses under Section 261 (a) and (b)but volunteer to give informations and testify on any
violation of said law in any official investigation or proceeding with reference to which his
information and testimony is given.
o The immunity seeks a rational accommodation between the imperatives of the privilege
against self-incrimination and the legitimate demands of government to encourage citizens,
including law violators, to testify against law violators.

o The testimony of a voluntary witness operates as a pardon for the criminal charges to which it
relates. The law gives him immunity from investigation and prosecution for any offense in
Section 261 (a) and (b) with reference to which his information is given.

o The power to grant exemptions is vested solely on the COMELEC. It is generally not subject to
judicial review, unless the COMELEC commits a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess
or lack of jurisdiction.

3. Conspiracy to bribe voters.

o Committed by two or more persons, whether candidates or not

o Who come to an agreement concerning the vote-buying and vote-selling; and

o Decide to commit it.

4. Wagering upon result of elections.

o Committed by any person who bets or wagers upon the outcomes of, or any contingency
connected with an election;

o Money or thing of value or deposit of money or thing of value situated anywhere in the
Philippine put as such bet or wager shall be forfeited to the government.

5. Coercion of subordinates to vote for or against any candidate.

o Committed by any public officer or any officer of any public or private corporation or
association, or any head, superior, or administrator of any religious organization, or any
employer or landowner;
 Who coerces or intimidates or compels, or in any manner influences, directly or indirectly,

Any of his subordinates or members or parishioners or employees or house helpers, tenants,

overseers, farm helpers, tillers, or leaseholders;

To aid, campaign, or vote for or against any candidate or any aspirant for the nomination or
selection of candidates.

o Committed by any public officer or any officer of any commercial, industrial, agricultural,
economic or social enterprise or public or private corporation of association, or any head,
superior or administrator of any religious organization, or any employer or landowner;

Election Law Reviewer (2012) 74

Who threatens to dismiss by reducing the salary, wage or compensation, or by demotion,
transfer, suspension, separation, excommunication, ejectment, or causing him annoyance in the
performance of his job or in his membership;

Any subordinate member or affiliate, parishioners, employee or house helper, tenant,

overseer, farm helper, tiller or leaseholder;

For disobeying or not complying with any of the acts ordered by the former to aid, campaign
or vote for or against any candidate, or any aspirant for the nomination or selection of
candidates.

6. Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent device or other forms of coercion.

o Committed by any person;

o Who, directly or indirectly, intimidates or actually causes, inflicts or produces any violence,
injury, punishment, damage, loss or disadvantage;

o Upon any person or persons or that of the immediate members of his family, his honor or
property, or uses any fraudulent device or scheme;

o To compel or induce the registration or refraining from registration of any voter, or the
participation in a campaign, or the casting of any vote or omission to vote, or any promise of
such registration, campaign, vote, or omission therefrom.
If the election returns reflect the true results of the voting at the precinct level, any coercion and
intimidation may give rise to legal, including criminal liability but will not justify the exclusion
of the returns.

7. Coercion of election officials and employees.

o Committed by any person;

o Who, directly or indirectly, threatens, intimidates, terrorizes, or coerces,

o Any election official or employee in the performance of his election functions or duties.

8. Appointment of new employees, creation of new positions, promotion, or giving salary

increases within the election period.

o Committed during the period of 45 days before a regular election and 30 days before a special
election;

o Committed by any head, official or appointing officer of a government office, agency,

instrumentality, whether national or local, including GOCC;

Who appoints or hires any new employee, whether provisional, temporary, or cause or
creates and fills any position EXCEPT upon prior authority of the COMELEC.

The Commission shall not grant the authority sought unless 1. It is satisfied that the position to
be filled is essential to the proper functioning of the office or agency concerned, and 2. The
position shall not be filled in a manner that may influence the election.

EXCEPTION: A new employee may be appointed in case of urgent need. In such case, notice of
the appointment shall be given to the Commission within three days from the date of the
appointment. Any appointment or hiring in violation of this provision shall be null and void.

o Committed by any government official;

Who promotes, or gives any increase of salary or remuneration or privilege to any

government official or employee, including those in GOCC.
Election Law Reviewer (2012) 75
9. Transfer of officers and employees in the civil service within the election period.

o Committed by any public official

o Who makes or causes any transfer or detail whatever of any officer or employee in the civil
service including public school teachers

o Within the election period EXCEPT prior approval of the COMELEC.

This provision does not per se outlaw the transfer of a government officer or employee during
the election period. To be sure, the transfer or detail of a public officer or employee is a
prerogative of the appointing authority. Without this inherent prerogative, the appointing
authority may not be able to cope with the emergencies to the detriment of public service.
Clearly then, the transfer or detail of a government officer or employee will not be penalized if
done to promote efficiency in the government service. Hence, the COMELEC has to pass upon
the reason for the proposed transfer or detail.

