Election Law; Case Doctrines
Page 1 of 6
Yetyet2013
RECALL ELECTIONS Garcia vs. Comelec G.R. No. 111511. October 5, 1993
Claudio vs. Comelec G.R. No. 140560. May 4, 2000
To be sure, there is nothing in the Constitution that will remotely suggest that the people have the "sole and exclusive right to decide on whether to initiate a recall proceeding." The Constitution did not provide for any mode, let alone a single mode, of initiating recall elections. Neither did it prohibit the adoption of multiple modes of initiating recall elections. There are two limitations in paragraph (b) on the holding of recalls; (1) that no recall shall take place within one year from the date of assumption of office of the official concerned, and (2) that no recall shall take place within one year immediately preceding a regular local election. But however the period of prohibition is determined, the principle announced is that the purpose of the limitation is to provide a reasonable basis for evaluating the performance of an elective local official. Hence, in this case, as long as the election is held outside the one-year period, the preliminary proceedings to initiate a recall can be held even before the end of the first year in office of a local official.
FAILURE OF ELECTIONS; SPECIAL ELECTIONS Sison vs. Comelec Under the pertinent codal provision of the Omnibus Election Code, there are only three (3) instances where a G.R. No. 134096. March 3, 1999 failure of elections may be declared, namely: (a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; (b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or (c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes Ampatuan vs. Comelec G.R. No. 149803. January 31, 2002
ELECTION OFFENSES People vs. Ferrer G.R. No. L-8957 April 29, 1957
The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed office does not deprive the Comelec of its authority to annul any canvass and illegal proclamation. In the case at bar, we cannot assume that petitioners' proclamation and assumption into office on June 30, 2001, was legal precisely because the conduct by which the elections were held was put in issue by respondents in their petition for annulment of election results and/or declaration of failure of elections. Nevertheless, the information is defective, because it charges two violations of the Revised Election Code, to wit: section 51 to which a heavier penalty is attached, and section 54 for which a lighter penalty is provided. And the prosecuting attorneys had that in mind when at the end of the information filed by them they stated: "Contrary to Sections 51 and 54 in relation to Sections 183, 184 and 185 of Republic Act No. 180, as amended." Causing cigarettes which are things of value to be distributed, made unlawful by section 51 and punished by section 183, cannot be deemed a necessary means to commit the lesser violation of section 54 were the penalty attached to it taken into consideration.
Election Law; Case Doctrines
Page 2 of 6
Yetyet2013
Mappala vs. Nunez A.M. No. RTJ-94-1208. January 26, 1995
To support a conviction under Section 261(p) of the Omnibus Election Code, it is not necessary that the deadly weapon should have been seized from the accused while he was in the precinct or within a radius of 100 meters therefrom. It is enough that the accused carried the deadly weapon "in the polling place and within a radius of one hundred meters thereof" during any of the specified days and hours.
People vs. Bayona February 16, 1935 G.R. No. L-42288
The law which the defendant violated is a statutory provision, and the intent with which he violated it is immaterial. It may be conceded that the defendant did not intend to intimidate any elector or to violate the law in any other way, but when he got out of his automobile and carried his revolver inside of the fence surrounding the polling place, he committed the act complained of, and he committed it willfully. The act prohibited by the Election Law was complete.
Lozano vs. Yorac G.R. No. 94521. October 28, 1991
No clear and convincing proof exists to show that respondent Binay was indeed engaged in vote buying. The traditional gift-giving of the Municipality of Makati during the Christmas season is not refuted. That it was implemented by respondent Binay as OIC Mayor of Makati at that time does not sufficiently establish that respondent was trying to influence and induce his constituents to vote for him.
Ong vs. Martinez G.R. No. 87743 August 21, 1990
The appointment of respondent is not covered by the election ban contemplated under Sec. 261 (g) of the Omnibus Election Code. The permanent vacancy for councilor exists and its filling up is governed by the Local Government Code while the appointment referred to in the election ban provision is covered by the Civil Service Law.
Regalado vs. Comelec G.R. No. 115962. February 15, 2000
Thus, contrary to petitioner's claim, a transfer under §24(c) of P.D. No. 807 in fact includes personnel movement from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency. As the Solicitor General notes, "the word transfer or detail, as used [above], is modified by the word whatever. This indicates that any movement of personnel from one station to another, whether or not in the same office or agency, during the election is covered by the prohibition."
Comelec vs. Tagle G.R. Nos. 148948 February 17, 2003
&
Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646 on Prosecution of Vote-Buying and Vote-Selling: 148951-60. “The giver, offeror, the promisor as well as the solicitor, acceptor, recipient and conspirator referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 shall be liable as principals: Provided, That any person, otherwise guilty under said paragraphs who voluntarily gives information and willingly testifies on any violation thereof in any official investigation or proceeding shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for the offenses with reference to which his information and testimony were given: Provided, further, That nothing herein shall exempt such person from criminal prosecution for perjury or false testimony.”
Election Law; Case Doctrines
Page 3 of 6
Yetyet2013
ELECTION ADJUDICATION SYSTEM Jalosjos vs. Comelec G.R. No. 192474, July 26, 2012
Lokin vs. CIBAC G.R. Nos. 179431-31 June 22, 2010
The court has already settled the question of when the jurisdiction of the Comelec ends and when that of the HRET begins. The proclamation of a congressional candidate following the election divests the Comelec of jurisdiction over disputed relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the proclaimed representative in favour of the HRET. Sec. 8 of RA No. 7941 enumerates only 3 instances in which the party list organization can substitute another person in place of the nominee whose names has been submitted to the Comelec, namely; (a) when the nominee dies; (b) when the nominee withdraws in writing his nomination; and (c) when the nominee becomes incapacitated. Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 expanded the exceptions under Section 8 of RA No. 7941 by adding another exception which is nomination withdrawn by the party.
