Election Final Autosaved

Election Laws
EXAM II- ATTY. JOCELYN ARRO-VALENCIA

CONFESOR, DEL ROSARIO, DELOS SANTOS
July 25, 2016
POWER OF INVESTIGATION
Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(6)
File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative,
petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters;
investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of
violations of election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
Section 265, Omnibus Election Code provides that the Comelec
exercises that exclusive authority and the Comelec may delegate
the matter of preliminary investigation to the prosecuting arms of
the Government.
Sec. 265. Prosecution. - The Commission shall, through its duly
authorized legal officers, have the exclusive power to conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under
this Code, and to prosecute the same. The Commission may avail of
the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government:
Provided, however, That in the event that the Commission fails to act
on any complaint within four months from his filing, the complainant
may file the complaint with the office of the fiscal or with the Ministry
of Justice for proper investigation and prosecution, if warranted.
(OEC)
However, Sec. 43 of RA 9369, amended Section 265 of the OEC.
The prosecutorial powers of the Comelec as held by the Court in
Batag vs. Comelec 595 SCRA is now shared with the Office of the
Prosecution. That is the significance. Thus:
SECTION 265. Prosecution. - The Commission shall, through its
duly authorized legal officers, have the power, concurrent with the
other prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct preliminary
investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and
prosecute the same. (Sec. 43, RA 9369, amended Section 265 of the
OEC)
How are election cases initiated?

Herman Tiu Laurel vs. RTC
323 SCRA 778
Facts: Chairman Respondent Pardo sent a verified-letter complaint
to the Director of the Law Department of Comelec Balbuena
charging Herman Tiu Laurel with Falsification of Public Documents
stated that he is a natural born Filipino when he is not.
investigated by the Law Department - EO Case No. 95-843
Law Department Report recommended the filing of an
Information
Comelec en banc, in a meeting, resolved to file an Information
Director Balbuena filed the Information for violation of Sec. 74 in
relation to Sec. 262 of the OEC.
RTC denied Motion to Quash filed by Herman; MR denied
CA upheld the RTC; the complaint signed by Pardo was in the
nature of motu proprio complaint filed by the COMELEC and
signed by the Chairman, pursuant to Rule 34, Section 4 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Pardos referral of the complaint
to the Comelecs Law Department and the subsequent
preliminary investigation were done in accordance with the
rules.
directed the RTC to remand the case to COMELEC for reception
of Petitioners motion for reconsideration
MR denied
Petitioner claims that the complaint filed by Pardo was not in the
nature of a motu proprio complaint filed by the Comelec as it
was filed by himself alone. Pardo as a citizen did not have the
requisite authority to file his complaint firectly with the Comelecs
Law Department.
Issue: Did Comelec follow its own rules of procedure in the
conduct of preliminary investigation?
Ruling:
There are 2 ways through which a complaint for election offenses

may be initiated:
(1)
filed by Comelec motu proprio
may be signed by the Chairman of the Comelec and need

not be verified
(2)
filed via written complaint by any citizen of the Philippines,
candidate, registered political party, coalition of political
parties or organizations under the party list system or any
accredited citizens arms of the Commission
must be verified and supported by affidavits and other

evidence
In both cases, the complaint shall be filed with the COMELEC Law
Department or with the offices of election registrars, provincial
election supervisors or regional election directors, or of the state
prosecutor, provincial or city fiscal.
In both cases, the complaint shall be referred to the Comelec Law
Department for investigation. Upon direction of the Chairman, the
PI may be delegated to any law of the Department, any Regional
Election Director or Provincial Election Supervisor or any COMELEC
lawyer.
THE RULES WERE FOLLOWED. Even if the letter-complaint by
Pardo is not the kind initiated by Comelec motu proprio, Pardo could
still file the same in his personal capacity because Rule 34, Sec. 5
states that The complaint shall be filed with the Law Department
of the Commission; or with the offices of the Election Registrars,
Provincial Election Supervisors or Regional Election directors, or the
State Prosecutor, Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal. There is no rule
which prohibits him to do so.
Not only the Comelec en banc may refer a complaint to the Law
Department for investigation. Sec. 5, Rule 34 of the Comelec
Rules of Procedure does not require any specifics as to how the
referral to the department shall be made. Moreover, since the
complaint was filed with the Law Department a referral to the same
department is unnecessary.
The Comelec is mandated by no less than the Constitution to
investigate and prosecute, when necessary, violations of election
laws. This power is lodged exclusively with the COMELEC. For the
entire Commission to inhibit itself from investigating the complaint
against petitioner would be nothing short of an abandonment of its
mandate under the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code.
This we cannot allow.
Petition DENIED.
What is the distinction between complaint filed by parties

or people other than the Comelec? With respect to motu
proprio complaints by the Comelec, the same is not required to be
verified. Complaints filed by other persons have to be verified.
Where should it be filed?
Faelnar vs. People
331 SCRA 429
Facts: Petitioner Jing-jing Faelnar is a candidate for Barangay
Chairman in Barangay Guadalupe, Cebu City in the May 12, 1997
barangay elections. He held a basketball tournament a day after
the filing of his certificate of candidacy. A complaint for
electioneering was filed against him by Antonio Luy for having a
basketball tournament which was actually campaign gimmick
staged outside the campaign period.
Law Dept of Comelec recommended the filing of a case against
Petitioner and Gillamac (sponsor of basketball tournament) for
violation of Sec. 80 in relation to Sec. 262 of the OEC and Sec.
50 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2888 in relation to Sec. 12 of
RA 6679.
Comelec en banc dismissed the case through Resolution No. 973040
Comelec reconsidered and ordered the filing of the Informations
against Petitioner and Gillamac.
They were formally charged in the RTC under 2 criminal
informations
When his Motion to Quash was denied by the trial court, he went to
the SC by Petition for Certiorari. He argues that
Election Laws
(1)
Resolution No. 97-3040 can no longer be reconsidered as it is
final and executory
(2)
Antonio Luys MR of Resolution 97-3040 is a prohibited
pleading
(3)
Resolution No. 98-2914 in directing the filing of charges in
court was ultra vires
Held:
Petitioners remedy was to seek Resolution No. 2914s annulment
by way of special civil action of certiorari under rule 65 of the Rules
of Court.
must be filed within 30 days from notice of the resolution sought
to be reviewed
in this case, no petition was ever filed; thus it is final and
binding
Luys MR was valid/ Resolution No. 98-2914
A Motion for Reconsideration of a ruling, resolution or decision
of the Comelec en banc is allowed in cases involving election
offenses. What is involved in this case is not an appeal but a
resolution of the COMELEC itself to conduct preliminary
investigation of election offense cases.
where the State Prosecutor
or Provincial or City Fiscal
exercises
the
delegated
power
to
conduct
preliminary investigation of
election offense cases
where
Comelec
itself
conducts the preliminary
investigation
investigating officer submits his

recommendation after it had
already resolved the issue of
probable cause
its
investigating
officer
prepares a report upon which
the Comelecs Law Dept makes
its recommendation to the
Comelec en banc on whether
there is probable cause to
prosecute.
probable cause is determined

by
the
State
Prosecutor/Provincial/City Fiscal
probable cause is determined

by the Comelec en banc
appeal to the Comelec lies
appeal to
unavailing
the
Comelec
is
Why? The exercise by the

Comelec of its review powers
would, at this point, constitute
a second look on the issue of
probable cause, the Comelecs
ruling on the appeal would be
immediately
final
and
executory
Although a motion for reconsideration of such resolution is

allowed. This effectively allows for the review of the original
resolution, in the same manner that the COMELEC, on appeal or
motu proprio, may review the resolution of the State Prosecutor, or
Provincial or City Fiscal.
Provincial Election Supervisor or any lawyer or election officer

who is a lawyer
The investigating field officer will then conduct the
preliminary investigation and submit to the Law Department
the results.
The Law Department will submit its recommendation to the
Comelec En Banc. Because it is the Comelec En Banc who
determines probable cause.
If probable cause is determined, what is the remedy of the
aggrieved party?
It is to file a Motion for Reconsideration which is the exception
provided under Rule 13, Section 1.
So the decision of the Comelec En Banc in a Motion for
Reconsideration is immediately executory and the information, if it
is for the filing of the case, it is to be filed in the RTC. Because the
RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over Election Offenses Cases
pursuant to RA 7691, the Judiciary Act.
In Comelec vs. Noynay, [Noynay and other private respondents
were charged with engaging in partisan political activities. RTC
judge directed the Comelec Law Dept to file the case in the proper
MTC because the penalty is less than 6 years.] the Court ruled that
RA 7691 did not divest the RTC of its jurisdiction regardless of the
imposable penalty. The RTC judge therein dismissed the case on the
ground that the imposable penalty was less than 6 years. However,
the SC said that RTC retains jurisdiction as there is no prohibition
under the 2nd paragraph of Section 32 divesting the RTC over
election offense cases regardless whether the imposable penalty is
less than 6 years.
The remedy of the aggrieved party before the RTC: get a
lawyer.
If the case is filed directly by the prosecutor, after the preliminary
investigation conducted by it and upon the determination that there
is probable cause, the remedy of the aggrieved party? His remedy
is to appeal before the Comelec
Comelec then will review on appeal the finding of probable
cause by the prosecutor.
The decision of the Comelec En Banc on appeal becomes
executory and the information is filed with the RTC.
What is the parallelism here?
On one hand, the Comelec determines probable cause, so the
aggrieved party files a MR and the Comelec will have the
opportunity to review its finding of probable cause.
On the other, the Prosecutor determines probable cause and the
remedy of the aggrieved party is to appeal to the Comelec which
gives the Comelec the opportunity to review the findings of
probable cause by the Prosecutor. If there is indeed probable cause,
then the information shall be filed with the RTC.
That is the case of Faelnar and Herman Tiu Laurel.
Petition for Certiorari DENIED.