Two elements must be established to prove violation of the law: a. The fact of transfer or detail
within the election period as fixed by the COMELEC; and b. Such transfer or detail was effected
without prior approval of the COMELEC in accordance with its implementing rules and
regulations.

10. Intervention of public officers and employees in the civil service in any partisan political
activity.

o Committed by any officer or employee in the civil service, any officer, employee, or member of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, or any police force, special forces, home defense forces,
barangay self-defense units and all other para-military units that now exist or which may
hereafter be organized, EXCEPT those holding political offices;

o Who directly or indirectly, intervenes in any election campaign or engages in any partisan
political activity EXCEPT to vote or to preserve public order if he is a peace officer.

11. Use of undue influence.

o It is unlawful for any person

 To promise any office or employment, public or private, or offer to make an expenditure,
directly or indirectly, or to cause an expenditure to be made to any person, association or
corporation or entity, which may induce anyone or the public in general, either

To vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate in an election or any
aspirant for the nomination or selection of an official candidate in a convention of a political
party.

o It is unlawful for any person, association, corporation or community

To solicit or receive, directly or indirectly any expenditure or promise any of the foregoing
considerations.

12. Unlawful electioneering.

o It is unlawful to solicit votes or undertake any propaganda

o On the day of the registration before the board of election inspectors and on the day of the
election;

o For or against any candidate or any political party within the polling place and within a radius
of 30 meters thereof.

13. Dismissal of employees, laborers or tenants for refusing or failing to vote for any candidate.

o No employee or laborer shall be dismissed, nor a tenant be ejected from his land holdings for
refusing or failing to vote for any candidate of his employer or landowner.

o Any employee, laborer or tenant so dismissed or ejected shall be reinstated and the salary or
wage of the employee or laborer, or the share of the harvest of the tenant, shall be
Election Law Reviewer (2012) 76
restored to the aggrieved party upon application to the proper court.

14. Appointment or use of special policemen, special agents or the like during the campaign
period.

o Committed during the campaign period, on the day before and on the election day;
o Committed by any appointing authority who appoints or any person who utilizes the services
of special policemen, special agents, confidential agents or persons performing similar
functions; persons previously appointed as special policemen, special agents, confidential
agents or persons performing similar functions who continue acting as such, and those who fail
to turn over their firearms, uniforms, insignias and other badges of authority to the proper
officer who issued the same.

At the start of the aforementioned period, the barangay captain, municipal mayor, city mayor,
provincial governor or any appointing authority shall submit to the COMELEC a complete list of
all special policemen, special agents or persons performing similar functions in the employ of
their respective political subdivisions, with such particulars as the Commission may require.

15. Illegal release or prisoners before and after election.

o Committed by the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, any provincial warden, the keeper of
the jail or the person or persons required by law to keep prisoners in their custody

o Who illegally orders or allows any prisoner detained in the national penitentiary, or the
provincial, city or municipal jail to leave the premises thereof 60 days before and 30 days after
the election.

The municipal or city warden, the provincial warden, the keeper of the jail or the person or
persons required by law to keep prisoners in their custody shall post in three conspicuous
public places a list of the prisoners or detention prisoners under their case. Detention prisoners
must be categorized as such.

16. Use of public funds for an election campaign.

It is committed by any person who uses, under any guise whatsoever, directly or indirectly:

o Public funds or money deposited with, or held in trust by public financing institutions or by
government offices, banks or agencies;

o Any printing press, radio, television station or audiovisual equipment operated by the
Government or by its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including GOCC, or by the
AFP; or
o Any equipment, vehicle, facility, apparatus, or paraphernalia owned by the government or by
its political subdivisions, agencies, including GOCC, or by the AFP for any election campaign or
for any partisan political activity.

17. Carrying deadly weapons within the prohibited area.

o Committed by any person

o Who carries any deadly weapon in the polling place and within the radius of 100 meters
thereof during the days and hours fixed by law for the registration of voters in the polling place,
voting, counting of votes, or preparation of election returns.

o However, in cases of affray, turmoil or disorder, any peace officer or public officer authorized
by the COMELEC to supervise the election is entitled to carry firearms or any of other weapon
for the purpose of preserving order and enforcing the law.

o To support conviction, it is not necessary that the deadly weapon should have been seized
from the accused while he was in the precinct or within a radius of 100 meters therefrom. It is
enough that the accused carried the deadly weapon ―in the polling place and within a radius of
100 meters thereof.‖

Election Law Reviewer (2012) 77

18. Carrying firearms outside the residence or place of business.

o Committed by any person who, although possessing permits to carry firearms;

o Carries any firearms outside his residence or place of business during the election period

o UNLESS authorized in writing by the COMELEC.

o A motor vehicle, water or aircraft shall not be considered a residence or place of business or
extension hereof.
o This prohibition SHALL NOT APPLY to cashiers and disbursing officers while in the
performance of their duties or to persons, who by nature of their official duties, profession,
business or occupation habitually carry large sums of money or valuables.

