ELECTION LAW – Atty. Gallant Soriano 2E A.Y. 2014 - 2015

ELECTION LAW – Atty. Gallant Soriano 2E A.Y. 2014 - 2015

JUAN FRIVALDO FRIVALDO VS. COMELEC COMELEC

1 e g a P

G.R. No. 87193, June 23, 1989

DOCTRINE: Articl Article e XI, Sectio Section n 9, of the Const Constitu itutio tion n that that all publ public ic ocial ocials s and employees owe the State and the Constitution allegiance at all times and the speci!c re"uirement in Section #$ of the %ocal &o'ernment Code that a candidate for local electi'e oce must be inter alia a citi(en of the Philippines and a "uali!ed 'oter of the constituency where he is running) Section 11* of the +mnibus lection Code pro'ides further that a "uali!ed 'oter must be, among other "uali!cations, a citi(en of the Philippines, this being an indispensable re"uirement for su-rage under Arti Articl cle e ., Sect Sectio ion n 1, of the the Cons Consti titu tuti tion on)) /ual /uali! i!ca cati tion ons s for for publ public ic oce oce are are cont contin inui uing ng re"ui e"uirremen ements ts and and must must be poss posses esse sed d not not only only at the the time time of appoin appointme tment nt or electi election on or assump assumptio tion n of oce oce but but durin during g the ocer0 ocer0s s entir entire e tenure) ilipino citi(enship, if pre'iously renounced, may be reac"uired by direct act of Congress, by naturali(ation, or by repatriation) FACTS: Petitioner2uan Petitioner2uan ri'aldo was proclaimed proclaimed go'ernor3elect go'ernor3elect of Sorsogon pro'ince on 2anuary $$, 1944 and assumed oce in due time) 5espondent Sal'ador stuye, president president of the %eague of 6unicipalities, 6unicipalities, Sorsogon Chapter, !led with the C+6%C a petition for the annulment of the election and proclamation of ri'aldo on the ground that he was not a ilipino citi(en, ha'ing been naturali(ed in the 7nited States States in 1948) 1948) ri'ald ri'aldos os Americ American an citi(e citi(ensh nship ip was admitt admitted ed by him and was re:ected in a certi!cation issued by a 7S ;istrict Court) o) >o) #*8 and P; >o) >o) *$?, *$?, Ph Phili ilippi ppine ne citi(e citi(ens nship hip may be reac" reac"uir uired ed by direct act of Congress, by naturali(ation, or by repatriation)ri'aldo did not in'o@e either of the !rst two methods and it cannot also be said that he was repatriated because e'en if he lose his naturali(ed citi(enship by !ling a certi!cate of candidacy with with the the C+6 C+6% %C, C, it did did not not and and coul could d not not ha'e ha'e the the e-ec e-ectt of auto automa mati tica call lly y restoring restoring his citi(enship in the Philippines Philippines that he had earlier renounced)he renounced)he reason for resol'ing ri'aldos citi(enship at the time of his election is the pro'ision in Article XI, Section 9, of the Constitution that all public ocials and employees owe ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


the State and the Constitution allegiance at all times and the speci!c re"uirement re"uirement $ ethat a candidate for local electi'e oce in Section #$ of the %ocal &o'ernment Code g a must must be inter inter alia alia a citi citi(e (en n of the the Ph Phil ilip ippi pine nes s and and a "ual "uali! i!ed ed 'ote 'oterr of the the P const constitu ituenc ency y where where he is runnin running) g) Sectio Section n 11* of the +mnib +mnibus us lect lection ion Code Code pro'ides further that a "uali!ed 'oter must be, among other "uali!cations, a citi(en of the Philippines, this being an indispensable re"uirement for su-rage under Article ., Sectio Section n 1, of the Consti Constitut tution ion)/u )/uali ali!ca !catio tions ns for public public oce oce are are contin continuin uing g re"ui re"uirrements ements and must must be posses possessed sed not only only at the the time time of appoin appointme tment nt or election or assumption of oce but during the ocer0s entire tenure) +nce any of the re"uired "uali!cations is lost, his title may be seasonably challenged)he fact that he was elected by the people of Sorsogon does not eEcuse this patent 'iolation of the salutary rule limiting public oce and employment only to the citi(ens of this country) he "uali!cations prescribed for electi'e oce cannot be erased by the electorate alone)
RAMON L. LA!O, JR. VS. COMELEC ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


G.R. No. 8"#"$ Au%u&' 1, 1989

8 e g a P

DOCTRINE: he will of the electorate cannot change the re"uirement re"uirement of the %ocal &o'ernment Code and the Constitution as would permit a foreigner owing his total allegi allegianc ance e to the the /ueen /ueen of Aus Austra tralia lia or at least least a statel stateless ess indi'idu indi'idual al owing owing no allegiance to the 5epublic of the Philippines, to preside o'er them as mayor of their city) +nly citi(ens of the Philippines ha'e that pri'ilege o'er their countrymen)he probability that many of those who 'oted for the public ocial with alleged lac@ of citi(enship may ha'e done so in the belief that he was "uali!ed, only strengthens the conclusion that the results of the election cannot nullify the "uali!cations for the oce held by him) hese "uali!cations are continuing re"uirementsF once any of them is lost during incumbency, title to the oce itself is deemed forfeited) FACTS:Petit Petition ioner er 5amon 5amon %abo %abo was procl proclaim aimed ed mayor mayor3el 3elect ect of Bagui Baguio o City City on 2anuary $G, 1944) /uestioning %abos citi(enship citi(enship as a "uali!cation for his oce, pri'ate respondent %ui(%ardi(abal !led a petition for "uo warranto on 2anuary $H, 1944, but the !ling fee was paid only on ebruary 1G, 1944, or twenty3one days after after his procl proclama amatio tion)% n)%abo aboco conte ntends nds that that the the petit petition ion should should not be gi'en gi'en due due course as it was !led beyond the reglementary period of ten days under Section $?8 of the +mnibus lection Code)Prior to the !ling of the petition for "uo warranto, warranto, two two admi admini nist stra rati ti'e 'e deci decisi sion ons s wer were rende enderred on the the "ues "uesti tion on of the the %abo %abos s citi(enship) he !rst was rendered by the C+6%C !nding %abo to be a citi(en of the Philippines on the ground that there was no direct proof that he had been formal formally ly natura naturali( li(ed ed as a citi(e citi(en n of Au Austr stral alia) ia) he second second was was rende rendere red d by the Commission on Immigration and ;eportation, acting upon %abos application for the cancellation of his alien certi!cate of registration)It registration)It ruled that he was not a citi(en of the Philippines based on the ocial statement of the Australian &o'ernment that %abo %abo was an Austra tralian ian citi( iti(en en by reaso eason n of his natur atura ali(a li(ati tio on in 19* 9*H) H) o) H8 as amended by P; >o) *$?, Philippine citi(enship may be reac"uired by direct act of Congress, by naturali(ation, or by repatriation) It did not appear appear in the recor record, d, nor did the petiti petitione onerr claim, claim, that that he has has reac reac"ui "uire red d Philippine citi(enship by any of these methods)or this reason, %abos claim for recognition as a citi(en of the Philippines must be denied) %abo was not a citi(en of the Philippines on the day of the local elections on 2anuary 14, 1944) IACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


therefore therefore ineligible as a candidate for mayor of Baguio City, under Section #$ of the # e %ocal &o'ernment Code which pro'ides that J An elective local ofcial must be a g a citizen o the Philippines, at least twenty-three years o age on election day, a P qualied voter registered as such in the barangay, municipality, city or province where he proposes to be elected KL 6oreo'er, e'en if %abo was elected by the maority, the people of that locality could not change the re"uirements of the %ocal &o'ernment Code and the Constitution) he electorate had no power to permit a foreigner owing his total allegiance to the /ueen of Australia, or at least a stateless indi'idual owing no allegiance to the 5epublic of the Philippines, to preside o'er them as mayor of their city) +nly citi(ens of the Philippines ha'e that pri'ilege o'er their countrymen)he probability that many of those who 'oted for the petitioner may may ha'e ha'e done done so in the the beli belief ef that that he was was "ual "uali! i!ed ed,, only only str strengt engthe hens ns the the conclusion that the results of the election cannot nullify the "uali!cations for the oce now held by him) hese "uali!cations are continuing re"uirementsF once any of them is lost during incumbency, title to the oce itself is deemed forfeited) In the case at bar, the citi(enship and 'oting re"uirements re"uirements were not subse"uently lost but were not possessed at all in the !rst place on the day of the election) he petitioner was dis"uali!ed from running as mayor and, although elected, is not now "uali!ed to ser'e as such)

Ro(u)*+e-M)/o& 0&. COMELEC G.R. No. 11997" Se'e(e 18, 199# ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


? e g a P

DOCTRINE: or the purpos purposes es of elect election ion law, law, resi residen dence ce is synon synonymo ymous us with domicile) ;omicile of origin is not easily lost) o successfully e-ect a change of domicile, one must demonstrateM N1O An actual remo'al or an actual change of domicileF N$O A bona !de intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new oneF and N8O Acts which correspond with the purpose) FACTS:Imelda 5omualde(36arcos and Cirilo 5oy 6onteo were candidates for the Congr Congress ession ional al seat seat in the irst irst ;istri ;istrict ct of %eyte) %eyte) 6onte 6onteo o !led !led a Peti Petitio tion n for Cancellation and ;is"uali!cation against 6arcos on the ground that the latter did not meet the constitutional re"uirement for residency, which is not less than one year year immedi immediate ately ly prece precedi ding ng the the electi election) on) 6arcos 6arcos declar declared ed in her certi! certi!ca cate te of candidacy that she has been a resident in the constituency where she see@s to be elected for se'en months only) 6arcos !led an Amended certi!cate of candidacy chan changi ging ng the the entr entry y se' se'en en mont months hs to sin since ce chil childh dhoo ood d in item item no) no) 4 of the the amended amended certi!cat certi!cate e but the Pro'inc Pro'incial ial lection lection Super'isor Super'isor of %eyte reected reected the certi!cate on the ground that it was !led out of time) 6arcos went ahead and !led the same certi!cate with the C+6%Cs
ISSUE:=het =hethe herr or not not peti petiti tion oner er has has sati satis! s!ed ed the the resid esiden ency cy re"ui e"uirremen ementt as mandated by Art) .I, Sec) H of the Constitution SC RULING: DS he court ruled that 5esidence, 5esidence, in its ordinary conception, implies the factual relationship of an indi'idual to a certain place) It is the physical presence of a person in a gi'en area, community or country) country)
ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


residence, not a statement in a certi!cate of candidacy which ought to be decisi'e H in determining whether or not and indi'idual has satis!ed the constitution0s e g residency "uali!cation re"uirement) It further held that 6arcos merely committed a P an honest mista@e in otting the word se'en in the space pro'ided for the residency "uali!cation re"uirement) An indi'idual does not lose his domicile e'en if he has li'ed and maintained residences in di-erent places) 6arcos held 'arious residences for di-erent purposes during the last four decades but none of these purposes une"ui'ocally point to an intention to abandon her domicile of origin in acloban, %eyte) %astly, it ruled that domicile of origin is not easily lost) o successfully e-ect a change of domicile, one must demonstrateM N1O An actual remo'al or an actual change of domicileF N$O A bona !de intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new oneF and N8O Acts which correspond with the purpose) All the three re"uirements must concur, otherwise, the presumption of continuity of residence cannot be rebutted)

