Tolentino vs.

COMELEC
Facts
In February 2001, shortly after Gloria Macapagals succession of the Presidency,
she nominated Senator Teofisto Guingona as Vice-President. After Senator Guingona was
confirmed as the new Vice-President the Senate passed resolution No. 84 certifying his
seat in the senate became vacant and called on COMELEC to fill the vacancy through a
special election. Resolution No. 84 further provided that the "Senatorial candidate
garnering the 13th highest number of votes shall serve only for the unexpired term of
former Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr.
Nobody filed a certificate of candidacy to fill the position of senator to serve the
unexpired 3 year term in the special election. All the senatorial candidates filed the
certificates of candidacy for the 12 regular Senate seats with a 6yearr term each.
COMELEC distributed nationwide official documents
The List of Candidates did not provide 2 different categories of Senate seats to be
voted, namely the 12 regular 6-year term seats and the single 3-year term seat. Nor did
the ballots provide a separate space for the candidate to be voted in the special election
but instead provided 13 spaces for 13 senatorial seats
Petitioners assailed the manner by which the special election was conducted for
violating the precedents set by the 1951 & 1955 special elections, both of which were
held simultaneously and yet distinctly with the regular general elections.
Thus, the petitioners pray that the Court declare that: no special elections were
held and that Comelecs Resolution that proclaim the Senatorial candidate who obtained
the 13th highest number of votes as a duly elected be declared null and void.

Issue(s):
Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the matter because the petitioners
argue that the proceeding is a quo warranto proceeding where only the Senate
Electoral Tribunal has jurisdiction
Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi
Whether or not the special elections that was held validly

Held:
Yes, the Court has jurisdiction because what the petitioners are questioning here is
the validity of the special election and not the right of the public officer
Yes, because the issues raised in the case are of transcendental importance and
paramount to the people because it involves the peoples right of suffrage
Yes, the special election to fill the remaining term of former Senator Guingona was
validly held on May of 2001 although the COMELEC did not follow the requirements and
procedures of RA 6645 it still valid. Because Sec 2 of RA 6645, as amended by RA 7166
already provides that in case of vacancy in the Senate, the special election to fill such

vacancy shall be held simultaneously with the next succeeding regular election. Also
because there was no proof that the manner of election in determining the winner of the
special election misled the voters. The law also does not require a special canvasing of
votes be made for the special election.

Dissenting opinion
PUNO, J., dissenting
The electorate should have been informed of the time, place & manner of conduct of the
May 14 2001 special election for the single senatorial seat for the unexpired term of VP
Guingona. The cases of Tolentino, UNIDO, Blo Umpar Adiong & Hassan all deepened the
doctrine that a meaningful exercise of the right of suffrage in a genuinely free,
orderly&honest election is predicated upon an informed electorate. The cases of Bince &
Benito also teach us that correct ascertainment of the will of the people is equally
necessary. In not allowing the voter to separately indicate the candidate he voted for the
3yr senatorial term, the voter was deprived of his right to make an informed judgment
based on his own reasons&valuations. Thus, his true will in the special election was not
ascertained.
It is the ponencias argument that RA 6645, as amended by RA 7166 already provides
that in case of vacancy in the Senate, the special election to fill such vacancy shall be
held simultaneously w/ the next succeeding regular election. However, this is NOT the
intention of the said laws, for they still require that the COMELEC issue an official notice
of call of special elections. Likewise, neither RA 6645 nor RA 7166 contemplates the
integration of the special election into the regular election whereby candidates who filed
certificates of candidacy for the regular elections also automatically stand as candidates
in the special election. The Omnibus Election Code is clear that a candidate can run for
only 1 position in an election.
The ponencia likewise cites the Duquette case to lend support to its thesis that statutory
notice suffices. In Duquette, it was held that in the absence of an official notice of the
special election mandated by law to be held simultaneously w/ the regular election, there
should be actual notice of the electorate, as proven by the voting of a significant
percentage of the electorate. In the case at bar however, the number of votes cast for
the special election cannot be ascertained as the ballot did not indicate separately the
votes for special election. Thus, there is neither official notice nor proof of actual notice.
The Senates observation that the procedure for the special election that it adopted
would be lost costly for the govt as the ballots need not be printed separately does not
justify the manner of the May 14 2001 special election. We cannot bargain the
electorates fundamental right to vote intelligently w/ of the coin of convenience.
Besides, even w/ the Senate observation, the regular ballot had to be modified anyway,
to include a 13th space.

Reliance on RA 6645 as amended by RA 7166 is ERRONEOUS, for under it, it is the

COMELEC and NOT the Senate wc is supposed to call & hold special elections in case of
vacancy. The Senate has NO POWER to impose on the COMELEC the procedure for the
special election.
In fine, the ponencias ruling will not only be a step back in time but also constitute a fall
in the nations rise to democracy. Free elections does not only mean that the voter is not
physically restrained from going to the polling booth but also that the voter is
unrestrained by the bondage of ignorance.