19. Use of armored land vehicle, water or aircraft during the campaign period.

o Committed by any person

o During the campaign period, on the day before and on election day

o Uses any armored land, water, or aircraft;

o Provided with any temporary or permanent equipment or any other device or contraption for
the mounting or installation of canons, machine guns and other similar high caliber firearms,
including military – type tanks, half trucks, scout trucks, armored trucks, of any make or model,
whether new, reconditioned, rebuilt or remodeled.

Banking or financial institutions and all business firms may use not more than 2 armored
vehicles strictly for, and limited to, the purpose of transporting cash, gold bullion, or other
valuables in connection with their business from and to their place of business, upon previous
authority of the COMELEC.

20. Wearing of uniforms and bearing arms outside the immediate vicinity of one’s place of
work.

o It is committed by any member or security or police organization of government agencies,

commissions, councils, bureaus, offices of GOCC, or privately owned or operated security,
investigative, protective, or intelligence agencies

Who wears his uniform or uses his insignia, decorations or regalia, or bears arms outside the
immediate vicinity of his place or work.

During the campaign period, on the day before and on election day;

The prohibition shall not apply when said member is in pursuit of a person who has
committed or is committing a crime in the premises he is guarding; or when escorting or
providing security for the transport of payrolls, deposits, or other valuables; or when guarding
the residence of private persons or when guarding private residences, building, or offices.
(Prior written approval of the COMELEC shall be obtained. The Commission shall decide all
applications for authority within 15 days from the date of the filing of such application.)

o Committed by any member of the AFP, special forces, home defense forces, barangay self-
defense units and all other para-military units that now exist or which may hereafter be
organized

Who wears his uniform or bears arms outside the camp, garrison or barracks to which he is
assigned or detailed or outside their homes, in case of para-military units, UNLESS: 1. The
President of the Philippines shall have given previous authority therefore; and 2. The COMELEC
authorizes him to do so, which authority it shall give only when necessary to assist in
maintaining free, orderly and honest elections, and only after due notice and hearing.
Election Law Reviewer (2012) 78

During the same period, and ending 30 days thereafter.

During the election period, whenever the Commission finds it necessary for the promotion of
free, orderly, honest and peaceful elections in a specific area, it shall confiscate or order the
confiscation if firearms of any member or member of the AFP, police forces, home defense
forces, barangay self-defense units, and all other para-military units that, now exist, or which
may hereafter be organized, or any member or members of the security or police organization
of government departments, commissions, councils, bureaus, offices, instrumentalities, or GOCC
and other subsidiaries, or of any member or members of privately owned or operated security,
investigative, protective or intelligence agencies performing identical or similar functions.

21. Acting as bodyguards or security in the case of policemen and provincial guards during the
campaign period.

o During the campaign period, on the day before and on election day;

o It is committed by any member of the PNP, the AFP, special forces, home defense forces,
barangay self-defense units, and any other para-military units that now exist or which hereafter
be organized

o Who acts as bodyguard or security guard of any public official, candidate or any other person,
any of the latter who utilizes the services of the former as bodyguard or security guard.

o After due notice and hearing, when the life and security of a candidate is in jeopardy, the
COMELEC is empowered to assign at the candidate‘s choice, any member of the PNP to act as his
bodyguard or security guard in a number to be determined by the Commission but not to
exceed three per candidate.

o When the circumstances require immediate action, the Commission may issue a temporary
order allowing the assignment of any member of the PNP to act as bodyguard or security guard
of the candidate subject to confirmation or revocation.
22. Organization or maintenance of reaction forces, strike forces, or other similar forces during
the election period.

o Committed by any person who organizes or maintains a reaction force, strike force or similar
forces during the election period;

o The heads of all reaction forces, strike forces, or similar forces shall, not later 45 days before
the election. Submit to the COMELEC a complete list of all members thereof with such
particulars as the Commission may require.

23. Release, disbursement, or expenditure of public funds during the prohibition period.

o Committed by any public official or employee including barangay officials and those of GOCC
and their subsidiaries;

o During 45 days before a regular election and 30 days before a special election, releases,
disburses or expends any public funds for any and all kinds of public works, EXCEPT:

Maintenance of existing and/or completed public works project. However, not more than the
average number of laborers or employees already employed therein during the six-month
period immediately prior to the beginning of the 45-day period before election day shall be
permitted to work during such time. No additional laborers shall be employed for maintenance
work within the said period of 45 days.

Work undertaken by contract through public bidding held, or by negotiated contract

awarded, before the 45-day period before election. Work undertaken under the so-called
―takay‖ or ―paquiao‖ system shall not be considered as work by contract.

Payment for the usual cost of preparation for working drawings, specification, bills of
materials, estimates, and other procedures preparatory to actual construction including the
purchase of materials and equipment, and all incidental
Election Law Reviewer (2012) 79
expenses of wages of watchmen and other laborers employed for such work in the central office
and filed storehouses before the beginning of such period. The number of such laborers shall
not be increased over the number hired when the project or projects were commenced; and

Emergency work necessitated by the occurrence of a public calamity, but such work shall be
limited to the restoration of the damaged facility.