Au4no 0&. COMELEC G.R. No. 1252"# Se'e(e 18, 199#



* DOCTRINE:

e g a P

;omicile of origin is not easily lost) o successfully e-ect a change ofdomicile, petitioner must pro'e an actual remo'al or an actual change of domicileF a bona !de intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one and de!nite acts which correspond with the purpose)

FACTS: Agapito A"uino is a candidate for a congressional post in the the new Second %egislati'e ;istrict of 6a@ati City) In his certi!cate of candidacy, he declared that he is a resident in the constituency where he see@s to be elected for a period of 1G months) hereafter, 6o'e 6a@ati, a duly registered political party, and 6ateo Bedon, Chairman of the %AAS3>7C;376;P of Barangay Cembo, 6a@ati City, !led a petition to dis"ualify on the ground that latter lac@ed the residence "uali!cation as a candidate for congressman which, under Section H, Art) .I of the 194* the Constitution, should be for a period not less than one N1O year immediately preceding the 6ay 4, 199? elections) he following day, A"uino !led another certi!cate of candidacy where he declared that he resided in the constituency where he sought to be elected for one NlO year and thirteen N18O days) ;uring the hearing of the case against A"uino, the latter presented among others, a lease contract between him Q eliciano) In 6ay H, 199?, he C+6%C declares A"uino eligible to run for the +ce of 5epresentati'e in the Second %egislati'e ;istrict of 6a@ati City) 6o'e 6a@ati QBedon !led a motion for reconsideration) After the elections were held, A"uino garnered the highest number of 'otes as against his two other competitors) herafter, 6o'e 6a@ati QBedon !led an 7rgent 6otion to suspend A"uinos proclamation) +n 6ay 1?, 199?, the C+6%C issued an +rder suspending A"uinos proclamation) A"uino !led a motion to lift the suspension, and on 2une $, the C+6%C resol'ed to proceed with the proclamation)
ISSUE: =+> petitioner failed to comply with the residency re"uirement mandated by the ConstitutionR SC RULING: DS he Court agreed with the C+6%C that in order that A"uino could "ualify as a candidate for 5epresentati'e of the Second ;istrict of 6a@ati City the latter must pro'e that he has established not ust residence but domicile of choice) It held that the place where a party actually or constructi'ely has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any gi'en time, e'entually intends to return and remain, i)e), his domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers when it spea@s of residence for the purposes of election law)



he Court upheld the C+6%Cs !ndings that A"uino is a resident of San 2ose, 4 Concepcion arlac for ?$ years immediately e preceding the 199$ elections, that his g birth certi!cate places Concepcion, arlac a as the birthplace of both of his parents) It P is therefore clear that domicile of origin of record up to the time of !ling of his most recent certi!cate of candidacy for the 199? elections was Concepcion, arlac) urthermore, A"uinos intention not to establish a permanent home in 6a@ati City was e'ident in his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one) ;omicile of origin is not easily lost) o successfully e-ect a change ofdomicile, petitioner must pro'e an actual remo'al or an actual change of domicileF a bona !de intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one and de!nite acts which correspond with the purpose)

De*) Toe 0&. Co(e*e/ G.R. No. 121#92.

Ju*6 #, 199"

Do/'4ne: In +e'e(4n4n% e'e ) /4(4n)* )/' 4n0o*0e& (o)* 'u4'u+e 'e Cou' 4& %u4+e+ 6 one o 'e %ene)* u*e& ')' /4(e& 4n ()*) 4n &e ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


4n0o*0e (o)* 'u4'u+e 4*e /4(e& 4n ()*) o44') +o no'. 9 e'e o no' ) /4(e 4n0o*0e& 'u4'u+e 4& u*'4()'e*6 ) e (o)* g ue&'4on o )/' )n+ euen'*6 a +een+& on )** 'e /4/u(&')n/e& P &uoun+4n% 'e 04o*)'4on o 'e &')'u'e. A/'u)* ;no*e+%e 6 'e en/e o 'e )/' ')' oe'6 e/e40e+ 4& &'o*en +4&*)6& ) +e%ee o ()*4/4ou& +e40)'4on o one<& 4%'u* oe'6 )& ')' 4/ )n4()'e+ 'e oe6 o 'e' 4/ 6 'e4 0e6 n)'ue )e /4(e& o (o)* 'u4'u+e. Te *e%)* e=e/' o o)'4on 4& on*6 'o &u&en+ 'e e>e/u'4on o 'e &en'en/e. F)/'&: +n 6ay H, 199?, Comelec declared 5onaldo ;ela orre dis"uali!ed from running as the 6ayor of Ca'inti, %aguna in the last 6ay 4, 199? citing Sec) #G NaO of 5A *1HG N%ocal &o't) Code 1991O that a person who is sentenced by !nal udgement for an o-ence in'ol'ing moral turpitude for an o-ense by 1 year or more of imprisonment within $ years after ser'ing sentence is dis"uali!ed from running for any electi'e local position) Comelec further held that ;ela orre was found to be guilty of 'iolation of the Anti fencing law by the 6unicipal rial Court on 2une 1, 199G and the decision was later armed on appeal in the 5C and became !nal by 2anuary 14, 1991) Comelec held that there eEist a legal ground to dis"ualify ;ela orre to run as a candidate since the nature of the o-ence of the Anti encing %aw certainly in'ol'es moral turpitude) ;ela orre claims that Section #G NaO of the %ocal &o'ernment Code does not apply to his case inasmuch as the probation granted him by the 6C on ;ecember $1, 199# which suspended the eEecution of the udgment of con'iction and all other legal conse"uences :owing therefrom, rendered inapplicable Section #G NaO as well)

I&&ue: 1)

=hether or not the crime of fencing in'ol'es moral turpitude) $) =hether or not a grant of probation a-ects Section #G NaOs applicability)

e*+: 1) Des) 6oral turpitude is de!ned as an act of baseness, 'ileness, or depra'ity in the pri'ate duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to ustice, honesty, modesty, or good morals) rom Sec $ of P; 1H1$ fencing may be committed when J The accused nows or should have nown that the said article, item, ob!ect or anything o value has been derived rom the proceeds o the crime o robbery or thet L 6oral turpitude is deducible from the third element) Actual @nowledge by the JfenceL of the fact that property recei'ed is stolen displays the same degree of malicious depri'ation of ones rightful property as that which animated the robbery or theft which, by their 'ery nature, are crimes of moral turpitude) And although the participation of each felon in the unlawful ta@ing di-ers in point in time and in degree, both the JfenceL and the actual perpetrators of ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


the robbery or theft in'aded ones peaceful dominion for gain 3 thus G J private dutiesL they owe their deliberately reneging in the process 1 Jcontrary to " " " accepted and JellowmenL o r Jsociety L in a manner e customary rule o right and duty " " g ", !ustice, honesty " " " or good morals# L a P $) >o) ;ela orres con'iction of fencing which we ha'e heretofore declared as a crime of moral turpitude and thus falling s"uarely under the dis"uali!cation found in Section #G NaO, subsists and remains totally una-ected notwithstanding the grant of probation

Moeno 0&. COMELEC )n+ Me?e& G.R. No. 1"8##5 Au%u&' 15, 255" DOCTRINE: In harmoni(ing the %&C and the Probation %aw, 'e Cou'& +ee( ')' 'e @o)'4on L) 4& )n e>/e'4on 'o 'e LGC. Sec) #GNaO which pro'ides that those sentenced by !nal udgment for an o-ense in'ol'ing moral turpitude or for an o-ense punishable by one N1O year or more of imprisonment, within two N$O years after ser'ing sentence, are dis"uali!ed from running for any electi'e local position and this should not include probationers since they do not ser'e the sentence



adudged to them since probation suspends it and !nal discharge of probation shall 1 operate to restore him all ci'il rights lost or suspended)

1 e g a P

FACTS:

In this Petition dated 2uly H, $GG?, 7rbano 6) 6oreno N6orenoO assails the 5esolutionC+6%C which dis"uali!ed him from running for the electi'e oce of Punong Barangay of Barangay Cabugao, ;aram, Samar in the 2uly 1?, $GG$ Synchroni(ed Barangay and Sangguniangabataan lections) he dis"uali!cation was an o- shoot of a petition !led by >orma %) 6ees on the ground that the latter was con'icted by !nal udgment of the crime of Arbitrary ;etention and was sentenced to su-er imprisonment of our N#O 6onths and +ne N1O ;ay to wo N$O Dears and our N#O 6onths by the 5egional rial Court, Branch $4 of Catbalogan, Samar on August $*, 1994) 6oreno !led an answer claiming that the petition states no cause of action because he was already granted probation) But the C+6%C since he was only released from probation on ;ecember $G, $GGG, dis"uali!cation shall commence on this date and end two N$O years thereafter thus he is still dis"uali!ed for the upcoming elections) Petitioner argues that the dis"uali!cation applies only to those who ha'e ser'ed their sentence and not to probationers because the latter do not ser'e the adudged sentence) he Probation %aw should allegedly be read as an eEception to the %ocal &o'ernment Code because it is a special law which applies only to probationers) urther, e'en assuming that he is dis"uali!ed, his subse"uent election as Punong Barangay allegedly constitutes an implied pardon of his pre'ious misconduct)
ISSUE: =hether or not petitioner is dis"uali!ed from running as Punong Barangay) SC RULING: >+ he Probation %aw is an eEception to the pro'ision of the %&C as the legislature did not intend the inclusion of probationers in the dis"uali!cation as it can be gleaned from its act when it can, through its legislati'e wisdom and power, include Probationers since those co'ered by the dis"uali!cation also co'ers those who can apply for Probation) Sec) #GNaO of the %ocal &o'ernment Code appears innocuous enough at !rst glance) he phrase Jser'ice of sentence,L understood in its general and common sense, means the con!nement of a con'ictedperson in a penal facility for the period adudged by the court) C+6%C has broadened the co'erage of the law to include e'en those who did not ser'e a day of their sentence because they were granted probation) It is to be noted that those who ha'e not ser'ed their sentence by reason of the grant of probation which, the Court reiterates, should not be e"uated with ser'ice of sentence, should not li@ewise be dis"uali!ed from running for a local electi'e oce because the two N$O3year period of ineligibility under Sec) #GNaO of the %ocal &o'ernment Code does not e'en begin to run) 6oreo'er, Sec) # of the Probation %aw speci!cally pro'ides that the grant of probation suspends the eEecution of the



sentence and during the period of probation, the probationer does not ser'e the $ penalty imposed upon him by the court but is merely re"uired to comply with all the 1 conditions prescribed in the probation order) e g a P