Where can the initiation of the election offense be filed?
1.
Before the Law department of the Comelec and the
2.
State Prosecutor/City /Provincial Prosecutor in the exercise of
its delegated authority to conduct preliminary investigation
So based on this, a complaint for election offense cases may
be
1.
motu proprio, undertaken by the Comelec
3.
filed by any interested party, provided that it complies with the
form that it should be duly verified
It can be filed directly with the Comelec it goes through the
Law Department.
Law Department will then designate any Comelec Lawyer in
the field who may be the Regional Election Director,
Take note that the Provision of Section 43 of RA 9369 or the

Automated Election System Law providing for the concurrent
jurisdiction was upheld in the case of Arroyo vs. Comelec et. al.
Be sure to know the limitation which means now based on the rules,
in cases where a complaint is filed with the prosecutor, the same
can conduct the preliminary investigation on election offense cases
pursuant to the delegated authority vested upon it by the Comelec.
There is this continuing delegated authority upon it the Comelec.
However, pursuant to Sec. 43 of RA 9369 the prosecutor and the
Comelec now has concurrent jurisdiction over the conduct of
preliminary investigation over election offense cases. The authority
of the prosecutor is not anymore delegated by the Comelec. Hence,
the Comelec may not revoke the authority of the Prosecutor.
Section 43 of RA 9369 has amended Section 2, Rule 34 of the
Comelec Rules of Procedure.
Facts of the case:
GMA and Mike Arroyo were charged with Election Sabotage
DOJ and Comelec Joint Committee was formed to conduct the
preliminary investigation
Election Laws
Petitioners thus assail the findings of the preliminary

investigaiton by the Joint Committee, that they are null and
void as such undermines the independence of the Comelec.
DOJ should conduct preliminary investigation only when
deputized by the Comelec but not exercise concurrent
jurisdiction.
SC Ruling:
The framers of the 1987 Constitution did not intend to give
the Comelec exclusive power to investigate and prosecute
cases under BP 881 or the OEC. This exclusivity is thus a
legislative enactment that can very well be amended by Section
43 of RA 9369. Therefore, under the present law, the Comelec and
other prosecuting arms of the government, such as the DOJ, now
exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the investigation and
prosecution of election offenses.
The creation of the Joint Committee is not repugnant to
the concept of concurrent jurisdiction authorized by Sec.
43, RA 9369.
The doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means equal
jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter. Contrary
to the contention of the petitioners, there is no prohibition
on simultaneous exercise of power between two coordinate
bodies. What is prohibited is the situation where one files a
complaint against a respondent initially with one office
(such as the Comelec) for preliminary investigation which
was immediately acted upon by said office and the re-filing
of substantially the same complaint with another office
(such as the DOJ). The subsequent assumption of
jurisdiction by the second office over the cases filed will not
be allowed. Indeed, it is a settled rule that the body or
agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall
exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.
Comelec and DOJ agreed that they would exercise concurrent
jurisdiction
complaints were filed with and the preliminary investigaiton was
conducted by only 1 investigative body
the magnitude of the crimes allegedly committed by petitioners
there is a provision in the Joint Order that the resolutions of the
Joint Committee finding probable cause for election offenses
shall still be approved by the Comelec in accordance with the
Comelec Rules of Procedure
In the case of Garcia vs. Comelec, 611 SCRA 55, the Court said
that generally, it will not interfere with the finding of probable cause
by the Comelec absent a clear showing of a grave abuse of
discretion.
Private Respondent Osmea, mayoralty candidate in Cebu
(2004) filed an election offense case against Garcia for the
publication of political advertisements that violated the 3x a
week publication
Informations were charged against Garcia.
Ruling of the Court:
Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(6) of the Constitution empowers the COMELEC
to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases for
violation of election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses and malpractices. This
prosecutorial power of the COMELEC is reflected in Section 265
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus
Election Code. It is well settled that the finding of probable cause
in the prosecution of election offenses rests in the COMELECs
sound discretion.
Generally, the Court will not interfere with the finding of
probable cause by the Comelec absent a clear showing of grave
abuse of discretion. This principle emanates from the Comelecs
exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all
election offenses punishable under the election laws and to
prosecute the same, except as may otherwise be provided by
law.
Comelec vs. Silva is now superceded by the new rules on
concurrent jurisdiction.
Kilosbayan vs. Comelec, pertains to the matter of the procedure
of the complaint of an election offense case based on Sec. 261 of
the OEC. The complainants herein alleged that the incumbent
official running for that office disbursed public funds. The
complainant merely submitted photocopies of Articles in the
newspaper, alleging that it was incumbent upon the Comelec to get
the pertinent facts relating to the complaint. SC said that the
burden of proof rests upon the Complainants to support his case

with convincing evidence which should be duly attached with the
complaint. Because it is not the power vested in the Comelec under
Sec. 2(6) of Art. IX-C of the Constitution. It does not carry with it the
power to gather evidences for the complainant. Unlike the
ombudsman who has the mandated power to do so.
Comelec received a complaint from Kilosbayan alleging that (1)
P70M was released by Sec. of Budget Enriquez for the
Philippine Youth, Health and Sports Development Foundation
headed by Ronaldo Puno and (2) that there was illegal
diversion of P300M by Malacanang from the Countrywide
Development Fund to the DILG before the May 11, 1992
elections
Kilosbayans letter was referred to the Comelec Law Department
Comelec en banc: evidence supported by published writings; did
not establish probable cause
MR of Kilosbayan was denied
Ruling of the Court:
Comelec did not commit any act constituting grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing petitioner Kilosbayans letter-complaint
against Repsondents.
Sec.2(7) of the Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution provides that
the Comelec shall exercise the power to investigate and, where
appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of elec-tion laws,
including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses,
and malpractices. The authority of the Comelec to investigate
and prosecute is to insure the free, orderly and honest conduct
of elections, failure of which would result in the frustration of the
true will of the people and make a mere idle ceremony of the
sacred right and duty of every qualified citizen to vote.
The constitutional grant of prosecutorial power in the Comelc
finds statutory expression under Sec. 265 of BP 881 (OEC) which
provides:
Sec. 265. Prosecution.The Commission shall,
through its duly authorized legal officers, have the
exclusive
power
to
conduct
preliminary
investigation of all election offenses punishable
under this Code, and to prosecute the same. The
Commission may avail of the assistance of other
prosecuting arms of the government: Provided,
however, That in the event that the Commission
fails to act on any complaint within four months
from his filing, the complainant may file the
complaint with the office of the fiscal or with the
Ministry of Justice for proper investigation and
prosecution, if warranted.
For the effective investigation and prosecution of cases of
election offenses and in the exercise by the Comelec of its quasilegislative power under Sec. 6, Art. IX of the 1987 Constitution,
the Comelec Rules of Procedure were promulgated which
provides for the guidelines pertinent to election offenses. Since
the investigation of the Comelec will determine whether there is
a probable cause, Kilosbayan must have submitted evidences of
such quality as to engender belief in an ordinarily prudent and
cautious man that the offense charged therein has been
committed by herein Respondents.
Question on the extent of the power to investigate: In the

process of hearing a petition for the declaration of a failure of
elections, will the Comelec or should the Comelec send a delegated
authority to investigate?
The burden of proof is on the petitioner or the one who alleges that
there is failure of elections. He has to show proof and not rely on
the Comelec to verify the same. Thats why in Pasandalan the
Court said, the Petition to Declare the Failure of Election is an
extraordinary remedy.
One cannot just declare a failure of elections just because
what would be the result? The consequence of which might be the
disenfranchisement of the voters on ground that does not even
exist or on a ground that is not even supported by evidence. That is
also the reason why the same kind of petition entails a technical
examination then Comelec comes in, that is its duty, to conduct
a technical examination to find out whether there is any truth to the
allegations of the Petitioner.
So if on the basis of the Petition, a hearing is warranted, then a
technical examination will be conducted to determine whether the
allegations are true.
*** you can also cite Kilosbayan vs. Comelec wherein the Court said
that the Comelec should not spoonfeed the plaintiff with evidences.
ELECTION OFFENSES
Election Laws
Rule 34, Rules of Comelec Procedure

Section 1. Authority of the Commission to Prosecute
Election Offenses. - The Commission shall have the exclusive
power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses
punishable under the election laws and to prosecute the same,
except as may otherwise be provided by law.
Sec. 2. Continuing Delegation of Authority to Other
Prosecution Arms of the Government. - The Chief State
Prosecutor, all Provincial and City Fiscals, and/or their respective
assistants are hereby given continuing authority, as deputies of the
Commission, to conduct preliminary investigation of complaints
involving election offenses under the election laws which may be
filed directly with them, or which may be indorsed to them by the
Commission or its duly authorized representatives and to prosecute
the same. Such authority may be revoked or withdrawn any time by
the Commission whenever in its judgment such revocation or
withdrawal is necessary to protect the integrity of the Commission,
promote the common good, or when it believes that successful
prosecution of the case can be done by the Commission.
Sec. 3. Initiation of Complaint. - Initiation of complaint for
election offenses may be done motu proprio by the Commission, or
upon written complaint by any citizen of the Philippines, candidate,
registered political party, coalition of political parties or
organizations under the partylist system or any accredited citizens
arms of the Commission.
examine. If the parties so desire, they may submit

questions to the investigating officer which the latter may
propound to the parties or witnesses concerned.
Thereafter, the investigation shall be deemed concluded,

and the investigating officer shall resolve the case within
ten (10) days therefrom. Upon the evidence thus
adduced, the investigating officer shall determine
whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the
respondent for trial.
Sec. 7. Presumption of Existence of Probable Cause. - A

complaint initiated motu propio by the Commission is presumed to
be based on sufficient probable cause and the investigating officer
must forthwith issue the subpoena mentioned in the immediately
preceding section.
Sec. 8. Duty of Investigating Officer. - The preliminary
investigation must be terminated within twenty (20) days after
receipt of the counter-affidavits and other evidence of the
respondents, and resolution thereof shall be made within five (5)
days thereafter.
a
If the investigating officer finds no cause to hold the

respondent for trial, he shall recommend dismissal of the
complaint.
If the investigating officer finds cause to hold the

respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution, and
the corresponding information wherein he shall certify
under oath that he has examined the complainant and his
witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that
a crime has been committed and that the accused was
informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted
against him and that he was given an opportunity to
submit controverting evidence.
In either case, the investigating officer shall, within five