No payment shall be made within five days before the date of election to laborers who have
rendered services in projects or works except those falling under above.

This prohibition shall not apply to ongoing public works projects commenced before the
campaign period or similar projects under foreign agreements. It shall be the duty of the
government officials or agencies concerned to report to the COMELEC the list of all such
projects being undertaken by them.

24. Construction of public works, etc. during the prohibition period. During the period of 45
days preceding a regular election and 30 days before a special election, it is committed by any
person who:

o Undertakes the construction of any public works, except for projects or works exempted; or

o Issues, uses or avails of treasury warrants or any device, undertaking future delivery of
money, goods or other things of value chargeable against public funds.

25. Suspension of elective local official during the election period without prior approval of the
COMELEC.

The provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding during election period, it is committed by
any public official who suspends, without prior approval of the COMELEC, any elective,
provincial, city, municipal or barangay officer, unless said suspension will be for purposes of
applying the ―Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act‖ in relation to the suspension and removal
of elective officials.

26. Others.
o Selling, etc, intoxicating liquors – any person who sells, furnishes, offers, buys, serves or takes
intoxicating liquors on the days fixed by law for the registration of voters in the polling place or
the day before the election or on election day. Hotels and other establishments duly certified by
the Department of Tourism as tourist oriented and habitually in the business of catering to
foreign tourists may be exempted for justifiable reasons upon prior authority of the COMELEC.
Foreign tourists taking intoxicating liquor in said authorized hotels or establishments are
exempted;

o Opening booths or stalls – any person who opens in any polling place or within the radius of
30 meters thereof on election day, and during the counting of votes, booths or stalls of any kind
for sale, dispensing or display of wares, merchandise or refreshments, whether solid or liquid,
or for any other purposes;

o Holding fairs, cockfights, etc. – Any person who holds on election day, fairs, cockfights, boxing,
horse races, jai-alai or any other similar sports;

o Refusal to carry election mail – any operator or employee of a public utility or transportation
company operating under a certificate of public convenience, including GOCC postal service or
its employees or deputized agents who refuse to carry official election mail matters free of
charge during the election period. In addition to the penalty prescribed, such refusal shall
Constitute a ground for cancellation or revocation of certificate of public convenience or
franchise; and

o Discrimination in the sale of airtime – any person who operates a radio or television station
who, without justifiable cause, discriminates against any political party, coalition or
aggroupment of parties or any candidate in the sale of air time. In addition to the penalty
prescribed, such refusal shall Constitute a ground fro cancellation or revocation of the franchise.

Election Law Reviewer (2012) 80

Prohibitions relating to registration of voters:

a. Any person who:

i. Having all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications of a voter who fails without
justifiable excuse to register as voter in an election, plebiscite or referendum in which he is
qualified to vote; ii. Knowingly makes any false or untruthful statement relative to any of the
data or information required in the application for registration; iii. Deliberately imprints or who
causes the imprinting of blurred or indistinct fingerprints on any of the copies of the application
for registration or on the voter‘s affidavit; or any person in charge of the registration of voters
who deliberately or through negligence, causes or allows the imprinting of blurred or indistinct
fingerprints on any of the aforementioned registration forms, or any person who tampers with
the fingerprints of said registration records; iv. Being a registered voter, registers anew without
filing an application for cancellation of his previous registration; v. Registers in substitution for
another, whether with or without the latter‘s knowledge or consent; vi. Tampers with or
changes without authority any data or entry in any voter‘s application for registration; vii.
Delays. Hinders or obstructs another from registering; viii. Falsely certifies or identifies another
as a bona fide resident of a particular place or locality for the purpose of securing the latter‘s
registration as a voter; ix. Uses the voter‘s affidavit of another for the purpose of voting,
whether or not he actually succeeds in voting; x. Places, inserts or otherwise includes as
approved application for registration in the book of voters or in the provincial or national
central files of registered voters, the application of any fictitious voter or any application that
has not been approved; or removes from, or otherwise takes out of the book of voters or the
provincial or national central files of registered voters any duly approved voter‘s application
EXCEPT upon unlawful order of the COMELEC, or of a competent court or after proper
cancellation; xi. Transfers or causes the transfer of the registration record of a voter to the book
of voters of another polling place, unless said transfer was due to a change of address of the
voter and the voter was duly notified of his new polling place;
xii. Asks, demands, takes accepts or possesses, directly or indirectly, the voter‘s affidavit of
another, in order to induce the latter to withhold his vote, or to vote fro or against any
candidate in an election or any issue in a plebiscite or referendum. It shall be presumed prima
facie that the asking, demanding, taking, accepting or possessing is with such intent if done
within the period beginning 10 days before the election day and ending 10 days after the
election day, UNLESS the voter‘s affidavit of another and the latter are both members of the
same family. xiii. Delivers, hands over, entrusts, gives, directly or indirectly, his voter‘s affidavit
to another in consideration of money or other benefit or promises thereof, or takes or accepts
such voter‘s affidavit, directly or indirectly, by giving or causing the giving of money or other
benefit or making or causing the making of a promise thereof; xiv. Alters in any manner, tears,
defaces, removes or destroys any certified list of voters; xv. Takes, carries or possesses any
blank or unused registration form already issued to a city or municipality outside of said city or
municipality EXCEPT as otherwise provided in the Omnibus Election Code or when directed by
express order of the court or of the COMELEC; and xvi. Maliciously omits, tampers or transfer to
another list the name of a registered voter from the official list of voters posted outside the
polling place.