8 1 e g a P

Ge%o 0. Co(e*e/ )n+ !)&/o G.R. No. 12#9## June 19, 1997

DOCTRINE: Absent any eEpress pro'ision in the %aw, a newly enacted statute applies prospecti'ely and not retroacti'ely) here is no pro'ision in the statue which would clearly indicate that the same operates retroacti'ely) %eEprospicit, non respicit) he law loo@s forward, not bac@ward) hus, the %&C only applies to instances that occurred on 2anuary 1, 199$ and thereafter) FACTSM he instant special ci'il action for certiorari and prohibition impugns the resolution of the Commission on lections NC+6%CO en banc in SPA >o) 9?3$1$ dated 2uly 81, 199H, dismissing petitioners motion for reconsideration of an earlier resolution rendered by the C+6%Cs irst ;i'ision on +ctober H, 199?, which also dismissed the petition for dis"uali!cation!led by petitioner =ilmer ®o against pri'ate respondent enaordesillas) he Court heldM J=<5+5, I>;I>& < 5SP+>;> ;P7D S<5I <76B5+ BASC+ + < CID C+75 + 6A>I%A &7I%D + S5I+7S 6ISC+>;7C I> +IC +5 < SC+>; I6, < IS <5BD ;IS6ISS; 5+6 < S5.IC =I< +5I75 + A%% 5I56> B>IS A>; =I< P527;IC + 5I>SA6> + A>D P+SII+> I> < >AI+>A% +5 %+CA% &+.5>6>, I>C%7;I>& IS A&>CIS A>; I>S576>A%IIS, +5 &+.5>6>3+=>; +5 C+>5+%%; C+5P+5AI+>SL)



Basco ran for councilor of the Second ;istrict of 6anila and won in the three elections he participated in, respecti'ely # the 2an) 14, 1944 elections, 6ay 11, 199$ 1 synchroni(ed >ational lections and 6ay 4, 199?)
ISSUE:=hether or not respondent is dis"uali!ed because he was remo'ed from oce due to an administrati'e case which remo'ed him from +ce in 1941) SC RULING: >+ he court proclaimed that there was no gra'e abuse of discretion amounting to lac@ or eEcess of urisdiction e'inced by C+6%C in dismissing the petition for dis"uali!cation of Basco) In answering the contentions of ®o, the Court ruled that in construing Sec) #G NbO of the %&C, which pro'ides for the dis"uali!cation from running in an electi'e oce of people remo'ed from oce as a result of an Administrati'e Case which was promulgated and too@ e-ect on 2anuary 1, 199$) Absent any eEpress pro'ision in the %aw, a newly enacted statute applies prospecti'ely and not retroacti'ely)



? 1 e g a P

REES 0&. COMELEC GR No. 12595#, M)/ 17, 199"

DOCTRINE: he !ling of a petition for certiorari with the 5egional rial Court did not pre'ent the administrati'e decision from attaining !nality) An original action of certiorari is an independent action and does not interrupt the course of the principal action nor the running of the reglementary period in'ol'ed in the proceedingF a case shall not be rendered moot and academic if dilatory tactics were employed to render such case moot and academicF the second highest in 'otes cannot be proclaimed winner if should it appear that the candidate with the highest 'otes was declared dis"uali!ed) FACTS: Petitioner 5enato 7) 5eyes was the incumbent mayor of the municipality of Bongabong, +riental 6indoro) An administrati'e complaint was !led against him with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan) After learning that the Sanggunian had terminated the proceedings in the case and =AS AB+7 + 5>;5 27;&6>, petitioner !led a petition for certiorari, prohibition and inunction with the 5egional rial Court, alleging that the proceedings had been terminated without gi'ing him a chance to be heard) SA>&&7>IA>& PA>%A%A=I&A> found petitoner guilty) A temporary restraining order was issued by the court, enoining the Sangguniang Panlalawigan from proceeding with the case) As a result, the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan could not be ser'ed upon 5eyes) ollowing the eEpiration of the temporary restraining order and without any inunction being issued by the 5egional rial Court, an attempt was made to ser'e the decision upon petitioners counsel in 6anila) IACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


electi'e postition) >onetheless, because of the absence of any contrary order from H the C+6%C, petitioner 5eyes was 'oted for in the elections held on 6ay 4, 199?)

1 e

C+6%Cs Second ;i'ision issued g the "uestioned resolution, which found a P the petitioner ;IS/7A%II; from running for public oce, in conformity with the %ocal &o'ernment Code) 2ulius 6) &arcia, who obtained the second highest number of 'otes neEt to petitioner 5eyes inter'ened in the C+6%C, contending that because 5eyes was dis"uali!ed, he N&arciaO was entitled to be proclaimed mayor of Bongabong, +riental 6indoro) he 6unicipal Board of Can'assers of Bongabong, apparently unaware of the dis"uali!cation of 5eyes by the C+6%C, proclaimed him the duly3elected mayor)

ISSUES: 1) =hether or not the !ling of petition for certiorari pre'ented the Sangguning Panlalawigan from attaining !nality) $) =hether or not 5eyes0 reelection rendered the administrati'e complaint against him moot and academic) 8) =hether or not &arcia is entitled to be proclamed mayor of Bongabong)

RULING: 1) >o) he !ling of a petition for certiorari with the 5egional rial Court did not pre'ent the administrati'e decision from attaining !nality) An original action of certiorari is an independent action and does not interrupt the course of the principal action nor the running of the reglementary period in'ol'ed in the proceeding) Conse"uently, to arrest the course of the principal action during the pendency of the certiorari proceedings, there must be a restraining order or a writ of preliminary inunction from the appellate court directed to the lower court) In the case at bar, although a temporary restraining order was issued by the 5egional rial Court, no preliminary inunction was subse"uently issued) he temporary restraining order issued eEpired after $G days) rom that moment on, there was no more legal barrier to the ser'ice of the decision upon petitioner) he net result is that when the elections were held on 6ay 4, 199?, the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had already become !nal and eEecutory) $) >o)


Indeed, it appears that petitioner was gi'en sucient opportunity to !le his answer) *told that the complainant would be onetheless, he was 1 would then ha'e the opportunity to presenting his e'idence and that he NpetitionerO e g cross3eEamine the witnesses) But on the date set, he failed to appear) o) In the latest ruling on the "uestion, this Court saidM o simplistically assume that the second placer would ha'e recei'ed the other 'otes would be to substitute our udgment for the mind of the 'oter) he second placer is ust that, a second placer)


4 1 e g a P



9 1 e g a P

MERCADO 0&. MANBANO )n+ COMELEC GR No. 13#583, M)6 2", 1999

DOCTRINE: ;ual citi(enship is di-erent from dual allegiance) he prohibition in Section ? of Article I. of the 194* ConstitutionO was not with dual citi(ens per se but with naturali(ed citi(ens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin e'en after their naturali(ation) o) *1HG, Section #GNdO and in 5)A) >o) *4?#, Section $G must be understood as referring to Jdual allegiance)L FACTS: Petitioner rnesto S) 6ercado and pri'ate respondent duardo B) 6an(ano were candidates for 'ice mayor of the City of 6a@ati in the 6ay 11, 1994 elections) duardo B) 6an(ano Nsi uya duTO obtained the highest 'otesF followed by rnesto S) 6ercado and &abriel ;a(a) he proclamation of pri'ate respondent Nuya duO was suspended in 'iew of a pending petition for dis"uali!cation !led by a certain rnesto 6amaril who alleged that pri'ate respondent was not a citi(en of the Philippines but of the 7nited States) UBorn in the 7S Nus soliO, of ilipino parents Nus sanguinisOV In its resolution, the Second ;i'ision of the C+6%C granted the petition of 6amaril and ordered the cancellation of the certi!cate of candidacy of pri'ate respondent on the ground that he is a dual citi(en and, under Section #GNdO of the %ocal &o'ernment Code, persons with dual citi(enship are dis"uali!ed from running for any electi'e position) uya du !led a motion for reconsideration) he motion remained pending e'en until after the election held on 6ay 11, 1994) Accordingly, pursuant to the abo'e C+6%C 5esolution, the board of can'assers tabulated the 'otes cast for 'ice mayor of 6a@ati City but suspended the proclamation of the winner) Petitioner sought to inter'ene in the case)
ISSUE: ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


1) =hether or not uya du is dis"uali!ed from running for any electi'e position on G>+ the ground of dual citi(enship under the %&C)

$

RULING:

e g a P

1) >o) ;ual citi(enship is di-erent from dual allegiance) he former arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the di-erent laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states) or instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are citi(ens of a state which adheres to the principle of us sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of us soli) Such a person, ipso facto and without any 'oluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citi(en of both states) ;ual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some P+SII. AC, loyalty to two or more states) =hile dual citi(enship is in'oluntary, dual allegiance is the result of an indi'iduals 'olition) =ith respect to dual allegiance, Article I., Section ? of the Constitution pro'idesM J;ual allegiance of citi(ens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law)L his pro'ision was included in the 194* Constitution at the instance of Commissioner Blas ) +ple who eEplained its necessity as followsM ) ) ) I want to draw attention to the fact that dual allegiance is not dual citi(enship) I ha'e circulated a memorandum to the Bernas Committee according to which a dual allegiance 3 and I reiterate a dual allegiance 3 is larger and more threatening than that of mere double citi(enship which is seldom intentional and, perhaps, ne'er insidious) hat is often a function of the accident of miEed marriages or of birth on foreign soil) And so, I do not "uestion double citi(enship at all) Clearly, in including Section ? in Article I. on citi(enship, the concern of the Constitutional Commission was not with dual citi(ens per se but with naturali(ed citi(ens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin e'en after their naturali(ation) o) *1HG, Section #GNdO and in 5)A) >o) *4?#, Section $G must be understood as referring to Jdual allegiance)L Conse"uently, persons with mere dual citi(enship do not fall under this dis"uali!cation) 7nli@e those with dual allegiance, who must, therefore, be subect to strict process with respect to the termination of their status, for candidates with dual citi(enship, it should suce if, upon the !ling of their certi!cates of candidacy, they elect Philippine citi(enship to terminate their status as persons with dual citi(enship considering that their condition is the una'oidable conse"uence of con:icting laws of di-erent states) his is similar to the re"uirement that an applicant for naturali(ation must renounce Jall allegiance and !delity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or so'ereigntyL of which at the time he is a subect or citi(en before he can be issued a certi!cate of naturali(ation as a citi(en of the Philippines)



1 $ e g a P

Loe 0&. Co(e*e/ G.R. No. 182751.