(5) days from the rendition of his recommendation,
forward the records of the case to:
Sec. 4. Form of Complaint and Where to File. a
When not initiated motu proprio by the Commission, the

complaint must be verified and supported by affidavits
and/or any other evidence. Motu proprio complaints may
be signed by the Chairman of the Commission, or the
Director of the Law Department upon direction of the
Chairman, and need not be verified;
The complaint shall be filed with the Law Department of

the Commission; or with the offices of the Election
Registrars, Provincial Election Supervisors or Regional
Election Directors, or the State Prosecutor, Provincial
Fiscal or City Fiscal. If filed with any of the latter three (3)
officials, investigation thereof may be delegated to any of
their assistants.
If filed with the Regional Election Directors or Provincial

Election Supervisors, said officials shall immediately
furnish the Director of the Law Department a copy of the
complaint and the supporting documents, and inform the
latter of the action taken thereon.
Sec. 5. Referral for Preliminary Investigation. - if the

complaint is initiated motu proprio by the Commission, or is filed
with the Commission by any aggrieved party, it shall be referred to
the Law Department for investigation. Upon direction of the
Chairman of the Commission, the preliminary investigation may be
delegated to any lawyer of said Department, or to any of the
Regional Election Directors or Provincial Election Supervisors, or any
lawyer of the Commission.
If on the basis of the complaint, affidavits and the

supporting evidence, the investigating officer finds no
ground to continue with the inquiry, he shall recommend
the dismissal of the complaint and shall follow the
procedure prescribed in Section 8(c) of this Rule.
Otherwise, he shall issue a subpoena to the respondent,
attaching thereto a copy of the complaint, affidavits and
other supporting documents giving said respondent ten
(10) days from receipt within which to submit counteraffidavits and other supporting documents. The
respondent shall have the right to examine all other
evidence submitted by the complainant.
Such counter-affidavits and other supporting evidence

submitted by the respondent shall be furnished by him to
the complainant.
The State Prosecutor, Provincial Fiscal or City

Fiscal, as the case may be, pursuant to the
continuing authority provided for in Section 2 of
this Rule.
Within ten (10) days from receipt of the records stated in

paragraph (c) of the immediately preceding section, the
State Prosecutor, Provincial or City Fiscal shall take
appropriate action thereon, immediately informing the
parties of said action.
In cases investigated by the lawyers or the field

personnel of the Commission, the Director of the Law
Department
shall
review
and
evaluate
the
recommendation of said legal officer, prepare a report
and make a recommendation to the Commission
affirming, modifying or reversing the same shall be
included in the agenda of the succeeding meeting en
banc of the Commission. If the Commission approves the
filing of an information in court against the respondent/s,
the Director of the Law Department shall prepare and
sign the information for immediate filing with the
appropriate court.
In all other cases, if the recommendation to dismiss or

the resolution to file the case in court is approved by
State Prosecutor, Provincial or City Fiscal, they shall
likewise approve the Information prepared and
immediately cause its filing with the proper court.
If the recommendation to dismiss is reversed on the

ground that a probable cause exists, the State
Prosecutor, or the Provincial or City Fiscal, may, by
himself prepare and file the corresponding information
against the respondent or direct any of his assistants to
do
so
without
conducting
another
preliminary
investigation.
If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if

subpoenaed, doe not submit counter-affidavits within the
ten day period, the investigating officer shall base his
resolution on the evidence presented by the complainant.
If the investigating officer believes that there are matters

to be clarified, he may set a hearing to propound
clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses,
during which the parties shall be afforded an opportunity
to be present but without the right to examine or cross-
The Director of the Law Department of the

Commission in cases investigated by any of the
Commission lawyers or filed personnel, and
Sec. 9. Duty of the Law Department, State Prosecutor,

Provincial or City Fiscal Upon Receipt of Records. -
Sec. 6. Conduct of Preliminary Investigation. a
Election Laws
Sec. 10. Appeals from the Action of the State Prosecutor,

Provincial or City Fiscal. - Appeals from the resolution of the
State Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Fiscal on the recommendation
or resolution of investigating officers may be made only to the
Commission within ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution of
said officials, provided, however that this shall not divest the
Commission of its power to motu proprio review, revise, modify or
reverse the resolution of the chief state prosecutor and/or
provincial/city prosecutors. The decision of the Commission on said
appeals shall be immediately executory and final.
Sec. 11. Duty of State Prosecutor, Provincial or City Fiscal to
Render Reports. - The State Prosecutor, Provincial or City Fiscal
shall, within five (5) days from the rendition of their resolution on
recommendation or resolution of investigating officers, make a
written report thereof to the Commission. They shall likewise submit
a monthly report on the status of cases filed with and/or prosecuted
by them or any of their assistants pursuant to the authority granted
them under Section 2 of this Rule.
Sec. 12. Private Prosecutor. - The appearance of a private
prosecutor shall be allowed in cases where private rights involving
recovery of civil liability are involved.
DECLARATION OF POSTPONEMENT,
FAILURE, ANNULMENT OF ELECTIONS
RA 7166
Sec. 4. Postponement, Failure of Election and Special
Elections. - The postponement, declaration of failure of election
and the calling of special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6
and 7 of the Omnibus Election Code shall be decided by the
Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its members.
The causes for the declaration of a failure of election may occur
before or after the casting of votes or on the day of the election.
In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the Senate or House
of Representatives at least one (1) year before the expiration of
the term, the Commission shall call and hold a special election to
fill the vacancy not earlier than sixty (60) days nor longer than
ninety (90) days after the occurrence of the vacancy. However, in
case of such vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall be
held simultaneously with the succeeding regular election.
OEC
Sec. 5. Postponement of election. - When for any serious
cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of
election paraphernalia or records, force majeure, and
other analogous causes of such a nature that the holding of a
free, orderly and honest election should become impossible in
any political subdivision, the Commission, motu proprio or upon a
verified petition by any interested party, and after due notice and
hearing, whereby all interested parties are afforded equal
opportunity to be heard, shall postpone the election therein to a
date which should be reasonably close to the date of the election
not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not
later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause for such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
How will the Comelec be aware that such violence occurred

in a particular province/municipality/city? How does the
Comelec motu proprio declare the postponement of the
election?
The Comelec shall be notified through a report from deputees
of Comelec, specifically, the AFP, PNP in ensuring the holding of
orderly and peaceful elecitons.
AFP/PNP will submit a report to the Comelec and on the basis
of which, upon the verification of the same, Comelec can motu
proprio declare the postponement of elections.
What is postponement?
When the elections are not held on the date set by law. But it will be
conducted at some future date.
within 30 days from the cessation of the cause; or
to a date which should be reasonably close to the date of the
election not held
A report coming from the AFP or PNP means that they cannot
conduct orderly and peaceful elections in that particular local
government unit if the elections is simultaneously conducted all
over the Philippines or all over the city or province as the case may
be as long as it pertains to local elections.
Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If, on account of force majeure,

violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the
election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed,
or
had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing
of the voting, or
after the voting and during the preparation and the transmission
of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such
election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases the
failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the
election,
the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any
interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the
holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or
which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to
the date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in
a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation
of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election
or failure to elect.
What is the distinction between the power of the Comelec

under Section 5 and Section 6 insofar as a declaration of
postponement and declaration of failure of election is
concerned? What is the limitation of the power of the
Comelec in declaring the postponement and in declaring the
failure of elections?
Section 5
Section 6
Comelec may motu proprio

declare the postponement of
election.
Comelec only may only declare

failure of election upon the
basis of a verified petition.
What are the cirucmstances that should be present for the

Comelec to declare the failure of elections?
If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or
other analogous causes
(1)
election in any polling place has not had been held on the
date fixed
(2)
had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the
closing of the voting
(3)
after the voting and during the preparation and the
transmission of the election returns or in the custody
or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to
elect,
in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election
would affect the result of the election
What is common in the 3 circumstances?
In any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would
affect the result of the election.
What is the nature of the proceedings to declare the failure
of elections?
It is a summary procedure where the hearings will be based only on
the petition and the affidavits submitted by the witnesses of the
petitioner. There is no full-blown trial. The affidavits therein must
appear on its face the conditions present that would gie warrant in
the declaration of the failure of election.
Comelec will only consider the petition if on its face already
provides for the circumstances and supporting documents
such as affidavits of the witnesses of the petitioner that would
warrant the declaration of the failure of elections.
It is not like a full-blown hearing which is adversarial in nature.
In relation to the nature of a petition to declare the failure
of elections, what is the significance of the case of
Pasandalan?
Pasandalan vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 150312
Election Laws
Facts: Pasandalan and Private Respondent were candidates for