b. Any member of the Board of Election Inspectors who approves any application which on its
face shows that the applicant does not possess all the qualifications prescribed by law for a
voter; or who disapproves any application which on its face shows that the applicant possesses
all such qualifications.

Prohibitions relating to voting:

a. Any person who:

i. Fails to cast his vote without justifiable excuse; ii. Votes more than once in the same election,
or who, not being a registered voter, votes in an election; iii. Votes in substitution for another,
whether with or without the latter‘s knowledge and consent; iv. Not being illiterate or
physically disabled, allows his ballot to be prepared by another, or any person who prepares
the ballot of
Election Law Reviewer (2012) 81
another who is not illiterate or physically disabled, with or without the latter‘s knowledge or
consent; v. Avails himself of any means of scheme to discover the contents of the ballot of a
voter who is preparing or casting his vote or who has just voted; vi. Places under arrest or
detains a voter without lawful cause, or molests him in such a manner as to obstruct or prevent
him from going to the polling place to cast his vote or from returning home after casting his
vote, or to compel him to reveal how he voted; vii. For the purpose of disrupting or obstructing
the election process or causing confusion among the voters, propagates false and alarming
reports or information or transmits or circulates false orders, directives or messages regarding
any matter relating to the printing of official ballots, the postponement of the election, the
transfer of polling place, or the general conduct of the election; viii. Without legal authority,
destroys or substitutes or take away from the possession of those having legal custody thereof,
or from the place where they are legally deposited, any election form or document or ballot box
which contains official ballots or other documents used in the election; ix. Having legal custody
of the ballot box containing the official ballots used in the election who opens or destroys said
box or removes or destroys its contents without or against the order of the COMELEC or who,
through his negligence, enables any person to commit any of the acts, or take away said ballot
box from his custody; x. Reveals the contents of the ballot of illiterate or disabled voter whim he
assisted in preparing a ballot; xi. Without authority, transfers the location of a polling place; xii.
Without authority, prints or causes the printing of any ballot or election returns that appears as
official ballots or election returns or who distributes or causes the same to be distributed for
use in the election, whether or not they are actually used; xiii. Without authority, keeps, uses or
carries out or causes to be kept, used, or carried out any official ballot or election returns or
printed proof thereof, type from mould, electrotype printing plates and any other plate,
numbering machines and other printing paraphernalia being used in connection with the
printing of official ballots or election returns; xiv. Through any act, means pr device, violates the
integrity of any official ballot or election returns before or after they are used in the election;
xv. Removes, tears, defaces, or destroys any certified list of candidates posted inside the voting
booths during the hours of voting; xvi. Holds or causes the holding of an election on any other
day than that fixed by law or by the Commission, or stops any election being legally held; and
xvii. Deliberately blurs his fingerprint in the voting record.

b. Any member of the board of election inspectors:

i. Charged with the duty of reading the ballot during the counting of votes whole deliberately
omits to read the vote duly written on the ballot or misreads the vote actually written thereon
or reads the name of a candidate where no name is written on the ballot; ii. Charged with the
duty of tallying the votes in the tally board or sheet, election returns or other prescribed form
who deliberately fails to record a vote therein or records erroneously the votes as read, or
records a vote where no such vote has been read by the chairman. iii. Who has made possible
the casting of more votes than there are registered voters‘ iv. Who knowingly uses ballots other
than the official ballots EXCEPT in those cases where the use of emergency ballots is authorized.

c. Any voter who, in the course of voting, uses a ballot other than the one given by the Board of
Election Inspectors or has in his possession more than one official ballot;

d. Any public official who neglects or fails to properly preserve or account for any ballot box,
documents, and other forms received by him and kept under his custody.

e. Any official or employee of any printing establishment or the Commission or any member of
the committee in charge of the printing of official ballots or election returns who causes official
ballots or elections returns to be printed in quantities exceeding those authorized by the
Commission or who distributes, delivers, or in any manner disposes of or causes to be
distributed, delivered, or disposed of, any official ballot or election returns to any person or
persons not authorized by law or by the Commission to receive or keep official ballots or
election returns or who sends or causes them to be sent to any place not designated by law or
by the Commission.