Ju*6 23, 2558

Do/'4ne: C4'4en Re'en'4on )n+ Re)u4&4'4on A/' o 2553 e>e&&*6 o04+e& o 'e /on+4'4on& eoe 'o&e o e-)/u4e+ F4*44no /4'4en&4 ()6 un o u*4/ o/e 4n 'e @4*44ne&. 4.e. ')' 'e6 ();e ) e&on)* )n+ &on enun/4)'4on o )n6 )n+ )** oe4%n /4'4en&4 G)ne4n% 'e (o&' nu(e o 0o'e& +oe& no' 0)*4+)'e 'e e*e/'4on o ) +4&u)*4e+ /)n+4+)'e e/)u&e 'e )*4/)'4on o 'e /on&'4'u'4on)* )n+ &')'u'o6 o04&4on& on +4&u)*4/)'4on 4& no' ) ()''e o ou*)4'6. F)/'&: usebio ugenio ) %ope( was a candidate for the position of Chairman of Barangay Bagacay, San ;ionisio, Iloilo City in the synchroni(ed Barangay and Sangguniang abataan lections held on +ctober $9, $GG*) +n +ctober $?, $GG*, essie P) .illanue'a !led a petition before the Pro'incial lection Super'isor of the Pro'ince of Iloilo, praying for the dis"uali!cation of petitioner on the ground that he is an American citi(en, hence, ineligible from running for any public oce) %ope( argued that he is a dual citi(en, a ilipino and at the same time an American, by 'irtue of 5epublic Act N5)A)O >o) 9$$?, otherwise @nown as the Citi(enship 5etention and 5e3ac"uisition Act of $GG8) hus possessing all the "uali!cations to run for Barangay Chairman) After the 'otes for Barangay Chairman were can'assed, petitioner emerged as the winner) +n ebruary H, $GG4, C+6%C issued the assailed 5esolution granting the petition for dis"uali!cation of %ope(, ruling that he was not able to regain his ilipino citi(enship in the manner pro'ided by law) According to the poll body, to be able to "ualify as a candidate in the



elections, petitioner should ha'e made a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citi(enship which he failed $ to do)

I&&ue:

$ e g a P

Is %ope( a "uali!ed candidate in the electionsR

e*+: >o) 5)A) >o) 9$$? eEpressly pro'ides for the conditions before those who re3 ac"uired ilipino citi(enship may run for a public oce in the Philippines) Section ?N$O of the said law states that those who retain or rea"uire their citi(enship and see@ electi'e public oce must meet the "uali!cation for holding such public oce as re"uired by the Constitution and eEisting laws and, at the time of the !ling of the certi!cate of candidacy, ma@e a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citi(enship before any public ocer authori(ed to administer an oath) =hile %ope( re3ac"uired his ilipino citi(enship under the cited law, the law eEplicitly pro'ides that should one see@ electi'e public oce, he should !rst Jma@e a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citi(enship before any public ocer authori(ed to administer an oath) %ope( failed to comply with this re"uirement) here is no e'idence presented that will show that respondent complied with the pro'ision of 5)A) >o) 9$$?) he aant must state in clear and une"ui'ocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign citi(enship for it to be e-ecti'e) In the instant case, respondent %ope(s failure to renounce his American citi(enship as pro'en by the absence of an ada'it that will pro'e the contrary leads this Commission to belie'e that he failed to comply with the positi'e mandate of law) Absent such proof %ope( cannot be allowed respondent to run for Barangay Chairman of Barangay Bagacay) =hile it is true that petitioner won the elections, too@ his oath and began to discharge the functions of Barangay Chairman, his 'ictory cannot cure the defect of his candidacy) &arnering the most number of 'otes does not 'alidate the election of a dis"uali!ed candidate because the application of the constitutional and statutory pro'isions on dis"uali!cation is not a matter of popularity)



8 $ e g a P

Case no) 11

Ro+4%ue 0. COMELEC ;octrineM he 6ar"ue( ;ecision de!ning fugiti'e from usticeL includes not only those who :ee after con'iction to a'oid punishment but li@ewise who, after being charged, :ee to a'oid prosecution) he de!nition thus indicates that the intent to e'ade is the compelling factor that animates one0s :ight from a particular urisdiction) +b'iously, there can only be an intent to e'ade prosecution or punishment when there is @nowledge by the :eeing subect of an already instituted indictment, or of a promulgated udgment of con'iction) actsM Petitioner won the &obernatorial post in /ue(on City Pro'ince during the 6ay, 199$ elections) 5espondent 6ar"ue( then challenged such 'ictory contending that 5odrigue( was a Jfugiti'e from usticeL which is a ground for his dis"uali!cationineligibility under Section #GNeO of the %ocal &o'ernment Code) 6ar"ue( re'ealed that 5odrigue( left the 7S where a charge, !led on >o'ember 1$,194? is pending against the latter before the %os Angeles 6unicipal Court for fraudulent insurance claims, grand theft and attempted grand theft of personal property) Petitioner on the other hand contends that long before the felony complaint was allegedly !led, he was already in the Philippines and he did not @now of the !ling of the same nor was he aware that he was being proceeded against criminally) o) he 6ar"ue( ;ecision de!ning fugiti'e from usticeL includes not only those who :ee after con'iction to a'oid punishment but li@ewise who, after being charged, :ee to a'oid prosecution he intent to e'ade is the compelling factor that animates one0s :ight from a particular urisdiction) And ob'iously, there can only be an intent to e'ade prosecution or punishment when there is @nowledge by the :eeing subect of an already instituted indictment, or of a promulgated udgment of con'iction)



5odrigue(0 case ust cannot !t in this concept) here is no dispute that his arri'al in #preceded the !ling of the felony the Philippines from the 7S on 2une $?, 194?, $ 1$, 194? and of the issuance on complaint in the %os Angeles Court on >o'ember e g e'en date of the arrest warrant by that same foreign court, by almost ? months) It a P was clearly impossible for 5odrigue( to ha'e @nown about such felony complaint and arrest warrant at the time he left the 7S, as there was in fact no complaint and arrest warrant W much less con'iction W to spea@ of yet at such time)

Case no) 1$

M)'eo C))&4 0. CA ;octrineM o be "uali!ed to run for electi'e oce in the Philippines, the law re"uires that the candidate who is a green card holder must ha'e wai'ed his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country) he wai'er of an immigrant status must be manifested by some acts independent of and done prior to the !ling of candidacy for electi'e oce in the country for without such prior wai'er, he is dis"uali!ed to run for any oce) actsM 5espondent 6erito 6iguel won as the 6ayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan during the 1944 local elections) Petitioner Caasi sought 6eritos dis"uali!cation on the ground that the former is a green card holder, hence a permanents resident in 7S and not Bolinao) 6erito contended that although he holds a green card, he is not a permanent resident in 7S but in Bolinao, that he obtained the green card only for con'enience, and that he was able to 'ote in all pre'ious elections including the plebiscite, rati!cation of the Constitution and the Congressional elections in 194*) IssueM =)+)>) 6iguel had wai'ed his status as a permanent residentor of immigrant to 7SA prior to local elections in 1944R +) o be "uali!ed to run for electi'e oce in the Philippines, the law re"uires that the candidate who is a green card holder must ha'e wai'ed his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country, Sec) H4 of BP 441) he wai'er of an immigrant status must be manifested by some acts independent of and done prior to the !ling of candidacy for electi'e oce in the country for without such prior wai'er, he is dis"uali!ed to run for any oce) he reason for Section H4 of the +mnibus lection Code is not hard to !nd) 5esidence in the municipality where he intends to run for electi'e oce for at least one N1O year at the time of !ling his certi!cate of candidacy, is one of the "uali!cations that a candidate for electi'e public oce must possess NSec) #$, Chap) 1, itle $, %ocal &o'ernment CodeO) 6iguel did not possess that "uali!cation because he was a permanent resident of the 7nited States and he resided in Bolinao for a period of only three N8O months Nnot one yearO after his return to the Philippines in >o'ember 194* and before he ran for mayor of that municipality on 2anuary 14, 1944) ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


? $ e g a P

CASE TITLE: V4**)e V. COMELEC GR NO. 1$832" DATE: No0e(e 1#, 2551 DOCTRINE: he presence of the second element manifests moral turpitude) In People 's) Atty) e uanda, we held that a con'iction for 'iolation of B)P) Blg) $$ Jimports deceitL and Jcertainly relates to and a-ects the good moral character of a personK) he e-ects of the issuance of a worthless chec@, as we held in the landmar@ case of %o(ano 's) 6artine(, through 2ustice Pedro %) Dap, Jtranscends the pri'ate interests of the parties directly in'ol'ed in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large) he mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an inury to the publicL since the circulation of 'alueless commercial papers Jcan 'ery well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, inure the ban@ing system and e'entually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest)L FACTS: Both petitioner Pablo .illaber and respondent ;ouglas 5) Cougas were ri'al candidate for a congressional seat in the irst ;istrict of ;a'ao ;el Sur dating the 6ay 1#, $GG1 elections) .illaber !led his Certi!cate of Candidacy NC+CO for Congressman on eb) 1, $GG1 !le Cagas !led his on eb) $4, $GG1) +n 6arch # , $GG1, Cagas !led with the +ce of the Pro'incial lection Super'isor, C+6%C, ;a'ao ;el Sur, a consolidated petition to dis"ualify .illaber and to cancel the latter C+C) Cagas alleged in the said consolidated petition that on 6arch $, 199G, .illaber was con'icted by the 5C of 6anila for 'iolation of Batas Pambansa Blg)$$ and was sentenced to su-er 1 year imprisonment) he chec@ that bounced was in the sum of P1GG,GG)GG) Cagas further alleged that this crime in'ol'es moral turpitudeF hence under Section 1$ of the +mnibus lection Code N+CO, he is dis"uali!ed to run for any public oce) In his answer to the dis"uali!cation suit, .illaber countered mainly that his con'iction has not become !nal and eEecutory because the armed ;ecision was not remanded to the trial court for promulgation in his presence) urther, e'en if the udgment of con'iction was already !nal and eEecutory, it cannot be the basis for his dis"uali!cation since 'iolation of B)P) Blg) $$ does not in'ol'e moral turpitude) ISSUE:

=+> 'iolation of B)P) Blg) $$ in'ol'es moral turpitude

ELD: Des, 'iolation of B)P) Blg) $$ in'ol'es moral turpitude, because its 'iolation imports deceit and certainly relates to and a-ects the good moral character of a person) A drawer who issues an unfunded chec@ deliberately reneges on his pri'ate duties he owes his fellow men or society in a manner contract to accepted and customary rule of right and duty, ustice, honesty or food morals)