mayor in Lymbayanague, Lanao del Sur during the May 14, 2001
elections. Pasandalan filed a Petition before Comelec to nullify the
elections in Barangay Cabasaran, Deromoyod, Lamin, Wago,
Minors, Bualan , Pantaon (20 precincts). It was alleged that Cafgus
near sultan Gunting Elementary School indiscriminately fired their
firearms causing the voters to panid and leave the polling center
without casting their voters. Supporters of Asum, allegedly took the
official ballots, filled them up with the name of Asum and placed
them inside the ballot boxes.
Comelec dismissed the petition because none of the grounds are
present. It did not give credence to the affidavits executed by
Pasandalans poll watchers which are self-serving and insufficient to
annul the results of the election.
Issue: Did Comelec abuse its discretion?
Ruling:
Under RA 7166 or the Synchronized Elections Law of 1991, the
Comelec en banc is empowered to declare a failure of election
under Sec. 6 of the OEC.
SEC. 6. Failure of Election. If, on account of force majeure,
violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes the
election in any polling place has not been held on the date
fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for
closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the
preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in
the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a
failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or
suspension of election would affect the result of the election,
the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by
any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for
the holding or continuation of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later
than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to
elect.
3 instances justify a declaration of failure of election:
(1)
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; [no election is held]
(2)
the election in any polling place has 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; [election is suspended] or
(3)
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.
[circumstances attending the preparation, transmission,
custody or canvass of the election returns cause a failure to
elect]
The term failure to elect means nobody emerged as a winner.
Pasandalans allegations do not fall under any of the instances that
would justify the declaration of failure of election.
1.
elections were held in the 16 protested precincts
2.
no point was the election in any of the precincts suspended
3.
there was no failure to elect because of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes during the
preparation, transmission custody and canvass of the election
returns
It is apparent that the allegations do not constitute sufficient
grounds for the nullitfication of the election. Pasandalan even failed
to substantiate his allegations of terrorimsm and irregularities. His
evidence consisted only of affidavits. Mere affidavits are
insufficient, more so in this case since the affidavits were all
executed by Pasandalans own poll watchers.
The Comelec is not mandated to conduct a technical examination
before it dismisses a petition for nullification of election when the
petition is, on its face, without merit. In Typoco, petitioner Typoco
buttressed his petition with independent evidence that compelled
the Comelec to conduct a technical examination of the questioned
returns. Typoco filed a Motion to Admit Evidence to prove that a
substantial number of election returns were manufactured. Typoco
claimed that the returns were prepared by only one person based
on the report of Francisco S. Cruz, a licensed examiner of
questioned documents, who examined copies of the election
returns of Lakas-NUCD. In the present case, Pasandalan failed to
attach independent and objective evidence other than the selfserving affidavits of his own poll watchers.
Basher does not apply to this case. Unlike in Basher, the election in
this case proceeded as scheduled, in accordance with law and
Comelec rules. None of the extreme circumstances that marred the
election in Basher is present in this case. We have ruled that there
is failure of election only if the will of the electorate is muted and
cannot be ascertained. If the will of the people is determinable, the
same must be respected as much as possible. In this case, the will
of the electorate is readily discernible. Pasandalan should have filed
an election protest to substantiate his allegations of electoral
anomalies, not a petition to declare a failure of election
What is the nature of the petition of Pasandalan to declare

the failure of elections? Extraordinary.
What is the difference between Pasandalan and Typoco?

In Typoco, petitioner Typoco buttressed his petition with
independent evidence that compelled the Comelec to conduct a
technical examination of the questioned returns. Typoco filed a
Motion to Admit Evidence to prove that a substantial number of
election returns were manufactured. Typoco claimed that the
returns were prepared by only one person based on the report of
Francisco S. Cruz, a licensed examiner of questioned documents,
who examined copies of the election returns of Lakas-NUCD. In the
present case, Pasandalan failed to attach independent and
objective evidence other than the self-serving affidavits of his own
poll watchers.
1.
the fact that a verified petition is filed with the Comelec does not
mean that a technical examination or a hearing on the case
should be conducted first before the Comelec can act on the
petition
2.
Comelec did not act in GAD when it dismissed the petition without a
technical examination or hearing if the petition fails to show on
its face the existence of any of the 3 instances required by law
to declare a failure of election
(Pasandalan vs. Comelec)
Typoco vs. Comelec

319 SCRA 498
Facts: Typoco and Private Respondent Pimentel were both
candidates for Governor in Camarines Norte in the May 11, 1998
elections. Typoco and Oco filed a Joint Appeal before the Comelec
questioning the ruling of the PBOC of Camarines Norte to include in
the canvass of votes the Certificate of Canvass of votes in Labo,
Camarines Norte. Typoco also filed a Motion to Admit Evidence to
Prove that a substantial number of election returns were
manufactured as they were prepared by one person based on the
report of Fransisco Cruz, a Licensed Examiner of Questioned
document who examined the copies of election returns of the
LAKAS-NUCD.
When the Comelec, 2nd division dismissed the Joint Appeal,
Typoco and Oco filed with the Comelec En Banc a separate Petition
for Annulment of Election or Election Results and/or Declaration of
Failure of Election in several precincts. It alleged that massive fraud
and irregularities attended the preparation of the election returns
considering that upon technical examination, 305 election returns
were found to have been prepared in group by one person. This was
dismissed by the Comelec thus this case.
Issue: Did the Comelec commit grave abuse of discretion in
not declaring a failure of eletions for the position of
Governor in Camarines Norte in the May 11, 1998 elections?
Ruling:
Instances where a failure of election may be declared:
(1)
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
(2)
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;
(3)
after the voting an 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.
In all instances there must have been failure to elect; this is
obvious in the first scenario where the election was not held and
the second where the election was suspended. As to the third
scenario, the preparation and transmission of the election returns
Election Laws
which give rise to the consequence of failure to elect must as

aforesaid be literally interpreted to mean that nobody emerged as a
winner.
None of the 3 instances where a failure of election may be
declared is present in this case. The ground invoked by Typoco
which is fraud, is not proper in a declaration of failure of election.
While fraud is a ground to declare a failure of election, the
commission of fraud must be such that it prevented or suspended
the holding of an election including the preparation and
transmission of the election returns.
Typocos relief is to order a recount of the votes case, on account of
the falsified election returns which is properly the subject of an
election contest.
Petition DENIED.
Thus, here we see that a Petition to Declare the Failure of Election

is:
(1)
summary in nature Why? Because it is only based on the
affidavits submitted by the petitioner.
(2)
It is an extraordinary remedy If the Petition does not state the
circumstances that would warrant the declaration of a failure of
elections, the Comelec can dismiss it without having gravely
abused its discretion. Because this kind of petition is something
special as the granting of such may disenfranchise the voters
upon an erroneous pleading. Comelec should therefore be
cautious to preserve the sanctity of the ballot and to safeguard
the enfranchisement of voters.
Ampatuan vs. Comelec et al.
G.R. 149803, January 31, 2002
Respondents filed a Petition with the Comelec for the Annulment of
Election Results and/or Declaration of Failure of Elections in several
municipalities. They alleged that the ballots were filled-up en masse
by a few persons the night before election day, and in some
precints, the ballot boxes, official ballots and other election
paraphernalia were not delivered at all.
PBOC proclaimed petitioners as winners. Respondents filed a
Petition to set aside the Comelec order lifting the suspension of
proclamation before the SC. Petitioners assumed their offices. SC
denied the petition.
Comelec ordered the consolidation of Respondents petition for
declaration of failure of elections and ordered a random technical
examination on 4 to 7 precincts per municipality. Petitioners filed
the present petition. They contend that the Comelec lost its
jurisdiction to hear and decide the Respondents Petition for
Declaration of Failure of Elections after the Petitioners have been
proclaimed.
Issue: Whether Comelec still has jurisdiction over a petition to
declare failure of election notwithstanding the proclamation of the
candidates
Ruling:
Yes. The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed office does
not deprive the Comelec of its authority to annul any canvass and
illegal proclamation. Court cannot assume that the proclamation an
assumption of petitioners into office was legal because the conduct
by which the elections were held was put in issue by the
respondents in their petition for annulment of election results
and/or declaration of failure of elections.
Respondents petition for declaration of failure of elections,
exhaustively alleged massive fraud and terrorism that if proven,
could warrant a declaration of failure of elections. (i.e. no actual
voting was made by the real, legitimate voters, the massive fraud
and ballot tampering were committed by military personnel who
also harassed, intimidated or coerced voters to support Petitioners,
ballot boxes were brough not to the precincts or voting centers but
somewhere else.)
Soliva vs. Comelec while it may be true that election did
take place, the irregularities that marred the counting of
votes and the canvassing of the election returns resulted in a
failure to elect.
In the case at bar, the Comelec is duty-bound to conduct an
investigation as to the veracity of respondents allegations of
massive fraud and terrorism that attended the conduct of the May
14, 2001 election. It is well to stress that the Comelec has started
conducting the technical examination on November 16, 2001.
However, by an urgent motion for a temporary restraining order
filed by petitioners, in virtue of which we issued a temporary
restraining order on November 20, 2001, the technical examination
was held in abeyance until the present. In order not to frustrate the
ends of justice, we lift the temporary restraining order and allow the
technical examination to proceed with deliberate dispatch.
What is the doctrine insofar as the power of the Comelec is