Election Law Reviewer (2012) 82

Prohibitions relating to canvassing:

a. Any chairman of the Board of Canvassers who fails to give due notice of the date, time and
place of the meeting of said board to the candidates, political parties and/or members of the
board;

b. Any member of the Board of Canvassers who

i. Proceeds with the canvass of votes and/or proclamation of any candidate which was
suspended or annulled by the COMELEC; ii. Proceeds with the canvass of votes and/or
proclamation of any candidate in the absence of quorum, or without giving due notice of the
date, time, and place of the meeting of the board of candidates, political parties, and/or other
members of the board; and iii. Without authority of the Commission, uses in the canvass of
votes and/or proclamation of any candidate any document other than the official copy of the
election returns.

Prohibitions common to all boards of election inspectors or boards of canvassers:

a. Any member of any board of election inspectors, or board of canvassers who:

i. Deliberately absents himself from the meeting of said body for the purpose of obstructing or
delaying the performance of its duties and functions; ii. Without justifiable reason, refuses to
sign and certify any election form required by the Omnibus Election Code or prescribed by the
COMELEC although he was present during the meeting of the said body;

b. Any person who:

i. Being ineligible for appointment as member of any Board of Election Inspectors or Board of
Canvassers accepts an appointment to said body, assumes office, and actually serves as a
member thereof, or any public officer or any person acting in his behalf who appoints such
ineligible person knowing him to be ineligible; ii. In the presence or within the hearing of any
Board of Election Inspectors or Board of Canvassers during any of its meetings, conducts
himself in such a disorderly manner as to interrupt or
disrupt the work or proceedings to the end of preventing said body from performing its
functions, either partly or totally.

c. Any public official or person acting in his behalf who relieves any member of any Board of
Election Inspectors or Board of Canvassers or who changes or causes the change of the
assignments or any member of said Board of Election Inspectors or Board of Canvassers
without authority of the Commission.

Prohibitions relating to candidacy and campaign:

a. Any political party which holds political conventions or meetings to nominate its official
candidates earlier than the period fixed in the Omnibus Election Code;

b. Any person who:

i. Abstracts, destroys or cancels any certificate of candidacy duly filed and which has not been
cancelled upon order of the COMELEC; ii. Misleads the Board of Election Inspectors by
submitting any false or spurious certificate of candidacy or document to the prejudice of a
candidate; iii. Being authorized to receive certificates of candidacy, receives any certificate of
candidacy outside the period for filing the same and makes it appear that said certificate of
candidacy was filed on time; or any person who, by means of fraud, threat, intimidation
terrorism or coercion, causes or compels the commission of said act; iv. By any device or means,
jams, obstructs or interferes with a radio or television broadcast of any lawful political
program; and v. Solicits votes or undertakes any propaganda, on the day of election, for or
against any candidate or political party within the polling place or within the radius of 30
meters thereof.

Persons criminally liable:

1. The principals, accomplices and accessories as defined by the RPC shall be criminally liable
for election offenses;

2. If one responsible be a political party or an entity, its president or head, the officials and
employees of the same, performing duties connected with the offense committed and its
member who may be
Election Law Reviewer (2012) 83
principals, accomplices, and accessories shall be liable, in addition to the liability of such party
or entity.

Penalties

1. Imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than 6 years and shall not be subject to
probation. In addition, the guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold
public office and deprivation of the right to suffrage. If he is a foreigner, he shall be sentenced to
deportation which shall be enforced after the prison term has expired. Any political party found
guilty shall be sentenced to pay a fine not less than P10,000, which shall be imposed upon such
party after criminal action has been instituted in which corresponding officials have been found
guilty.

2. In case of prisoner or prisoners illegally released from any penitentiary or jail during the
prohibited period, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, provincial warder, keeper of the
jail or prison, or persons who are required by law to keep said prisoner in their custody shall, if
convicted by a competent court, be sentenced to suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
maximum period of the prisoner or prisoners so illegally released commit any act of
intimidation, terrorism or interference in the election.

3. Any person found guilty of the offense or failure to register or failure to vote shall, upon
conviction, be fined P100. in addition, he shall suffer disqualification to run for public office in
the next succeeding election following his conviction or be appointed to a public office for a
period of one year following his conviction.

CASE: Pimentel, Jr. v COMELEC

Conviction and pardon as affecting eligibility:

1. The necessary penalty of temporary absolute disqualification disqualifies the convict from
public office and from the right to vote, such disqualification to last only during the term of the
sentence;

2. The accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification for exercise of suffrage deprives
the convict of the right to vote or to be elected or hold public office perpetually, as distinguished
from
temporary special disqualification which lasts during the term of the sentence.

3. The perpetual temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage shall
deprive the offender perpetually or during the term of the sentence, according to the nature of
said penalty, of the right to vote in any popular election for any public office or to be elected to
such office.

4. A plenary pardon, granted after election but before the date fixed by law for assuming office,
has the effect of removing the disqualification prescribed by both the criminal and electoral
laws.