H $ e g a P

CAS 1#

CASE TITLE: De Gu()n 0&. !o)+ o C)n0)&&e& o L) Un4on GR NO. L-2$721 DATE: No0e(e 3, 192# DOCTRINE: =hen the lection %aw does not pro'ide that a departure from a prescribed form will be fatal and such departure has been due to an honest mista@e or misinterpretation of the lection %aw on the part of him who was obligated to obser'e it, and such departure has not been used as a means for fraudulent practices or for the intimidation of 'oters, and it is clear that there has been a free and honest eEpression of the popular will, the law will be held directory and such departure will be considered a harmless irregularity) FACTS: omas ;e &u(man !led a petition for mandamus before the Supreme Court see@ing to compel the Board of Can'assers of %a 7nion to annul the 'otes counted in fa'or of 2uan %ucero and to declare him as the duly elected go'ernor of %a 7nion based on the fact that certi!cate of candidacy !led by 2uan %ucero was not made under oath in 'iolation of Sec) #G# of the lection %aw) %ucero !led a motion to dismiss the petition on 8 grounds namelyM N1O that the court has no urisdiction on the subect3matter of the complaintF N$O that the court has no urisdiction o'er the person of the members of the board of can'assersF and N8O the petition failed to state a cause of action) ISSUE: =+> the failure of %ucero in !ling his certi!cate of candidacy under oath was fatal to his proclamation as the duly elected go'ernor of %a 7nion ELD: >o) he seeming irregularity in the !ling of %uceros certi!cate of candidacy does not in'alidate his election for the fundamental reason that after it was pro'en by the count of the 'otes that 2uan ) %ucero had obtained the maority of the legal 'otes, the will of the people cannot be frustrated by a technicality consisting in that his certi!cate of candidacy had not been properly sworn to) In the case of &ardiner 's) 5omulo, it was held that he pro'isions of the lection %aw declaring that a certain irregularity in an election procedure is fatal to the 'alidity of the ballot or of the returns, or when the purpose and spirit of the law would be plainly defeated by a substantial departure from the prescribed method, are mandatory) =hen the lection %aw does not pro'ide that a departure from a prescribed form will be fatal and such departure has been due to an honest mista@e or misinterpretation of the lection %aw on the part of him who was obligated to obser'e it, and such departure has not been used as a means for fraudulent practices or for the intimidation of 'oters, and it is clear that there has been a free and honest eEpression of the popular will, the law will be held directory and such departure will be considered a harmless irregularity) And in %ino %una 's) 5odrigue(, it was held that he rules and



regulations, for the conduct of elections, are mandatory before the election, but * when it is sought to enforce them after the election, they are held to be directory $ only, if that is possible, especially where, if e they are held to be mandatory, innocent g 'oters will be depri'ed of their 'otes without a any fault on their part) he 'arious and P numerous pro'isions of the lection %aw were adopted to assist the 'oters in their participation in the a-airs of the go'ernment and not to defeat that obect) =hen the 'oters ha'e honestly cast their ballots, the same should not be nulli!ed simply because the ocers appointed under the law to direct the election and guard the purity of the ballot ha'e not done their duty) he law pro'ides a remedy, by criminal action, against them) hey should be prosecuted criminally, and the will of the honest 'oter, as eEpressed through his ballot, should be protected and upheld)



CAS 1?

4 $ 0&. COMELEC CASE TITLE: RODILLAS e g a P

GR NO. 1195## DATE: Ju*6 15, 199# DOCTRINE: he re"uirement of an appeal fee is by no means a mere technicality of law or procedure) It is an essential re"uirement without which the decision appealed from would become !nal and eEecutory as if no appeal was !led at all) he right to appeal is merely a statutory pri'ilege and may be eEercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the pro'ision of the law) FACTS: Petitioner N5oy 5odillasO and pri'ate respondent NIsabelo;otimasO were both candidates for Punong Barangay in Barangay San 5afael, San >icolas, Pangasinan in the 6ay 9, 199# elections) Petitioner obtained H? 'otes as against pri'ate respondent0s H1 'otes) An election protest was conse"uently !led by respondent with the 9th 6unicipal Circuit rial Court of ayug W San >icolas presided by respondent 2udge) After due hearing, the 6unicipal Circuit rial Court rendered its udgment on 6ay $*, 199# !nding pri'ate respondent to ha'e obtained H4 'otes as against petitioner0s HH 'otes) +n 6ay 81, 199#, petitioner !led a notice of appeal with the 6unicipal Circuit rial Court and paid P1?G)GG as appeal fees with the 5egional rial Court, ayug, Pangasinan) +n 2une 1#, 199#, the 6unicipal Circuit rial Court forwarded the records of the case to the C+6%C) At the same time, petitioner paid with the C+6%C the amount of P?1G)GG) +n 2uly $G, 199#, the irst ;i'ision of the C+6%C denied the appeal for petitioner0s belated !ling of the appeal and legal research fees) the C+6%C committed gra'e abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal outright when the most it could ha'e done was to refuse to ta@e action on the case until the fees were paid in full ELD: >o, he procedure for perfecting an appeal from the decision of the 6unicipal rial Court in a barangay election protest case is set forth in the C+6%C 5ules of Procedure, as followsM Sec) 8) >otice of Appeal) W =ithin !'e N?O days after promulgation of the decision of the court, the aggrie'ed party may !le with said court a notice of appeal, and ser'e a copy thereof upon the attorney of record of the ad'erse party N5ule $$O) Sec) 8) Appeal fees) W he appellant in election cases shall pay an appeal fee as followsM NbO lection cases appealed from courts of limited urisdiction) ) ) ) P?GG)GG) Sec) 14) >on3payment of prescribed fees) If the fees abo'e prescribed are not paid, Commission may refuse to ta@e action until they are paid and dismiss the action or proceeding N5ule #GO) he mere !ling of the notice of appeal was not enough) It should be accompanied by the payment of the correct amount of appeal fee Petitioner had only !'e days from receipt of the decision of the 6unicipal Circuit rial Court or until 2une ?, 199# to perfect his appeal) =hile he timely !led his Amended >otice of Appeal on 2une $, 199#, he paid the amount of P?1G)GG representing the appeal and legal research fees only on 2une 1#, 199#) It is, therefore, e'ident that petitioner belatedly paid said amount) Besides, the correct amounts of the appeal and the research fees are P?GG)GG and P$G)GG respecti'ely, or P?$G)GG not P?1G)GG as paid by petitioner)



9 $ e g a P

@NOC ENERG DEVELO@MENT COR@ORATION )n+ MARCELINO TONGCO, e'4'4one&, 0&. NATIONAL LA!OR RELATIONS COMMISSION )n+ MANUEL S. @INEDA, e&on+en'&. G.R. No. 1559$7 M)6 31, 1993



DOCRTINE: Section HH of the +mnibus lection Code applies to ocers and G corporations, e'en those organi(ed employees in go'ernment3owned or controlled 8 under the general laws on incorporation and therefore not ha'ing an original or e g legislati'e charter, and e'en if they do not a fall under the Ci'il Ser'ice %aw but under P the %abor Code) In other words, Section HH constitutes ust cause for termination of employment in addition to those set forth in the %abor Code, as amended) FACTS: 6anuel S) Pineda was employed with the P>+C3;C Na subsidiary of P>+CO as &eothermal Construction Secretary) Pineda decided to run and e'entually proclaimed elected to, the oce of councilor) ;espite so "ualifying as councilor, and assuming his duties as such, he continued wor@ing for P>+C3;C as the latter0s &eothermal Construction Secretary) 7pon in"uiry by ongco N;ept 6anager P>+C3;CO, the %egal ;epartment rendered an opinion to the e-ect that 6anuel S) Pineda should be considered ipso facto resigned upon the !ling of his Certi!cate of Candidacy in >o'ember, 194*, in accordance with Section HH of the +mnibus lection Code) Pineda, in'o@ed that while the go'ernment3owned or controlled corporations are co'ered by the Ci'il Ser'ice %aw Nas is ta@en to mean in Sec) HH of the +mnibus lection Code of 194?O, the subsidiaries or corporate o-springs are not)

ISSUE: =hether or not an employee in a go'ernment3owned or controlled corporations without an original charter Nand therefore not co'ered by Ci'il Ser'ice %awO ne'ertheless falls within the scope of Section HH of the +mnibus lection Code) ELD: DS) $ec# %%# Any person holding a public appointive ofce or position, including active members o the Armed &orces o the Philippines, and ofcers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso acto resigned rom his ofce upon the ling o his certicate o candidacy# It was no doubt aware that in light of Section $ N1O, Article IX of the 194* ConstitutionM NaO go'ernment3owned or controlled corporations were of two N$O categories W those with original charters, and those organi(ed under the general law W and NbO employees of these corporations were of two N$O @inds W those co'ered by the Ci'il Ser'ice %aw, rules and regulations because employed in corporations ha'ing original charters, and those not subect to Ci'il Ser'ice %aw but to the %abor Code because employed in said corporations organi(ed under the general law, or the Corporation Code) Det Congress made no e-ort to distinguish between these two classes of go'ernment3owned or controlled corporations or their employees in the +mnibus lection Code or subse"uent related statutes, particularly as regards the rule that any employee in go'ernment3owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his oce upon the !ling of his certi!cate of candidacy) =hat all this imports is that Section HH of the +mnibus lection Code applies to ocers and employees in go'ernment3owned or controlled corporations, e'en those organi(ed under the general laws on incorporation and therefore not ha'ing an original or legislati'e charter, and e'en if they do not fall under the Ci'il Ser'ice %aw but under the %abor Code) In other words, Section HH constitutes ust cause for ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


termination of employment in addition to those set forth in the %abor Code, as 1 amended)

8 e g a P

RE@. MA. CATALINA L. GO0&.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No. 1$77$1

M)6 15, 2551

DOCTRINE: An administrati'e resolution can not contradict, much less amend or repeal a law, or supply a de!ciency in the law) Such re"uirement is merely directory, and is intended for con'enience) It is not mandatory or urisdictional) FACTS: +n $* ebruary $GG1, petitioner !led with the municipal election ocer of the municipality of Baybay, %eyte, a certi!cate of candidacy for mayor of Baybay, %eyte)+n $4 ebruary $GG1, at 11M#* p)m), petitioner !led with the pro'incial election super'isor of %eyte, with oce at acloban City, another certi!cate of candidacy for go'ernor of the pro'ince of %eyte) Simultaneously therewith, she attempted to !le with the pro'incial election super'isor an ada'it of withdrawal of ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


her candidacy for mayor of the municipality of Baybay, %eyte)
ISSUE: Is there a 'alid withdrawal of the certi!cate of candidacy for municipal mayor of Baybay, %eyteR ELD: DS) he !ling of the ada'it of withdrawal with the election ocer of Baybay, %eyte, at 1$M$4 a)m), 1 6arch $GG1 was a substantial compliance with the re"uirement of the law) $ection '(, )atas Pambansa )lg# **+, otherwise nown as the mnibus lection .ode, provides that/ 01o person shall be eligible or more than one ofce to be lled in the same election, and i he les his certicate o candidacy or more than one ofce, he shall not be eligible or any o them# 2owever, beore the e"piration o the period or the ling o certicates o candidacy, the person who has le more than one certicate o candidacy may declare under oath the ofce or which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certicate o candidacy or the other ofce or ofces#0 here is nothing in this Section which mandates that the ada'it of withdrawal must be !led with the same oce where the certi!cate of candidacy to be withdrawn was !led) hus, it can be !led directly with the main oce of the C+6%C, the oce of the regional election director concerned, the oce of the pro'incial election super'isor of the pro'ince to which the municipality in'ol'ed belongs, or the oce of the municipal election ocer of the said municipality) =hile it may be true that Section 1$ of C+6%C 5esolution >o) 8$?83A, adopted on $G >o'ember $GGG, re"uires that the withdrawal be !led before the election ocer of the place where the certi!cate of candidacy was !led,such re"uirement is merely directory, and is intended for con'enience) It is not mandatory or urisdictional) An administrati'e resolution can not contradict, much less amend or repeal a law, or supply a de!ciency in the law) IACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