concerned?
________________
Continuation of Declaration of Failure of Elections
For Comelec to declare the failure of elections, 2 conditions
must occur:
1.
No voting took place,
2.
but even if there was voting, votes cast would affect the results of
the elections
For example there are about 100 precincts and the precincts
involved comprises 50%, that would definitely affect the
results of the election in which case, failure of elections can
be declared.
Canicosa vs. Comelec
THERE ARE ONLY 3 INSTANCES WHERE A FAILURE OF ELECTION MAY
BE DECLARED:
(1)
the election in any polling place has not been held on the fate fixed
on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or
other analogous causes;
(2)
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
(3)
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.
The procedure is?
That the petition should be verified and duly filed with the Comelec.
Who has jurisdiction over a petition to declare a failure of
elections?
Pursuant to Rule 3, Sec. 2, Comelec Rules of Procedure:
The Commission shall sit en banc in cases hereinafter
specifically provided, or in pre-proclamation cases upon a
vote of majority of the members of the Commission, or in all
other cases where a division is not authorized to act, or
where, upon a unanimous vote of all the Members of a
Division, an interlocutory matter or issue relative to an action
or proceeding before it is decided to be referred to the
Commission en banc.
After a failure of elections is declared, what follows?
It is a calling of a special elections which is discretionary on the
part of the Commission on Elections.
In the case of Canicosa vs. Comelec, why was the case dismissed
and that the Comelec did gravely abused its discretion?
The allegations of Canicosa is not among those enumerated in Sec.
6, OEC. His allegations were:
(1)
the names of the registered voters did not appear in the list
of voters in their precincts
(2)
more than 1/2 of the legitimate registered voters were not
able to vote with strangers voting in their stead
(3)
he was credited with less votes than he actually received
(4)
control data of the election returns was not filled up in some
precincts
(5)
ballot boxes brought to the Office of the Municipal treasurer
were unsecured
(6)
there was delay in the delivery of election returns
Election Laws
Instead in a declaration of a failure of elections (or even in a preproclamation controversy), those grounds may be ventilated in an
election protest. The grounds of Sec. 6 is exclusive.
In the case of Pea, the Court said that the power of the Comelec
in declaring the failure of elections should be exercised with
greatest care. Because it might cause the disenfranchisement of
voters. Thus, the Petitioner, in a Declaration of Failure of Elections,
should be able to show proof that (1) the illegality has affected
more than 50% of the votes cast and that the good votes can no
longer be distinguished from the bad votes .
Pasandalan on extraordinary remedy. We discussed that already.

Notwithstanding the general rule, that if there was voting, the same
prevents a failure of elections because somebody emerges as a
winner..
in Basher, voting happened but still the Court declared that
there was failure of elections It is because that the
elections were held with lack of notice and conducted at 9PM
until the wee hours in the morning. Comelec here did not
follow its own rules and regulations.
In Banaga Jr. vs. Comelec, Court ruled that just because a
verified petition to declare failure of election has been filed, it does
not mean that the hearing on case must first be done by the
Comelec before the it dismisses the case.
We thus go back to Pasandalan where the SC said that to declare
a failure of elections is an extraordinary remedy. So on the face of
the petition, the circumstances which would warrant such
declaration should be stated and the same should be supported by
affidavits.
Affidavits should not be self-serving, rather, should be like
the ones submitted in Typoco. For Comelec to conduct a
technical examination, there must be independent evidence
or statement or testimony as basis of the ground to conduct
such.
In Ampatuan, Court said that Comelec is not divested of its
jurisdiction to continue to hear a petition for the declaration of
failure of elections even if the candidates in that elections has
already been proclaimed. Why? Because the manner by which the
candidates were elected was put in issue.
Whether there are indeed irregularities, the reason why the
voting take place because of terrorism may have been
perpetrated by these candidates is precisely why the
Comelec was vested by the Constitution of the power to
declare the failure of elections and conduct special elections
for that purpose.
Now the difference between pre-proc and election protest
and failure of elections
_________________________
AUG. 25, 2016
PARTYLIST SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION

RA 7941 (Nov. 26, 1991) An act providing for the election of partylist representatives through the party-list system;
Political Party an organized group of qualified voters pursuing
the same ideology, political ideas and principles for the general
conduct of the government; it may be:
1) A national party when its constituency is spread over the
geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions;
and
2) A regional party when its constituency is spread over the
geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and
provinces comprising a region.
Why is there a need to register political parties?
For Comelecs regulation and supervision in the exercise of its

police power
Once registered the political party is issued a Certificate of

Registration, the following are the privileges (Sec. 7):
(1) acquires juridical personality (suability);
(2) be informed of the parties existence and ideals;
(3) it identifies the party and its officers for purposes of
regulation by the Comelec.
How is a petition for registration of a political party

undertaken?
Section 5. Registration. Any organized group of persons may
register as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of the
party-list system by
filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before
the election a
petition verified by its president or secretary
stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as a

national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a
coalition of such parties or organizations,
attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program

of government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other
relevant information as the COMELEC may require:
Provided, That the sectors shall include labor, peasant,

fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas
workers, and professionals.
The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least two (2)

national newspapers of general circulation.
The COMELEC shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the
petition within fifteen (15) days from the date it was submitted
for decision but in no case not later than sixty (60) days before
election.
Limitations on Registration
Religious sectors are prohibited to be registered for the
purpose of the electoral process which is made in the spirit of
separation of church and state and intended to prevent
churches from wielding political power.
Does not extend to organizations with religious affiliations or
to political partied which derive their principles from religious
beliefs (ban on Catholic Church, Iglesia ni Kristo or the muslim
denomination).
Those who seek to achieve their goals through unlawful means
Those which refuse to adhere to the Constitution
Those which are supported by any foreign government
(Section 2(5), Article IX-C)
Party-list system is a mechanism of proportional representation in
the election of representatives to the House of Representatives
from national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC). Component parties or organizations of a coalition may
participate independently provided the coalition of which they form
part does not participate in the party-list system. (Section 3a, RA
7941)
Declaration of party. The State shall promote proportional
representation in the election of representatives to the House of
Representatives through a party-list system of registered national,
regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof,
which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
under-represented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack
well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will
benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of
Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop and
guarantee a full, free and open party system in order to attain the
broadcast possible representation of party, sectoral or group
interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their
chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and shall
provide the simplest scheme possible. (section 2, RA 7941)
From what groups will the party-list representatives come

from?
1. national
3.
regional
4.
sectoral
Should all 3 groups qualify under the marginalized and
underrepresented?
It is not necessary that the national and regional partylist

groups belong to the marginalized and underrepresented
It is not exclusively sectoral. Sectoral meaning, marginalized

and marginalized.
National and regional need not be
marginalized or underrepresented/sectoral.
Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC
342 SCRA 244,
The SC provided for the four inviolable parameters of the Filipino
Party-List System which are:
(1) the 20% allocation - the combined number of all party-list
congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total membership
of the HR, including those under the party-list;
Election Laws
(2)
(3)
(4)
the 2% threshold only those parties garnering a minimum

of 2% of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are
qualified to have a seat in the HR;
the 3-seat limit each qualified party, regardless of the
number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a
maximum three seats; that is one qualifying and two
additional seats; and
the proportional representation the additional seats
which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in
proportion to their total number of votes.
FACTS: In this case, following the May 11, 1998 national elections
which is the first election for party-list representation, the COMELEC
en banc proclaimed fourteen (14) parties and organization which
had obtained at least 2% of the total number of votes cast for the
party-list system which constitute a total of 25 nominees short of
the 52 party-list representatives who should actually sit in the
house. The PAGASA, filed with the COMELEC a Petition to proclaim
the full number of party-list representative provided by the
Constitution.
They alleged that the filling up of the 20%
membership of party-list representative in the House, as provided
under the Constitution, was mandatory.
Nine other party-list
organizations filed their respective motions for intervention seeking
the same relief as that sought by PAG-ASA on substantially the
same grounds. The COMELEC, contrary to its rules and regulations
governing the said elections, instead proclaimed the other 38 party
list organization notwithstanding its not having garnered the
required 2% votes.
RULING: COMELEC committed GAOD. the SC ruled that the Sec
5(2) of Art. VI which states that the sectoral representation
shall constitute 20% of the members of the HR is not
mandatory as it merely provides a ceiling for party-list in
congress.
And, obtaining absolute proportional representation is
restricted by the 3-seat per party limit to a maximum of two
additional slots. COMELEC was held to have abused its discretion in
disregarding an act of Congress.
Ang Bagong Bayani vs COMELEC
359 SCRA 698
THE EIGHT POINT GUIDELINES
At issue is the Omnibus Resolution of the Comelec which approved
the participation of 154 organizations and parties and which the SC
remanded to the Comelec for the latter to determine evidentiary
hearings, whether the 154 parties and organizations allowed to
participate in the party-list elections complied with the
requirements of the law. The SC ruled that the party-list that the
party-list organizations or parties must factually and truly represent
the marginalized and underrepresented constituencies mentioned
in Section 5 of RA 7941 and the persons nominated by the party-list
candidate organization must be Filipino citizens belonging to the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and
parties.
The Court finds it appropriate to lay down the following guidelines,
culled from the law and the Constitution, to assist the COMELEC in
its work.
First, the political party, sector or organization must represent the
marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of
the RA 7941. In other words, it must show through the
Constitution, articles of incorporation, by-laws, history, platform of
government and track record that it represents and seeks to uplift
marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
Second, While major political parties are expressly allowed by RA
7941 and the Constitution to participate, they must comply with the
declared statutory policy enabling Filipino citizens belonging to the
marginalized and underrepresented to be elected to the HR. In
other words, while they are not disqualified merely on the ground
that they are political parties, they must show, however, that
they represent the interests of the marginalized and
underrepresented.
Third, The religious sector may not be represented into the partylist system. In view of the objections directed against the
registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang Humabong, which is allegedly a
religious group, the Court notes the express constitutional provision
that the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list
system. Furthermore, the Constitution provides that religious
denominations and sects shall not be registered. The prohibition
was explained by a member of the Constitutional Commission in
this wise The prohibition is on any religious organization
registering as a political party. I do not see any prohibition here
against a priest running as a candidate. This is not prohibited here;
it is the registration of a religious sect as a political party.
Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under
Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds for
disqualification as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or

association organized for religious purposes;
It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
It is a foreign party or organization;
It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign
political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or
through any of its officers or members or indirectly through
third parties for partisan election purposes;
It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations
relating to elections;
It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or
fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast
under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections
for the constituency in which it has registered.
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a