Other election offenses under the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987

1. Any person who

a. Causes the printing of official ballots and election returns by any printing establishment
which is not under contract with COMELEC and any printing establishment which undertakes
such unauthorized printing;

b. Declared as a nuisance candidate or is otherwise disqualified by final and executory

judgment, who continues to misrepresent himself, or holds himself out, as a candidate, such as
by continuing to campaign thereafter, and/or other public officer or private individual, who
knowingly induces or abets such misrepresentation by commission or omission shall be guilty
of an election offense and subject to the penalty provided in the Omnibus Election Code;

c. Violates the provision regarding the prohibited forms of election propaganda.

2. Any member of the Board of Election Inspectors or Board of Election Canvassers who:

a. Tampers, increases, or decreases the votes received by a candidate in any election or any
member of the board, who refuses, after proper verification and hearing, to credit the correct
votes or deduct such tampered votes;
b. Refuses to issue duly accredited watchers and certificate of votes after the counting of the
votes cast and announcement of results of the election.
Election Law Reviewer (2012) 84
3. Any chairman of Board of Canvassers who fails to give notice of meeting to other members of
the board, candidate or political party as required.

Other election offenses under the Synchronized National and Local Elections Law

Any violation of Section 28, RA 7166 or its pertinent portion, shall constitute an election offense
and shall be penalized in accordance with BP 881.

1. Any person who:

a. Removes the election return posted on the wall, whether within or after the prescribed 48
hours of posting, or defaces the same in any manner b. Simulates an actual certificate of canvass
or statement of votes, or a print or digital copy thereof c. Simulates the certification of a
certificate of canvass or statement of votes

2. The chairman or any member of the board of election inspectors who, during the prescribed
period of posting, removes the certificate of canvass or its supporting statement of votes from
the wall on which It had been posted other than for the purpose of immediately transferring it
to a more suitable place

3. The chairman or any member of the board of canvassers who signs or authenticates

a. A print of the certificate of canvass or its supporting statement of votes outside of the polling
place b. A print which bears an image different from the certificate of canvass or statement of
votes produced after counting and posting on the wall

Other election offenses under the Voter’s Registration Act of 1996

1. To deliver, hand over, entrust or give, directly or indirectly, his voter‘s identification card to
another in consideration of money or other benefit or promise; or take or accept such voter‘s
identification card, directly or indirectly, by giving or causing the giving of money or other
benefit or making or causing the making of a promise therefore; 2. To fail, without cause, to post
or to give any of the notices or to make any of the reports required under the Act;
3. To issue or cause the issuance of a voter‘s identification number or to cancel or cause the
cancellation thereof in violation of the provisions of the Act; or to refuse the issuance to
registered voters their voter‘s identification card; 4. To accept an appointment, to assume office
and to actually serve as a member of the Election Registration Board although ineligible
thereto; or to appoint such ineligible person knowing him to be ineligible; 5. To interfere with,
impede, abscond for purposes of gain or to prevent the installation or use of computers and
devices and the processing, storage, generation and transmission of registration data or
information; 6. To gain, cause access to use, alter, destroy, or disclose any computer data,
program, system software, network, or any computer related devices, facilities, hardware or
equipment, whether classified or declassified; 7. Failure to provide certified voters and
deactivated voters list to candidates and heads of representatives of political parties upon
written request; 8. Failure to include the approved application for registration of a qualified
voter in the book of votes of a particular precinct or the omission of the name of a duly
registered voter in the certified list of voters of the precinct where he is duly registered
resulting in his failure to cast his vote during an election, plebiscite, referendum, initiative
and/or recall. The presence of the form or name in the book of voters or certified list of voters
in precincts other than where he is duly registered shall not be an excuse. 9. The posting of a list
of voters outside or at the door of a precinct on the day of an election, plebiscite, referendum,
initiative and/or recall, and which list is different in content from the certified list of voters
being used by the Board of Election Inspectors; and 10. Violation of any of the provisions of the
Act.

Penalty: Imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six months and shall not be
subject to probation. In addition, the guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer the
disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. If he is a foreigner,
he shall be deported after the prison term has been served. Any political party found guilty shall
be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than P100,000 but not more than P500,000.

Election Law Reviewer (2012) 85

Other election offenses under the Automated Election System Act

The following shall be penalized as election offenses, whether or not said acts affect the
electoral process or results

1. Utilizing without authorization, tampering with, destroying or stealing: a. Official ballots,

election returns, and certificates of canvass of votes used in the system b. Electronic devices or
their components, peripherals or supplies used in the system such as counting machine,
memory pack / diskette, memory pack receiver and computer set 2. Interfering with, impeding,
absconding for the purpose of gain, preventing the installation or use of computer counting
devices and the processing, storage, generation and transmission of election results, data or
information 3. Gaining or causing access to using, altering, destroying or disclosing any
computer data, program, system software, network, or any computer-related devices, facilities,
hardware or equipment, whether classified or declassified 4. Refusal of the citizens‘ arm to
present for perusal its copy of election return to the board of canvassers 5. Presentation by the
citizens; arm of tampered or spurious election returns 6. Refusal or failure to provide the
dominant majority and dominant minority parties or the citizens‘ arm their copy of election
returns 7. Failure to post the voters‘ list within the specified time, duration and in the
designated location shall constitute an election offense on the part of the election officer
concerned.