APPEAL, ELECTION PROTEST and QUO WARRANTO As a general rue, the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent Dumayas vs. Comelec filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving 337 SCRA 358 the Comelec of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. Exceptions: (a) the board of canvassers was improperly constituted; (b) quo warranto was not the proper remedy; (c) what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but a petition to annul a proclamation; (d) the filing of quo warranto or election protest was expressly made without prejudice to the pre-proclamation controversy; (e) the proclamation was null and void. Sande vs. Comelec 102 SCRA 1
A petition to disqualify a candidate based on a change of political party affiliation within six months immediately preceding of following an election filed with the Court after January 30, 1980, arising from a preproclamation controversy, should be dismissed without prejudice to such ground being passed upon in a proper election protest or quo warranto proceeding.
Luna vs. Comelec G.R. No. 165983, April 24, 2007
There was no petition to deny due course to or cancel the certificate of candidacy of Roger. The Comelec only declared that Roger did not file a valid COC and, thus, was not a valid candidate in the petition to deny due course to or cancel Luna’s certificate of candidacy. In effect, the Comelec, without the proper proceedings, cancelled Roger’s COC and declared the substitution by Luna invalid.
Loreto-Go vs. Comelec G.R. No. 147741, May 10, 2001
There is nothing in Section 73 of the OEC which mandates that the affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same office where the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed. Thus, it can be filed directly with the main office of the Comelec, the office of the regional election director concerned, the office of the provincial election supervisor of the province to which the municipality involved belongs, or the office of the
Election Law; Case Doctrines
Page 4 of 6
Yetyet2013
municipality election officer of the said municipality. Divinagracia vs. Comelec Resolution No. 8486 (2008): G.R. Nos. 186007 & 186016, July 27, 1. If the appellant had already paid the amount of P1,000 before the RTC, MTC or lower courts within the 2009 five day period and appeal was given due course by the court, said appellant is required to pay the Comelec appeal fee of P3,200 at the Comelec, within a period of 15 days from the time of the filing of the notice of appeal with the lower court. If no payment is made within the prescribed period, the appeal shall be dismissed. 2. If the appellant failed to pay the P1,000 appeal fee with the lower court within 5 day period but the case was nonetheless elevated to the Commission, the appeal shall be dismissed outright by the Comelec. 3. Santos vs. Comelec A valid exercise of the discretion to allow execution pending appeal requires that it should be based “upon G.R. No. 155618, March 26, 2003 good reasons to be stated in a special order”. The following constitute good reasons and a combination of 2 or more of them will suffice to grant execution pending appeal: 1. Public interest involved/ will of electorate; 2. Shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office; 3. Length of time that the election contest has been pending. 4. Navarosa vs. Comelec To grant execution pending appeal in election protest cases, the following requisites must concur: (1) there G.R. No. 157957, September 18, 2003 must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to adverse party; (2) there must be good reasons for the execution pending appeal; and (3) the order granting execution pending appeal must state the good reasons. Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous RA 9186 and Resolution 6486 create an additional qualification that all candidates for Senator must be Drugs Board & PDEA certified as drug free. No provision in the Constitution authorizing the Congress or Comelec to expand the G. R. No. 157870, November 3, 2008 qualification requirement of candidates for Senator.
Election Law; Case Doctrines
Page 5 of 6
Yetyet2013
RECALL ELECTION Definition Legal Basis Termination of office of elective officials by loss of confidence
1.Local Government Code 2.1987 Constitution
Who may initiate? 1. Registered Voters 2. Preparatory Recall Assembly (no longer a mode under Comelec Resolution No. 7505 & RA 9244)
Subject of Recall 1. Provincial, City. Municipal, and Barangay Elective Officials
Voting Population a. At least 20,000 – 25% b. At least 75,000 – 20% c. At least 300,000 – 15% d. Over 300,000 – 10%
When should NOT be filed? a. Not earlier than 1 year from the date of assumption of office
Limitations
Where should be filed? Only once. 1. City, municipal, *Resignation is barangay – not a bar to Office of recall election. Election Officer b. Within 1 2. Provincial – year Provincial immediately Election preceding Supervisor the next regular election
SPECIAL ELECTIONS Omnibus Election Code (Sec.7) R.A. 7166 (Sec.4) 2 kinds of Special Election Vacancy – 18 months or more before the regular -at least 1 year before the expiration of the term No serious arm threat – regular election officers election Date – within 60 days from occurrence of -not earlier than 60 days nor longer than 90 days Serious Arm threats – placed under COMELEC vacancy from occurrence of vacancy.
ELECTION ADJUDICATION SYSTEM Who may file? How many days? What elective
MTC/MC
RTC
COMELEC
HRET
SET
PET
candidate w/n 10 days Brgy & SK
candidate w/n 10 days Municipal officilas
candidate w/n 10 days Provincial, regional
candidate w/n 15 days District, partylist,
candidate w/n 15 days senators
Candidate President/ vice
Election Law; Case Doctrines
Page 6 of 6
Yetyet2013
positions? Revisions? Pilot precinct rule?
Use of PCOS
Use of PCOS 20%
and city Use of PCOS 20%
congressman Use of PCOS 25%
Use of PCOS 25%
president Use of PCOS