project organized or an entity funded or assisted by the
government (referring to MAD of Richard Gomez). It must be
independent of the government. The participants of the
government or it officials in the affairs of a party-list candidate is
not only illegal and unfair to other parties, but also deleterious to
the objective of the law; to enable citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organizations to be
elected to the House of Representatives.
Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of the
law, its nominees must likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads
qualifications of Party-List Nominees No person shall be
nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural born
citizen of the Philippines, a RV, a resident of the Philippines for a
period of not less than 1 year immediately preceding the day of the
election, able to read and write, a bona-fide member of the party or
organization which he seeks to represent for at least 90 days
preceding the day of the elections and is at least 25 years of age on
the day of the election.
Seventh, not only the candidate party must represent the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, so also must likewise
be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.
Eighth, as previously discussed, while lacking a well-defined
political constituency, the nominee must likewise be able to
contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. Senator Jose Lina
explained during the bicameral committee proceedings that the
nominee of a party, national or regional, is not going to represent a
particular district x x x.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
BASIS FOR THE EXERCISE OF RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE
Art. 5, S 1 Qualification of who may exercise right of suffrage
SECTION 1. Suffrage may be exercised by
1)
all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are
2)
at least eighteen years of age, and who shall
have
3)
resided in the Philippines for at least one year
and
4)
in the place wherein they propose to vote for
at least six months immediately preceding the
election.
5)
No literacy, property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise
of suffrage.
SECTION 2. The Congress shall provide a
1)
system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot
as well as
2)
a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos
abroad.(covered by 9189)
3)
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the
disabled and the illiterates to vote without the assistance
of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote
under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on
Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the
ballot.
Registration of voters is a means of determining who
possess the qualifications of voters and regulating the exercise of
the right of suffrage.
Registration is essential to enable a qualified voter to vote in

any election, or any form of popular intervention.
Registration does not confer the right to vote, but a condition

precedent to the exercise of that right.
How is registration done?
Election Laws
Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a

sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before
the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he
resides and including the same in the book of registered voters
upon approval by the Election Registration Board. (Sec. 3(a) )
Voters Registration Record (VRR) is filled up before the
election officer of the city/municipality where the voter resides
and the Election Registration Board puts the VRR in the Book
Of Registered Voters(BRV) in that particular precinct.
NB: At this point, 2 election paraphernalia must be noted: VRR
and BRV
Who are covered?
Registration is extended to both domestic and overseas
Domestic
RA 8189 (June 11, 1996 Voters Registration Act of 1996

providing for the General Registration of Voters &
Adopting a System of Continuing Registration;
Repealed Sec. 116 & 117 of OEC
Voters Registration Record is made permanent, unless
there is transfer of residence or in the event of death of
a voter
Overseas
RA 9189, An Act Providing for a System of Overseas

Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines
Abroad.
Who may be registered?

General Rule:
Sec. 1 Article V of the Constitution
Suffrage may be exercised:
1)by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law,
who are:
2)At least 18 years of age, and
3)Who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least
a.
one (1) year and in the place wherein they
propose to vote for
b.
at least six (6) months immediately preceding
the elections.
4)No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be
imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
In addition to that Sec. 117 of the OEC, Section 9 of RA
8189 further provide:
Any person who temporarily resides in another city,

municipality or country solely by reason of his occupation,
profession, employment in private or public service,
educational activities, work in the military or naval
reservations within the Philippines, service in the Armed
Forces, or confinement or detention in government institution
in accordance with law, shall NOT be deemed to have lost his
original residence.
The 3rd paragraph of Sec. 9 further clarified Sec. 126 of
the OEC:
Any person, who, on the day of registration may not have

reached the required age or period of residence but, who, on
the day of election shall possess such qualifications, may
register as a voter.
HOW IS REGISTRATION DONE?

SEC. 8 - SYSTEM OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION OF
VOTERS/CREATION OF ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARDS
A qualified voter can personally file an application for
registration DAILY with the office of the election Officer during
regular office hours. The Election Registration Boards authorized to
act on all applications for registration which is composed of the
Election Officer as Chairman and as members, a public school
official most senior in rank and the local civil registrar or in his
absence, the city or municipal treasurer.
Sec. 8 (a) provides for a system of continuing registration of

voters and the creation of the election registration board
Election Registration Board is different from the Board of
Election Inspectors
o
ERB acts only during registration while
o
BEI mans the precincts during elections
LIMITATION: No registration shall however be conducted
during the period starting 120 days before a regular elections
and 90 days before a special elections.
Sabili vs. Commission on Elections,

670 SCRA 664,
G.R. No. 193261 April 24, 2012
Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that
transfer of residence to any other place by reason of ones
occupation; profession; employment in private and public service;
educational activities; work in military or naval reservations; service

in the army, navy or air force, the constabulary or national police
force; or confinement or detention in government institutions in
accordance with law is not deemed as loss of residence.We have
held that absence from residence to pursue studies or
practice a profession or registration as a voter other than in
the place where one is elected, does not constitute loss of
residence. In fact, Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code
provides that transfer of residence to any other place by reason of
ones occupation; profession; employment in private and public
service; educational activities; work in military or naval
reservations; service in the army, navy or air force, the
constabulary or national police force; or confinement or detention in
government institutions in accordance with law is not deemed as
loss of residence.
SEC. 11 - DISQUALIFICATIONS:
Section
11. Disqualification. The
following
shall
be
disqualified from registering:
a)
Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to
suffer imprisonment of not less than one (1) year, such
disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or
amnesty: Provided, however, That any person disqualified to
vote under this paragraph shall automatically reacquire the
right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of
sentence;
b)
Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by a
competent court or tribunal of having committed any crime
involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such
as rebellion, sedition, violation of the firearms laws or any
crime against national security, unless restored to his full civil
and political rights in accordance with law: Provided, That he
shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration
of five (5) years after service of sentence; and
c)
Insane or incompetent persons declared as such by competent
authority unless subsequently declared by proper authority
that such person is no longer insane or incompetent.
1) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer
imprisonment for not less than one (1) year.
2) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by
competent court or tribunal of having committed any crime
involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such
as rebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and
firearms law, or any crime against national security in
accordance with the law.
3) Insane or incompetent as declared by a competent authority
WHEN DISABILITY REMOVED:

Those sentenced by final judgment, disability is removed by
plenary pardon or amnesty or the expiration of five (5) after
service of sentence.
Sec. 5, Art. IX-C (the president cannot grant
amnesty/plenary pardon without favourable recommendation
of the COMELEC in so far as election offense is concerned)
For insane and incompetent, by an official declaration by a
proper authority that the insanity or incompetency no longer
exist.
Double registrants vs Multiple Registrants

Section 12. Change of Residence to Another City or
Municipality. Any registered voter who has transferred residence
to another city or municipality may apply with the Election Officer
of his new residence for the transfer of his registration records.
The application for transfer of registration shall be subject to
the requirements of notice and hearing and the approval of the
Election Registration Board, in accordance with this Act. Upon
approval of the application for transfer, and after notice of such
approval to the Election Officer of the former residence of the voter,
said Election Officer shall transmit by registered mail the voters
registration record to the Election Officer of the voters new
residence.
Section 13. Change of Address in the Same City or
Municipality. Any voter who has changed his address in the same
city or municipality shall immediately notify the Election Officer in
writing. If the change of address involves a change in precinct, the
Board shall transfer his registration record to the precinct book of
voters of his new precinct and notify the voter of his new precinct
All changes of address shall be reported to the office of the
provincial election supervisor and the Commission in Manila.
Double Registrants: registrants found to be registered in 2

or more districts, cities, municipalities.
o
The latest registration shall prevail as between two
registrations. This is not a violation of the election
laws.
Election Laws
Double/Multiple Registrants: found WITHIN the same

district, city, or municipality.
o
The first registration will prevail.
o
Considered an election offense under 261, OEC
PROCEDURE IN TRANSFERING VOTING REGISTRATION

RECORD TO ANOTHER CITY
Prior to Sec. 12 of 8189, under the OEC, The voter
shall go to the OER and file an application to transfer voting
registration. COMELEC will give him certificate of cancellation
of registration and brings that certification to another city to
enable him to register in that other city.
But under 8189, You go to the COMELEC in the new city
where you want to transfer and youre required to fill up a form
and still undergo the same process. If approved, COMELEC of
the new city will coordinate with the old one and direct the
latter to transmit the records to the new city. Hence, the VRR
is official and permanent.
PROCEDURE IN TRANSFERING VOTING REGISTRATION

RECORD TO SAME CITY
Jalosjos vs. Commission on Elections,

670 SCRA 572, G.R. No. 191970 April 24, 2012
The Local Government Code requires a candidate seeking the
position of provincial governor to be a resident of the province for at
least one year before the electionfor purposes of the election
laws, the requirement of residence is synonymous with domicile,
meaning that a person must not only intend to reside in a
particular place but must also have personal presence in such
place coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. There
is no hard and fast rule to determine a candidates compliance with
residency requirement since the question of residence is a question
of intention. Still, jurisprudence has laid down the following
guidelines:
(a) every person has a domicile or residence somewhere;
(b) where once established, that domicile remains until he
acquires a new one; and
(c) a person can have but one domicile at a time.
The COMELEC concluded that Jalosjos has not come to settle
his domicile in Ipil since he has merely been staying at his brothers
house. But this circumstance alone cannot support such conclusion.
Indeed, the Court has repeatedly held that a candidate is not
required to have a house in a community to establish his
residence or domicile in a particular place. It is sufficient
that he should live there even if it be in a rented house or in
the house of a friend or relative. To insist that the candidate
own the house where he lives would make property a
qualification for public office. What matters is that Jalosjos has
proved two things: actual physical presence in Ipil and an intention
of making it his domicile.
MITRA vs COMELEC
In considering the residency issue, the COMELEC practically
focused solely on its consideration of Mitras residence at Maligaya
Feedmill, on the basis of mere photographs of the premises. In the
COMELECs view (expressly voiced out by the Division and fully
concurred in by the En Banc), the Maligaya Feedmill building could
not have been Mitras residence because it is cold and utterly
devoid of any indication of Mitras personality and that it lacks
loving attention and details inherent in every home to make it ones
residence. This was the main reason that the COMELEC relied upon
for its conclusion.
Such assessment, in our view, based on the interior design
and furnishings of a dwelling as shown by and examined only
through photographs, is far from reasonable; the COMELEC thereby
determined the fitness of a dwelling as a persons residence based
solely on very personal and subjective assessment standards when
the law is replete with standards that can be used. Where a
dwelling qualifies as a residence i.e., the dwelling where a person
permanently intends to return to and to remain his or her capacity
or inclination to decorate the place, or the lack of it, is immaterial.
To buttress our finding that the COMELEC used personal and
subjective assessment standards instead of the standards
prescribed by law, we cited Coquilla v. COMELEC, which
characterized the term residence as referring to "domicile" or legal
residence, that is "the place where a party actually or constructively
has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be
found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain
(animus manendi).
Asistio vs. Aguirre,