8 8 e g a P



# 8 e g a P

Lun) 0 COMELEC G.R. No. 1"#983 A4* 2$, 2557

Do/'4neM If after the last day for the !ling of certi!cates of candidacy, an ocial candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is dis"uali!ed for any cause, only a person belonging to, and certi!ed by, the same political party may !le a certi!cate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was dis"uali!ed) If the death, withdrawal or dis"uali!cation should occur between the day before the election and mid3day of election day, said certi!cate may be !led with any board of election inspectors in the political subdi'ision where he is a candidate, or, in the case of candidates to be 'oted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission) F)/'&: %una !led her certi!cate of candidacy for the position of 'ice3mayor of %agayan, Abra as a substitute for


I&&ue: =hether the C+6%C committed gra'e abuse of discretion when it ruled ? that there was no 'alid substitution by %una for
8 e g a P

Ru*4n%: DS) Section ** of the lection Code prescribes the rules on substitution of an ocial candidate of a registered political party who dies, withdraws, or is dis"uali!ed for any cause after the last day for the !ling of certi!cate of candidacy) $ec# ''# .andidates in case o death, disqualication or withdrawal o another# - 3 ater the last day or the ling o certicates o candidacy, an ofcial candidate o a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualied or any cause, only a person belonging to, and certied by, the same political party may le a certicate o candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualied# The substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may le his certicate o candidacy or the ofce a4ected in accordance with the preceding sections not later than mid-day o election day o the election# 3 the death, withdrawal or disqualication should occur between the day beore the election and mid-day o election day, said certicate may be led with any board o election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a candidate, or, in the case o candidates to be voted or by the entire electorate o the country, with the .ommission# Since


H 8 e g a P

Mon&)*e 0. N4/o G.R. No. L-2#39 M)6 28, 19$9 Do/'4ne: he e'ident purposes of the law in re"uiring the !lling of certi!cates of candidacy and in !Eing a time limit therefor are NaO to enable the 'oter to @now, at least siEty days before a regular election the candidate among whom they are to ma@e the choice, and NbO to a'oid confusion and incon'enience in the tabulation of the 'otes castF for if the law did not con!ne the choice or election by the 'oter to duly registered candidates, there might be as many person 'oted for as there were 'oters, and 'otes might be cast e'en for un@nown or !ctitious person as a mar@ to identify the 'otes in fa'or of a candidate for another oce in the same election) F)/'&:6onsale withdrew his certi!cate of candidacy on +ctober 1G, 19#*, but on >o'ember *, attempted to re'i'e it by withdrawing his withdrawal) he C+6%C, howe'er, rules on >o'ember 4 that 6onsale could no longer be a candidate in spite of his desire to withdrawal) A can'ass of the election returns showed that Paulino 6) >ico recei'ed $,$91 'otesF another candidate, ®orio agutao1$H, 'otesF and the protestant 2ose ) 6onsale, none, e'idently because the 'ote cast in his fa'or had not been counted for the reason that he was not a registered candidate) Conse"uently, >ico was proclaimed elected) I&&ue: =hether a candidate who has withdrawn his certi!cate of candidacy may re'i'e it, either by withdrawing his letter of withdrawal or by !lling a new certi!cate of candidacy, after the deadline pro'ided by law for the !lling of such certi!cate) Ru*4n%: >o) $ection (+ o the 5evised lection .ode 65epublic Act 1o# +*78 providesthat 0no person shall be eligible unless, within the time "ed by law, he les a duty signed and sworn certicate o candidacy#0 $ection (% provides that 0at least si"ty days beore a regular election and thirty days at least beore a special election, the # # # certicates o candidacy or municipal ofces shall be led with the municipal secretary, who shall immediately send copies thereo to the polling place concerned, to the secretary o the provincial board and to the .ommission on lections#0 $ection (* urther that 0i, ater the e"piration o the time limit or lling certicate o candidacy, a candidate with a certicate o candidacy duly led should die or become disqualied, any legally qualied citizen may le a certicate o ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


candidacy or the ofce or which the deceased or disqualied person was a * candidate in accordance with the preceding section on or beore midday o the day 8 o the election, and, i the death or disqualication should occur between the day e g beore the election and the midday o election day, said certicate may be led with a P any board o inspection o the political division where he is a candidate or in the case o candidates to be voted or by the entire electorate, with the .ommission on lections#0 herefore, thirty3one days before the election, the protestant ceased to be candidate by his own 'oluntary act) =hen he withdrew his withdrawal of his certi!cate of candidacy, can only be considered as a new certi!cate of candidacy which, ha'ing been !led only four days before the election, could not legally be accepted under the law, which eEpressly pro'ides that such certi!cate should be !led at siEty days before the election) he only instance wherein the law permit the !lling of a certi!cate ofcandidacy after the eEpiration of the time limit for !ling it is when a candidate with a certi!cate of candidacy duty !led dies or becomes dis"uali!ed)he Commission on lection was, therefore, right in holding as it did that the protestant can no longer be a candidate in spite of his desire to withdraw his withdrawal)



4 8 e g a P

CASE TITLE: CI@RIANO VS COMELEC G.R. No. 1#8835 Au%u&' 15, 255$ DOCTRINE: he denial of due course or cancellation of ones certi!cate of candidacy is not within the administrati'e powers of the Commission, but rather calls for the eEercise of its "uasi3udicial functions) FACTS: Petitioner llan 6arie Cipriano !led with the C+6%C her certi!cate of candidacy as Chairman of the $angguniang 9abataan NSO for the S elections) +n the date of the elections, the C+6%C issued 5esolution >o) ?8H8 adopting the recommendation of the Commissions %aw ;epartment to deny due course to or cancel the certi!cates of candidacy of se'eral candidates for the S elections, including petitioner) he ruling was based on the !ndings of the %aw ;epartment that petitioner and all the other candidates a-ected by said resolution were not registered 'oters in the barangay where they intended to run) ;espite this, her name was not deleted on the list and she later on landed as the winner) After learning of 5esolution >o) ?8H8, petitioner !led with the C+6%C a motion for reconsideration of said resolution) Petitioner claimed that she was denied due process when her certi!cate of candidacy was cancelled by the Commission without notice and hearing) he C+6%C asserts that it is authori(ed to motu proprio deny due course to or cancel a certi!cate of candidacy based on its broad administrati'e power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relati'e to the conduct of elections) ISSUE: =hether the C+6%C, in the eEercise of its administrati'e power erred in dis"ualifying petitioner) ELD: DS) It was an error on the part of the C+6%C to dis"ualify a candidate while in the eEercise of its administrati'e power) he C+6%C as an independent Constitutional Commission is clothed with the three powers of go'ernment 3 eEecuti'e or administrati'e, legislati'e, and "uasi3udicial powers) Administrati'e power is concerned with the wor@ of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper go'ernmental organs) +n the other hand, where a power rests in udgment or discretion, so that it is of udicial nature or character, but does not in'ol'e the eEercise of functions of a udge, or is conferred upon an ocer other than a udicial ocer, it is deemed "uasi3udicial)he Commission may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a certi!cate of candidacy !led in due form) =hen a candidate !les his certi!cate of candidacy, the C+6%C has a ministerial duty to recei'e and ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


ac@nowledge its receipt) =hile the Commission may loo@ into patent defects in the 9 certi!cates, it may not go into matters not appearing on their face) he "uestion of 8 eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate e is thus beyond the usual and proper g cogni(ance of said body) a P

he denial of due course or cancellation of ones certi!cate of candidacy is not within the administrati'e powers of the Commission, but rather calls for the eEercise of its "uasi3udicial functions) he determination whether a material representation in the certi!cate of candidacy is false or not, or the determination whether a candidate is eligible for the position he is see@ing in'ol'es a determination of fact where both parties must be allowed to adduce e'idence in support of their contentions) Because the resolution of such fact may result to a depri'ation of ones right to run for public oce, or, as in this case, ones right to hold public oce, it is only proper and fair that the candidate concerned be noti!ed of the proceedings against him and that he be gi'en the opportunity to refute the allegations against him)



G # e g a P

CASE TITLE: A!CEDE VS IM@ERIAL



G.R. No. L-13551

1 #

M)/ 18, 19#8

e g a P

DOCTRINE: in the absence of clear and positi'e pro'ision to such e-ect in the law, the C+6%C cannot pass upon the "uestion as to whether a candidate is "uali!ed to run for the aspired position) FACTS: In anticipation of the upcoming presidential election, petitioner Alfredo Abcede !led before the C+6%C a certi!cate of candidacy for presidency) After which, the C+6%C celled its attention together with other candidates to appear before the same on to show cause why their certi!cates of candidacy should be considered as !led in good faith and to be gi'en due course) After due hearing, at which Abcede appeared and introduced e'idence, the Commission issued a resolution, ordering that the certi!cates of candidacy of including that of said petitioner, shall not be gi'en due course) he commission reasoned that with petitioners platform of redeeming the 2apanese war notes which is in 'iolation of raud +rder >o) $ issued by Bureau of Posts, his !ling of certi!cate of candidacy was attendant with bad faithas he was engaged in a scheme to obtain money from the public by means of false or fraudulent pretenses) he Commission is con'inced that the certi!cate of candidacy of Alfredo Abcede was !led for moti'es other than a bona de desire to obtain a substantial number of 'otes of the electorate) ISSUE: =hether or not the C+6%C erred in denying the certi!cate of candidacy of petitioner) ELD: Des) he C+6%C erred in denying petitioners certi!cate of candidacy) he 5e'ised lection Code in Section 8H and 8* mandates the commission to accept certi!cate of candidacy and shall order the preparation and distribution of copies for the same to all the election precincts of the Philippines) he laws gi'e the Commission no discretion to gi'e or not to gi'e due course to petitioner0s certi!cate of candidacy) +n the contrary, the Commission has, admittedly, the ministerial duty to recei'e said certi!cate of candidacy) As the branch of the e"ecutive department to which the Constitution has gi'en the eEclusi'e charge of the  enorcement and administration of all laws relati'e to the conduct of elections, the power of decision of the Commission is limited to purely administrative "uestions) NArticle X, sec) $, Constitution of the Philippines)O It cannot therefore rule as to who whether among the indi'iduals who e"ually possess the minimum re"uirements of the law can run and pursue its candidacy) he "uestion whether in order to enoy those bene!ts W a candidate must be capable of understanding the full meaning of his acts and the true signi!cance of election, and must ha'e W over a month prior, to the elections the tiniest chance to obtain the fa'orable indorsement of a substantial portion of the electorate, is a matter of policy , not of administration and enorcement of the law, which policy must be determined by .ongress in the eEercise of its legislative unctions) Apart from the absence of speci!c statutory grant of such general, broad ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


power as the Commission claims to ha'e, it is dubious minate and unde!ned $ manner necessary in order that it could pass upon the factors relied upon in said # made, in the absence of clear and resolution and such grant must not he deemed e g positi'e pro'ision to such e-ect, which is absent in the case at bar) a P