Penalty: imprisonment of 8 years and 1 day to 12 years without possibility of parole, and
perpetual disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. The
offender shall be perpetually disqualified to hold any non-elective public office.

Other election offenses under the Absentee Voting Act of 2003

1. Any officer or employee of the Philippine government who influences or attempts to

influence any person covered by the Act to vote, or not to vote, for a particular candidate.
Nothing in the Act shall be deemed to prohibit free discussion regarding politics or candidates
for public office 2. Any person who a. Deprives any person of any right secured in the Act, or to
give false information as to his/her name, address, or period
of residence for the purposes of establishing his eligibility or ineligibility to register or vote
under the Act; or conspires with another person for the purpose of encouraging the giving of
false information in order to establish the eligibility or ineligibility of any individual to register
or vote under the Act; or pays, or offers to pay, or accepts payment either for application to vote
in absentia or for voting b. Tampers with the ballot, the mail containing the ballots for overseas
absentee voters, the election returns, including the destruction, mutilation and manipulation
thereof c. Steals, destroys, conceals, mutilates or alters any record, document or paper as
required for purposes of this Act d. After being deputized by the COMELEC to undertake
activities in connection with the implementation of the Act, campaigns for or assists, in
whatever manner, candidates in the elections e. Not being a citizen of the Philippines,
participates, by word or deed, directly or indirectly, through qualified
organizations/associations, in any manner and at any stage of the Philippine political process
abroad, including participation in the campaign and elections 3. Any deputized agent who
refuses without justifiable ground, to serve or continue serving, or to comply with his sworn
duties after acceptance of his appointment 4. Any public officer who a. Shall cause the
preparation, printing, distribution of information material, or post the same in websites without
the prior approval of the commission b. Causes the transfer, promotion, extension, recall of any
member of the foreign service corps, including members of the attached agencies, or otherwise
cause the movement of any such member from his current post or position 1 year before and 3
months after the day of the elections, without securing the prior approval of the Commission

These prohibited acts are electoral offenses and punishable in the Philippines.

The penalties imposed under Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code as amended, shall be
imposed on any person found guilty of committing any of the prohibited acts as defined above.
The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person found
guilty under 2(b) without the benefit of the operation of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. If the
offender is a public officer or a candidate, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its maximum
period. In addition, the offender shall be sentenced to suffer
Election Law Reviewer (2012) 86
perpetual disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right to vote.

Immigrants and permanent residents who do not resume residence in the Philippines as
stipulated in their affidavit within 3 years after approval of his registration under the Act and
yet vote in the next elections contrary to the said section, shall be penalized by imprisonment of
not less than 1 year and shall be deemed disqualified. His passport shall be stamped ―not
allowed to vote.‖

Investigation and prosecution:

1. The COMELEC shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have the power concurrent
with the other prosecuting arms of the government to conduct preliminary investigation of all
election offenses punishable under the Omnibus Election Code, and to prosecute the same. The
Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government. 2. In the
event that the Commission fails to act on any complaint within four months from his filing, the
complainant may file the complaint with the office of the fiscal or with the DOJ for proper
investigation and prosecution, if warranted. 3. The Constitutional and statutory mandate for the
COMELEC to investigate and prosecute cases of violation of election laws translates, in effect, to
the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations in cases involving election offenses
for the twin purpose of filing an information in court and helping the Judge determine, in the
course of preliminary inquiry, whether or not a warrant of arrest should be issued.

Arrest in connection with the election campaign

1. A person may be arrested only upon a warrant of arrest issued by a competent judge after all
the requirements of the Constitution shall have been strictly complied with. 2. If the offense
charged is punishable under a presidential decree, whether originally or by amendment of a
previous law, the death penalty shall not be imposed upon the offender EXCEPT where the
murder, rape, or arson is involved. In all cases, the penalty shall not be higher than reclusion
perpetua and the offender shall be entitled to reasonable bail upon sufficient sureties to be
granted speedily by the competent court.

Prescription

After five years from the date of their commission.

 If the discovery of the offense be made in an election contest proceedings, the period of
prescription shall commence on the date on which the judgment in such proceedings becomes
final and executory.

Jurisdiction of courts

RTC – exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for
the violation of the Omnibus Election Code, MTC - those relating to the offense of failure to
register or failure to vote.

For the decision of the courts, appeal will lie as in other criminal cases.

Preferential disposition of election offenses

The investigation and prosecution of cases involving violations of the election laws shall be
given preferences and priority by the COMELEC and prosecuting officials. Their investigation
shall be commenced without delay, and shall be resolved by the investigating officer within five
days from its submission for resolution.

The courts shall likewise give preference to election offenses over all other cases EXCEPT
petitions for writ of habeas corpus.