619 SCRA 518, G.R. No. 191124. April 27, 2010
The residency requirement of a voter is at least one (1) year
residence in the Philippines and at least six (6) months in the place
where the person proposes or intends to vote. Residence, as
used in the law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for
elective office, is doctrinally settled to mean domicile, importing
not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal
presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such
intention inferable from a persons acts, activities, and utterances.
Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence where, when
absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to
return. In the consideration of circumstances obtaining in each
particular case, three rules must be borne in mind, namely:
(1) that a person must have a residence or domicile
somewhere;
(2) once established, it remains until a new one is
acquired; and
(3) that a person can have but one residence or
domicile at a time.
The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice
must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of
residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place
chosen for the new domicile must be actual.Domicile is not
easily lost. To successfully effect a transfer thereof, one must
demonstrate:
(1) an actual removal or change of domicile
(2) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of
residence and establishing a new one; and
(3) acts which correspond with that purpose.
There must be animus manendi coupled with animus non
revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice
must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence
must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the
new domicile must be actual.
Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC
it is the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of
candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining WoN an
individual has satisfied the constitutions residency qualification
requirement. The said statement becomes material only when
there is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead,
misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render the
candidate ineligible.
Section 14. Illiterate or Disabled Applicants. Any illiterate

person may register with the assistance of the Election Officer or
any member of an accredited citizens arms. The Election Officer
shall place such illiterate person under oath, ask him the questions,
and record the answers given in order to accomplish the application
form in the presence of the majority of the members of the Board.
The Election Officer or any member of an accredited citizens arm
shall read the accomplished form aloud to the person assisted and
ask him if the information given is true and correct The
accomplished form shall be subscribed by the applicant in the
presence of the Board by means of thumbmark or some other
customary mark and it shall be subscribed and attested by the
majority of the members of the Board.
The attestation shall state the name of the person assisted,
the name of the Election Officer or the member of the accredited
citizens arm who assisted the applicant, the fact that the Election
Officer placed the applicant under oath, that the Election Officer or
the member of the accredited citizens arm who assisted the
applicant read the accomplished form to the person assisted, and
that the person assisted affirmed its truth and accuracy, by placing
his thumbmark or some other customary mark on the application in
the presence of the Board.
The application for registration of a physically disabled person
may be prepared by any relative within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity or by the Election Officer or any member of
an accredited citizens arm using the data supplied by the
applicant. The fact of illiteracy or disability shall be so indicated in
the application.
WHO ARE CONSIDERED ILLITERATE AND DISABLED

VOTERS AND HOW DO THEY REGISTER?
3e) Illiterate or Disabled person refers to one who cannot
by himself prepare an application for registration because of his
physical disability and/or inability to read and write;
PROCEDURE FOR ILLITERATE APPLICANTS

May be assisted by the election officer or any member of an
accredited citizens arm.
Election Laws
The election officer shall place such illiterate person under

oath, ask him the questions and record the answers given in
order to accomplish the application form in the presence of the
majority of the members of the Board.
The accomplished form shall be subscribed by the applicant in
the presence of the Board by means of thumb mark or some
other customary mark and it shall be subscribed and attested
by the majority of the members of the Board.
PROCEDURE FOR DISABLED APPLICANTS
The application for registration of a physically disabled person
may be prepared by any relative within the 4th civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity or by the election
officer or any members of an accredited citizens arm
using the data supplied by the applicant.
NOTE: In both instance, the fact of illiteracy and disability
shall be so indicated in the application.
RA 10366 AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS TO ESTABLISH PRECINCTS ASSIGNED TO ACCESSIBLE
POLLING PLACES EXCLUSIVELY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
AND SENIOR CITIZENS
(b) Persons with Disabilities refer to qualified voters who

have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory
impairments which in interaction with various barriers may
hinder their full and effective participation in the electoral
processes on an equal basis with others.
(c) Senior Citizens refer to qualified voters who are sixty (60)
years or older.
(e) Assistance refers to any support or aid that may be
extended to persons with disabilities and senior citizens for
them to meaningfully and effectively participate in the
electoral processes.
(i) Special registration refers to registration conducted in
established satellite offices by a special registration team
designated by the Commission. It exclusively caters to first
time person with disability and senior citizen registrants
residing outside the area of jurisdiction of the regular Election
Officer conducting the satellite registration.
SEC.
7. Assistance
in
the
Accomplishment
of
Application Form. A person with disability or senior citizen
who cannot by himself or herself accomplish an application for
registration, by reason of illiteracy or physical disability, shall
be assisted by the Election Officer in the preparation of his or
her application form, or by any member of an accredited
citizens arm, or by a relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the fourth civil degree, or if he or she has none present,
by any person of his or her confidence who belongs to the
same household.
SEC.
12. Sensitivity
Training
Program.
The
Commission, in coordination with the National Council on
Disability Affairs (NCDA), the Commission on Human Rights
(CHR), and person with disability and senior citizen
organizations, shall organize, design, and implement
sensitivity trainings to persons performing electoral duties,
including the Commission field officers, members of the BEIs,
and accredited citizens arms to familiarize them with the
needs of the persons with disabilities and senior citizens.
In line with RA 7277 or the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons
Which mandates that polling places should be made
accessible to disabled persons during the national or local
elections.
Section 15. Election Registration Board.

There shall be in each city and municipality as many as
Election Registration Boards as there are election officers therein.
In thickly populated cities/municipalities, the Commission may
appoint additional election officers for such duration as may be
necessary.
1)
2)
3)
The Board shall be composed of the

Election Officer as chairman and as members,
the public school official most senior in rank and
the local civil registrar, or in this absence, the city or
municipal treasurer.
In case of disqualification of the Election Officer,
the Commission shall designate an acting Election Officer who
shall serve as Chairman of the Election Registration Board.
In case of disqualification or non-availability of the Local
Registrar or the Municipal Treasurer, the Commission shall
designate any other appointive civil service official from the
same locality as substitute.
No member of the Board shall be related to each other or to

any incumbent city or municipal elective official within the fourth
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. If in succeeding elections,
any of the newly elected city or municipal officials is related to a
member of the board within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity
or affinity, such member is automatically disqualified to preserve
the integrity of the Election Registration Board.
Every registered party and such organizations as may be
authorized by the Commission shall be entitled to a watcher in
every registration board.
Section 17. Notice and Hearing of Applications.
Upon receipt of applications for registration,
the Election Officer shall set them for hearing, notice of which shall
be posted
in the city or municipal bulletin board and in his office for
at least one (1) week before the hearing, and
furnish copies thereof to the applicant concerned, the heads or
representatives of political parties, and other accredited
groups or organizations which actively participated in the
electoral process in the city or municipality.
On the date of the hearing, the Election Officer shall receive such
evidence for or against the applicant.
A registrant whose application is not seasonably objected to shall
be notified in writing stating therein that no objection was
raised against his application and that he need not appear
on the date set for the hearing of his application.
Physical presence of the applicant concerned shall, however, be
mandatory in all cases where objections against his
application have been seasonably filed with the proper
Election Registration Board for him to rebut or refute
evidence presented in opposition thereto.
All applications for registration shall be heard and processed on a
quarterly basis. For this purpose, the Election Registration
Board shall meet and convene on the third Monday of April,
July, October, and January of every calendar year, or on the
next following working day if the designated days fail on a
non-working holiday, except in an election year to conform
with the one hundred twenty (120) days prohibitive period
before election day. Should one day be sufficient for the
processing of all accepted applications, the Board shall
adjourn from day to day until all the applications shall have
been processed.
Section 21. Publication of Action on Application for

Registration. Within five (5) days from approval or disapproval of
application, the Board shall post a notice in the bulletin board of the
city or municipal hall and in the office of the Election Officer, stating
the name and address of the applicant, the date of the application,
and the action taken thereon. The Election Officer shall furnish a
copy of such notice personally, or by registered mail or special
delivery to the applicant and heads or representatives of registered
political parties in the city or municipality.
Section 27. Deactivation of Registration. The board shall
deactivate the registration and remove the registration records of
the following persons from the corresponding precinct book of
voters and place the same, properly marked and dated in indelible
ink, in the inactive file after entering the cause or causes of
deactivation:
1)
Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to
suffer imprisonment for not less than one (1) year, such
disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or
amnesty: Provided, however, That any person disqualified
to vote under this paragraph shall automatically
reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five (5)
years after service of sentence as certified by the clerks
of
courts
of
the
Municipal/Municipal
Circuit/Metropolitan/Regional Trial Courts and the
Sandiganbayan;
2)
Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by
a
competent
court
or
tribunal
of
having
caused/committed any crime involving disloyalty to the
duly constituted government such as rebellion, sedition,
violation of the anti-subversion and firearms laws, or any
crime against national security, unless restored to his full
civil and political rights in accordance with law; Provided,
That he shall regain his right to vote automatically upon
expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence;
3)
Any person declared by competent authority to be insane
or incompetent unless such disqualification has been
Election Laws
4)
5)
6)
subsequently removed by a declaration of a proper

authority that such person is no longer insane or
incompetent;
Any person who did not vote in the two (2) successive
preceding regular elections as shown by their voting
records. For this purpose, regular elections do not include
the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections;
Any person whose registration has been ordered
excluded by the Court; and
Any person who has lost his Filipino citizenship.
For this purpose, the clerks of court for the Municipal/Municipal