Case >o) $$

G)04+) 0. S)*e& ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


G.R. No. 12$893 A4* 18, 1997

8 #

Do/'4ne: e g he general rule is that an electi'e ocial of the Sangguniang abataan must a P not be more than $1 years of age on the day of his election) he only eEception is when the ocial reaches the age of $1 years during his incumbency) he S ocial must hot ha'e turned $1 years old before his election) 5eading Section #$8 NbO together with Section #$4 of the %ocal &o'ernment Code, the latest date at which an S electi'e ocial turns $1 years old is on the day of his election) he maEimum age of a youth ocial must therefore be eEactly $1 years on election day)

F)/'&: +n April 18, 199H, petitioner !led her certi!cate of candidacy for the position of Chairman, Sangguning abataan, Brgy) San %oren(o, Bangui, Ilocos >orte) he election ocer disappro'ed petitioners certi!cate of candidacy on the ground that she eEceeded the age limit) he C+6%C en banc issued an order directing the Board of lection ellers and Board of Can'assers to suspend the proclamation of petitioner in the e'ent that she won) Petitioner garnered *4 'otes as against respondents 'otes of *H) In accordance with the C+6%C order, the Board of lection ellers did not proclaim petitioner as the winner)
I&&ue: =hether or not petitioner was eligible to run as S Chairman)

e*+: >o) In the case at bar, petitioner was $1 years old, 11 months and ? days on the day of the election) If the candidate is o'er the maEimum age limit on the day of the election, he is ineligible) In 'iew whereof, petitioner is declared ineligible for being o'er the age "uali!cation for candidacy and is ordered to 'acate her position as S Chairman)

Case >o) $8

Loon% 0. Co(e*e/ G.R. No. 9398". De/e(e 22, 1992. Do/'4ne:



Section *4 of the +mnibus lection Code states that in case a !ling a # certi!cate of candidacy has committed false representation, a petition to cancel the #$? days from the time the certi!cate certi!cate of candidacy may be !led within e g was !led) Section 8, 5ule $? of the Comelec a5ules of Procedure which pro'ides that P the petition for dis"uali!cation may be !led at any time after the last day for !ling a certi!cate of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation cannot apply)

F)/'&: Petitioner %oong !led his certi!cate of candidacy on 1? 2anuary 199G Nthe last day for the !ling of the sameO for 'ice3go'ernor of the 6uslim 6indanao Autonomous 5egion) Pri'ate respondent !led the petition NSPA 9G3GGHO to dis"ualify candidate %oong on the ground that petitioner made a false representation as to his age only #9 days from the date %oongs certi!cate of candidacy was !led, and 1H days after the election itself)

I&&ue: =hether the petition for dis"uali!cation was timely !led)

e*+: >o) Section *4 of the +mnibus lection Code states that in case a !ling a certi!cate of candidacy has committed false representation, a petition to cancel the certi!cate of the aforesaid person may be !led within $? days from the time the certi!cate was !led) Clearly SPA 9G3GGH was !led beyond the $?3day period) =e do not agree with respondents contention that the petition for dis"uali!cation may be !led at any time after the last day for !ling a certi!cate of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation, applying Section 8, 5ule $? of the Comelec 5ules of Procedure) he petition !led to dis"ualify petitioner on the ground that the latter made a false representation in his certi!cate of candidacy as to his age does not fall under the grounds for dis"uali!cation in 5ule $?) 6oreo'er, Section 8, 5ule $? is merely a procedural rule issued by respondent Commission which has no legislati'e power) hus, it cannot supersede Section *4 of the +mnibus lection Code which is a legislati'e enactment)

Case >o) $#

L)no' 0. Co(e*e/ G.R. No. 1"$8#8. No0e(e 1", 255". Do/'4ne: he essential elements of Section 4G of the +mnibus lection Code are N1O a person engages in an election campaign or partisan political acti'ityF N$O the act is designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidateF N8O the act is done outside the campaign period) he second element re"uires the eEistence of a ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


Jcandidate)L 7nder Section *9NaO, a candidate is one who Jhas !led a certi!cate of ? candidacyL to an electi'e public oce) 7nless one has !led his certi!cate of # candidacy, he is not a Jcandidate)L e g a P

F)/'&:

+n 19 6arch $GG#, petitioners !led a petition for dis"uali!cation under Section 4G of the +mnibus lection Code against .icente usebio before the Comelec) Petitioners alleged that usebio engaged in an election campaign in 'arious forms on 'arious occasions outside the designated campaign period) he Comelec granted the petition, but later on re'ersed the same with the issuance of another order)

I&&ue: =hether or not respondent was guilty of Section 4G of the +mnibus lection Code)

e*+: >o) Because of the early deadline of $ 2anuary $GG# for purposes of printing of ocial ballots, usebio !led his certi!cate of candidacy on $9 ;ecember $GG8) Congress, howe'er, ne'er intended the !ling of a certi!cate of candidacy before $ 2anuary $GG# to ma@e the person !ling to become immediately a JcandidateL for purposes other than the printing of ballots) 7nder Section 8NbO of the +mnibus lection Code, the campaign period for local ocials commences #? days before election day) or the $GG# local elections, this puts the campaign period on $# 6arch $GG#) his also puts the last day for !ling of C+Cs on $8 6arch $GG#) usebio is deemed to ha'e !led his C+C on this date for purposes other than the printing of ballots because this is the interpretation of Section 4G most fa'orable to the one charged with this 'iolation) hus, usebio became a JcandidateL only on $8 6arch $GG#) Acts committed by usebio prior to his becoming a JcandidateL e'en constituting election campaigning or partisan election acti'ities are not punishable under Section 4G)

!LO UM@AR ADIONG 0&. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No. 1539#". M)/ 31, 1992 DOCTRINE: C+6%C cannot impose prohibitions which will curtail rights enshrined under the Constitution) FACTS: +n 2anuary 18, 199$, the C+6%C promulgated 5esolution >o) $8#*) Petitioner Blo7mparAdiong, a senatorial candidate in the 6ay 11, 199$ elections



now assails the C+6%C0s 5esolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals H and stic@ers in mobile places li@e cars and other mo'ing 'ehicles) Sec $1NfO 5A # $18#) e g a P

ISSUE: whether or not the Commission on lections NC+6%CO may prohibit the posting of decals and stic@ers on mobile places, public or pri'ate, and limit their location or publication to the authori(ed posting areas that it !Ees) RULING: he C+6%C0s prohibition is null and 'oid on constitutional grounds) irst W the prohibition unduly infringes on the citi(en0s fundamental right of free speech enshrined in the Constitution NSec) #, Article IIIO) In the >ational Press Club, case, the Court had occasion to reiterate the preferred status of freedom of eEpression e'en as it 'alidated C+6%C regulation of campaigns through political ad'ertisements) =hen faced with border line situations where freedom to spea@ by a candidate or party and freedom to @now on the part of the electorate are in'o@ed against actions intended for maintaining clean and free elections, the police, local ocials and C+6%C, should lean in fa'or of freedom) Prohibition did not pass the clear and preset danger rule) Second W the "uestioned prohibition premised on the statute and as couched in the resolution is 'oid for o'erbreadth) It is so broad that it encompasses e'en the citi(en0s pri'ate property, which in this case is a pri'ately3 owned 'ehicle) In conse"uence of this prohibition, another cardinal rule prescribed by the Constitution would be 'iolated) Section 1, Article III of the Bill of 5ights pro'ides that no person shall be depri'ed of his property without due process of law) hird W the constitutional obecti'e to gi'e a rich candidate and a poor candidate e"ual opportunity to inform the electorate as regards their candidacies, mandated by Article II, Section $H and Article XIII, section 1 in relation to Article IX NcO Section # of the Constitution, is not impaired by posting decals and stic@ers on cars and other pri'ate 'ehicles) It is to be reiterated that the posting of decals and stic@ers on cars, calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other mo'ing 'ehicles needs the consent of the owner of the 'ehicle)
A!S-C!N !ROADCASTING COR@ORATION 0&. COMELEC G.R. No. 133$8". J)nu)6 28, 2555 DOCTRINE: C+6%C cannot ban eEit polls) FACTS: ABS3CB> N%ope( &roupO has prepared a proect, with P5 groups, to conduct radio3. co'erage of the elections E EE and to ma@e UanV eEit sur'ey of the E EE 'ote during the elections for national ocials particularly for President and .ice President, results of which shall be UbroadcastV immediately)U$V he electoral body belie'ed that such proect might con:ict with the ocial Comelec count, as well as the unocial "uic@ count of the >ational 6o'ement for ree lections N>amfrelO) It



also noted that it had not authori(ed or deputi(ed Petitioner ABS3CB> to underta@e * the eEit sur'ey) C+75 ISS7; 5S5AI>I>& +5;5) APP5+.; BD C+6%C)

# e

ISSUE: =hether or not the 5espondent g Commission acted with gra'e abuse of a P of urisdiction when it appro'ed the discretion amounting to a lac@ or eEcess issuance of a restraining order enoining the petitioner or any Uother groupV, its agents or representati'es from conducting eEit polls during the E EE 6ay 11 elections) RULING: he holding of eEit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press) arrowly tailored countermeasures may be prescribed by the Comelec so as to minimi(e or suppress the incidental problems in the conduct of eEit polls, without transgressing in any manner the fundamental rights of our people) An eEit poll is a species of electoral sur'ey conducted by "uali!ed indi'iduals or groups of indi'iduals for the purpose of determining the probable result of an election by con!dentially as@ing randomly selected 'oters whom they ha'e 'oted for, immediately after they ha'e ocially cast their ballots) he results of the sur'ey are announced to the public, usually through the mass media, to gi'e an ad'ance o'er'iew of how, in the opinion of the polling indi'iduals or organi(ations, the electorate 'oted) In our electoral history, eEit polls had not been resorted to until the recent 6ay 11, 1994 elections)

So/4)* e)'e S')'4on&, In/oo)'e+ )n+ )())*)n @u*4&4n% Coo)'4on, Do4n% !u&4ne&& A& M)n4*) S')n+)+ vs. Co((4&&4on On E*e/'4on& G.R. No. 1$7#71. M)6 #, 2551



4 #

DOCTRINE: Ban on publication sur'eys is e in'alid being contrary to the Constitution) g a P

FACTS:

Petitioner S=S is a pri'ate non3stoc@, non3pro!t social research institution conducting sur'eys in 'arious !elds)Petitioner PC publishes the 6anila Standard, a newspaper of general circulation, which features newsworthy items of information including election sur'eys) Petitioners brought this action for prohibition to enoin the Comelec from enforcing Section ?)# of 5)A) >o) 9GGH Nair lection ActO, which pro'idesM JSur'eys a-ecting national candidates shall not be published !fteen days before an election and sur'eys a-ecting local candidates shall not be published se'en days before an election)Lo implement Section ?)#, 5esolution 8H8H, Section $#NhO, dated of the C+6%C enoins)

ISSUE: =+> Sec)?)# of 5)A) >o) 9GGH and 5esolution 8H8H Sec) $#NhO arein'alidR

ELD:

DS) =e hold that Section ?)# of 5)A) >o) 9GGH constitutes an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech, eEpression, and the press) o be sure, section ?)# lays a prior restraint on freedom of speech, eEpression, and the press by prohibiting the publication of election sur'ey results a-ecting candidates within the prescribed periods of !fteen N1?O days immediately preceding a national election and se'en N*O days before a local election) Because of the preferred status of the constitutional rights of speech, eEpression, and the press, such a measure is 'itiated by a weighty presumption of in'alidity) he purpose of Art) IX3C, section # is to ensure e"ual opportunity, time, and space and the right of reply, including reasonable, e"ual rates therefor for public information campaigns and forums among candidates) o) 9GGH, section 1# has lifted the ban and now allows candidates to ad'ertise their candidacies in print and broadcast media) Indeed, to sustain the ban on the publication of sur'ey results would sanction the censorship of all spea@ing by candidates in an election on the ground that the usual bombasts and hyperbolic claims made during the campaigns can confuse 'oters and thus debase the electoral process)In sum, we hold that ?)# is in'alid because N1O it imposes a prior ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


restraint on the freedom of eEpression, N$O it is a direct and total 9 suppression of a category of eEpression e'en though such suppression # is only for a limited period, and eN8O the go'ernmental interest sought to g be promoted can be achie'ed a by means other than the suppression of P freedom of eEpression)

F)n/4&/o I. C)0evs. Co((4&&4on On E*e/'4on&, Ree&en'e+ !6 I'& C)4()n, !en?)(4n S. A)*o&, E&(e)*+) A(o)-L)+), In e C))/4'6 A& A/'4n% D4e/'o I0, N)'4on)* C)4')* Ju+4/4)* Re%4on, Co((4&&4on On E*e/'4on&, An+ Te So*4/4'o Gene)* G.R. No. 1"2777. Au%u&' 31, 255$

DOCTRINE: Ban on media ad'ertising is 'alid to pre'ent premature campaign and e"uali(e the situation of candidates, that is, within the regulation and super'ision of the C+6%C)

FACTS:

Petitioner entered into formal agreements with certain establishments to endorse their products) Petitioner who !led his certi!cate of candidacy for the position of Senator was directed to comply with the pro'ision of Section 8$ of 5esolution >o H?$G) Petitioner, howe'er, re"uested the Comelec that he be eEempted from the application of Section 8$, considering that the billboards ad'erted to are mere product endorsements and cannot be construed as paraphernalia for premature campaigning under the rules) he Comelec ordered him to remo'e or cause the remo'al of the billboards, or to co'er them from public 'iew pending the appro'al of his re"uest) Petitioner Cha'e( as@s this Court that the C+6%C be enoined from enforcing the assailed pro'ision)

ISSUE:

=+> 5esolution >o) H?$G is in'alidR

ELD:

>+) 7nder the +mnibus lection Code, Jelection campaignL or Jpartisan political acti'ityL is de!ned as an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a ACIACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+


public oce) It is true that when petitioner entered into the contracts G or agreements to endorse certain products, he acted as a pri'ate ?to lend his name and image to these indi'idual and had all the right e g products)


1 ? e g a P

JUANITO C. @ILAR 0 COMELEC G.R. No. 11#2$#, Ju*6 11, 199# DOCTRINE: The law maes no distinction or qualication as to whether the candidate pursued his candidacy or withdrew the same, the term 0every candidate0 must be deemed to reer not only to a candidate who pursued his campaign, but also to one who withdrew his candidacy#3t is not improbable that a candidate who withdrew his candidacy has accepted contributions and incurred e"penditures, even in the short span o his campaign# The evil sought to be prevented by the law is not all too remote#3t is noteworthy that 5esolution 1o# :(;* even contemplates the situation where a candidate may not have received any contribution or made any e"penditure# $uch a candidate is not e"cused rom ling a statement, and is in act required to le a statement to that e4ect# ect such act#0 FACTS:+n 6arch $$, 199$, petitioner !led his certi!cate of candidacy for the position of member of the SangguniangPanlalawigan of the Pro'ince of Isabela)+n 6arch $?, 199$, petitioner withdrew his certi!cate of candidacy)In 6)5) >os) 983 $H?# and 9#3GGH?, the C+6%C imposed upon petitioner the !ne of P1G, GGG)GG for failure to !le his statement of contributions and eEpenditures)In 6)5) >o) 9#3 G?9#, the C+6%C denied the motion for reconsideration of petitioner and deemed !nal 6)5) >os) 983$H?# and 9#3GGH?) Petitioner went to the C+6%C n )anc N7>; >o) 9#3G#GO, which denied the petition)o)Section 1# of 5)A) >o) *1HH states that e'ery candidate has the obligation to !le his statement of contributions and eEpenditures)=ell3recogni(ed is



the rule that where the law does not distinguish, courts should not $ distinguish, o) $8#4 in implementation or interpretation of the pro'isions of 5)A) >o) *1HH on election contributions and eEpenditures) Section 18 of 5esolution >o) $8#4 categorically refers to all candidates who !led their certi!cates of candidacy)urthermore, Section 1# of the law uses the word shall) As a general rule, the use of the word shall in a statute implies that the statute is mandatory, and imposes a duty which may be enforced, particularly if public policy is in fa'or of this meaning or where public interest is in'ol'ed) =e apply the general rule) It is noteworthy that 5esolution >o) $8#4 e'en contemplates the situation where a candidate may not ha'e recei'ed any contribution or made any eEpenditure) Such a candidate is not eEcused from !ling a statement, and is in fact re"uired to !le a statement to that e-ect) 7nder Section 1? of 5esolution >o) $8#4, it is pro'ided that if a candidate or treasurer of the party has recei'ed no contribution, made no eEpenditure, or has no pending obligation, the statement shall re:ect such fact)%astly, we note that under the fourth paragraph of Section *8 of the B)P) Blg) 441 or the +mnibus lection Code of the Philippines, it is pro'ided that the !ling or withdrawal of certi!cate of candidacy shall not a-ect whate'er ci'il, criminal or administrati'e liabilities which a candidate may ha'e incurred) Petitioner0s withdrawal of his candidacy did not eEtinguish his liability for the administrati'e !ne)



8 ? e g a P

MARCELINO C. LI!ANAN 0 RET G.R. No. 129783, De/. 22, 1997



# ?

DOCTRINE: ?hat should, instead, be given eweight is the consistent rule laid down g by the 25T that a ballot is considered valid aand genuine or as long as it bears any P one o these authenticating mars, to wit/ 6a8 the .@. watermar, or 6b8 the signature or initials, or thumbprint o the .hairman o the )3B and, 6c8 in those cases where the .@. watermars are blurred or not readily apparent to the naed eye, the presence o red and blue bers in the ballots#3t is only when none o these mars appears e"tant that the ballot can be considered spurious and sub!ect to re!ection# FACTS:Petitioner 6arcelino%ibanan and pri'ate respondent 2ose 5amire( were among the candidates for the lone congressional seat of astern Samar in the 6ay 199? elections) After the can'ass of the returns was made on 6ay 18, 199?, the Pro'incial Board of Can'assers of astern Samar proclaimed respondent 5amire( to ha'e been duly elected 5epresentati'e of the ;istrict)Petitioner %ibanan!led an election protest before the <5) he <5 ruled in fa'or of respondent 5amire() Petitioner %ibanan mo'ed for a reconsideration of the decision of the <5 arguingthat the absence of the BI Chairman0s signature at the bac@ of the ballots could not but indicate that the ballots were not those issued to the 'oters during the elections)
ISSUE:=hether or not the <5 committed gra'e abuse of discretion in ruling that the absence of the signature of the Chairman of the BI in the ballots did not render the ballots spurious) ELD:>o) Section $# of 5)A) >o) *1HH, pro'idesM J Signature of Chairman at the bac@ of 'ery Ballot) 3 In e'ery case before deli'ering an ocial ballot to the 'oter, the Chairman of the Board of lection Inspectors shall, in the presence of the 'oter, aE his signature at the bac@ thereof) ailure to authenticate shall be noted in the



minutes of the Board of lection Inspectors and shall constitute an election o-ense ? punishable under Section $H8 and $H# of the +mnibus lection Code)

? e g a P

here is really nothing in the abo'e law to the e-ect that a ballot which is not so authenticated shall thereby be deemed spurious) he law merely renders the BI Chairman accountable for such failure) he courts may not, in the guise of interpretation, enlarge the scope of a statute and embrace situations neither pro'ided nor intended by the lawma@ers) =here the words and phrases of a statute are not obscure and ambiguous, the meaning and intention of the legislature should be determined from the language employed, and where there is no ambiguity in the words, there should be no room for construction) =hat should, instead, be gi'en weight is the consistent rule laid down by the <5 that a ballot is considered 'alid and genuine for as long as it bears any one of these authenticating mar@s, to witM NaO the C+6%C watermar@, or NbO the signature or initials, or thumbprint of the Chairman of the BIF and, NcO in those cases where the C+6%C watermar@s are blurred or not readily apparent to the na@ed eye, the presence of red and blue !bers in the ballots)It is only when none of these mar@s appears eEtant that the ballot can be considered spurious and subect to reection)



@un)*)n 0. Co(e*e/ H G.R. No. 12"""9, A4* 27 1998.

? e

g ;+C5I>M a P %aws and statutes go'erning election contests especially appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public ocials may not be defeated by technical in!rmities) ACSM wo losing mayoralty candidates NPun(alan and 6analastasO in Pampanga !led separate election protests before the trial court challenging the results of the elections alleging massi'e fraud and illegal electoral practices against the declared winner N6enesesO)he trial court found that there was massi'e fraud and upon eEamination of the contested ballots declared Pun(alan as the winner) 6eneses ele'ated the case to the C+6%C with the latter annulling the trial courts decision and arming the proclamation of 6eneses) Pun(alan appealed to the Supreme Court) ISS7M 1) =hether or not the C+6%C acted with gra'e abuse of discretion in declaring as 'alid the ballots credited to 6eneses which did not bear the signature of the BI ChairmanR

$) =hether or not the trial courts !nding on the authenticity of the handwritings on the ballots must pre'ail o'er the !ndings of the C+6%CR <%;M 1) >o) C+6%C did not commit gra'e abuse of discretion) BP Blg) 441 N+mnibus lection CodeO pro'ides that in reading and appreciation of ballots, e'ery ballot shall be presumed to be 'alid unless there is a clear and good reason to ustify its reection) ational and %ocal lections and for lectoral 5eformsL, re"uires the BI Chairman to aE his signature at the bac@ of the ballot, failure to aE the same does not in'alidate the ballot) $) >o) he trial courts !nding must gi'e way to the !ndings of the C+6%C) he C+6%C is a constitutional commission 'ested with the eEclusi'e original urisdiction o'er election contests in'ol'ing regional, pro'incial and city ocials, as well as appellate urisdiction o'er election protests in'ol'ing electi'e municipal and barangay ocials) IACI+ ) B5>AB ) CA%.+ ) ;%+S SA>+S ) 5>A>; ) ) <+6A> 6ABA> ) 6A>%A>&I ) >IPA% ) PASA ) 5DS ) A6+>;+>& ) +/75+

ELECTION LAW – Atty. Gallant Soriano 2E A.Y. 2014 - 2015

Recommend Documents