Circuit/Metropolitan/Regional Trial Courts and the Sandiganbayan
shall furnish the Election Officer of the city or municipality
concerned at the end of each month a certified list of persons who
are disqualified under paragraph (a) hereof, with their addresses.
The Commission may request a certified list of persons who have
lost their Filipino Citizenship or declared as insane or incompetent
with their addresses from other government agencies.
The Election Officer shall post in the bulletin board of his office
a certified list of those persons whose registration were deactivated
and the reasons therefor, and furnish copies thereof to the local
heads of political parties, the national central file, provincial file,
and the voter concerned.
Election Laws
DEACTIVIATION, REACTIVIATION
AND CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION
DEACTIVATION is a process wherein the registration record

of a voter is removed by the Board from the corresponding
precinct book of voters and places the same in an inactive file
properly marked and dated in indelible ink and after entering
the causes for deactivation which are as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
For the above purposes, the Clerks of Court of the MTC, MTCC,
RTC and SB is mandated to furnish the election office of the
city or municipality concerned at the end of each month a
certified list of persons who are disqualified by virtue of a final
judgment, with their addressed. With respect to those who
lost their citizenship, insanity and incompetence, the COMELEC
may request a certified list of such persons from the
government agencies concerned.
The Election Officer shall submit said application to the

Election Registration Board for appropriate action. In case the
application is approved, the Election Officer shall retrieve the
registration record from the inactive file and include the same in the
corresponding precinct book of voters. Local heads or
representatives of political parties shall be properly notified on
approved applications.
REACTIVATION is a process whereby a voter whose

registration records has been deactivated files with the
election officer a sworn application for reactivation of his
registration in the form of an affidavit by stating therein that
the grounds for the deactivation no longer exist.
When filed?
Any time but not later than 120 days before a regular election
and 90 days before a special election. Upon approval, the
Board, shall retrieve the registration records from the inactive
file and included the same in the corresponding precinct book
of voters. Local heads or representatives of political parties
shall be properly notified of approved applications.
Section 29. Cancellation of Registration. The Board shall

cancel the registration records of those who have died as certified
by the Local Civil Registrar. The Local Civil Registrar shall submit
each month a certified list of persons who died during the previous
month to the Election Officer of the place where the deceased are
registered. In the absence of information concerning the place
where the deceased is registered, the list shall be sent to the
Election Officer of the city or municipality of the deceaseds
residence as appearing in his death certificate. In any case, the
Local Civil Registrar shall furnish a copy of this list to the national
central file and the proper provincial file.
The Election Officer shall post in the bulletin board of his office
a list of those persons who died whose registrations were cancelled,
and furnish copies thereof to the local heads of the political parties,
the national central file, and the provincial file.
The grounds for declaring a postponement of elections is

provided under Sec. 5 of the OEC, namely; when for any
serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or
destruction of election paraphernalia or records, FM
and other analogous circumstances of such a nature
that the holding of a HOPE-FRECRE should become
impossible in any political subdivision, the Commission
en banc may motu propio or upon a verified petition
by any interested party, and after due notice and
hearing, whereby all interested parties are afforded
equal opportunity to be heard, shall postpone the
election to a date which is reasonably close to the date
of the election not held, suspended or which resulted
to a failure to elect but not later than 30 days after the
cessation of the cause for such postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Section 5 of the OEC provides for the grounds for declaring a

postponement of elections that is when for:
1.
Any serious cause such as violence.
2.
Terrorism;
3.
Loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records;
4.
Force majeure; and
5.
Other analogous circumstances of such a nature that the
holding of a HOPE-FRECRE should become impossible in
any political subdivision.
Under these circumstances, the Commission en banc may

motu proprio or upon a verified petition by any interested
party, and after due notice and hearing, whereby all interested
parties are afforded equal opportunity to be heard, shall
postpone the election to a date which is reasonably close to
the date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted
to a failure to elect but not later than 30 days after the
cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of
the election or failure to elect.
Section 6, on the other hand, prescribes the conditions for

the exercise of the power to declare a Failure of Elections.
Those who are disqualified by virtue of a final

judgment as earlier enumerated and insane
and incompetent persons as official declared.
Any person who failed to vote in the 2 successive
preceding regular elections as shown by his
voting records.
Any person whose registration has been ordered
excluded by the court.
Any person who has lost his Filipino citizenship
Section 28. Reactivation of Registration. Any voter whose

registration has been deactivated pursuant to the preceding Section
may file with the Election Officer a sworn application for
reactivation of his registration in the form of an affidavit stating that
the grounds for the deactivation no longer exist any time but not
later than one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election
and ninety (90) days before a special election.
POWER TO DECLARE A POSTPONEMENT, FAILURE OR

ANNULMENT OF ELECTIONS AND CALL FOR SPECIAL
ELECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 5,6, & 7 OF THE
OEC IN RELATION TO SEC. 4 OF RA 7166.
CANCELLATION is a process wherein the Board cancels the

registration records of those who have died as certified by the
local civil registrar who shall submit each month a certified list
of persons who died during the previous month to the election
officer of the place where the deceased is registered.
1)
REMEDIES
persons
whose
application
for
reactivation, inclusion or correction has been
disapproved or those who intend to exclude a voter
from the list of voters
SEPTEMBER 1, 2016
Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If, on account of force majeure,

violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in
any polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been
suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the
voting, or after the voting and during the preparation and the
transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass
thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such
cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of
the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified
petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing,
call for the holding or continuation of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date
reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or
which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days
after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Canicosa v. COMELEC,
282 SCRA 512,
Canicosa filed with the COMELEC a Petition to declare failure of
elections and to declare null and void the canvass and proclamation
based on the following grounds (names of the Registered Voters did
not appear on the list, padlocks were not self locking among other)
which was dismissed by the COMELEC en banc on the ground that
the allegations therein did not justify the declaration of failure of
elections. Canicosa insists that it was an error on the part of the
COMELEC sitting en banc to rule on his petition as it should have
first been heard by a division.
The SC held that the matter relating to the declaration of
failure of elections or allegations raised by Canicosa did not involve
an exercise of quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions. It involves an
administrative function which pertains to the enforcement and
administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of
elections. The power of COMELEC to declare a failure of elections
involves only the exercise of administrative function.
Therefore,
COMELEC is not mandated to hear and decide cases first by
Division and then, upon motion for reconsideration, by the
COMELEC en banc which is only applicable in its exercise of its
adjudicatory or quasi judicial functions.
Here, the SC conformably with Sec. 6 of the OEC stressed
that there are only THREE (3) INSTANCES WHERE A FAILURE OF
ELECTIONS MAY BE DECLARED THAT IS, IF, ON ACCOUNT OF
Election Laws
FM, VIOLENCE TERRORISM, FRAUD, OTHER ANALOGOUS

CAUSES THE
1)
Election in any polling place has not been held on the date
fixed by law
2)
Or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the
closing of the voting
3)
Or after the voting and during the preparation and
transmission of the election returns or the custody or
canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect.
TWO CONDITIONS MUST FURTHER CONCUR TO DECLARE A
FAILURE OF ELECTIONS:
1)
No voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the
date fixed by law or, even if there was voting, the election
nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect and
2)
The votes not cast would affect the results of the elections.
Coquilla V. COMELEC
SC said that what is common in these three instances is the
resulting failure to elect. In the first instance, no election was held,
while in the second, the election is suspended. In the third
instance, circumstances attending the preparation, transmission,
custody or canvass of the election returns caused a failure to elect.
And, the term failure to elect means nobody emerged as a winner.
The COMELEC, based on the verified petition by an interested party
and after due notice and hearing, may call for the holding or
continuation of the election not held, suspended or which resulted
in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the
election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect
but not later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Pena v. HRET
270 SCRA 270
The SC, however, stressed that such power should be
exercised with greatest care as it involves the free and fair
expression of the popular will. For this purpose, the petitioner must
be able to show proof that:
(1) the illegality has affected more than 50% of the votes
cast; and
(2) that the good votes cannot be distinguished from the bad
votes.
Pasandalan v. COMELEC, et. al.
G.R. No. 150312 July 18, 2002
The SC held that a petition for declaration of failure of
elections is an extraordinary remedy and therefore a
petition for declaration of failure of elections must
specifically allege the essential grounds that would justify
the same. Otherwise, the COMELEC can dismiss outright the
petition for lack of merit and no grave abuse of discretion can be
attributed to it in such case because the COMELEC must exercise
with utmost circumspect the power to declare a failure of election
to prevent disenfranching voters and frustrating the electorates
will.
Pasandalan filed a petition for declaration of failure of election on
the ground that while voting was going on, Cafgus indiscriminately
fired their firearms causing the voters to panic and leave the polling
places without casting their votes. In taking advantage of the
situation, the supporters of his opponent took the official ballots
and filled them up with his opponents name and further, that the
BEIs failed to affix their initials at the back of several official
ballots. Pasandalan, on the basis of the affidavits of his own poll
watchers, insists that a technical examination of the official ballots
in the contested precincts be made which would show that only a
few persons wrote the entries, citing the case of Typoco v. COMELEC
319 SCRA 498 and Basher v. COMELEC 330 SCRA 736. The
COMELEC dismissed the petition.
The COMELEC is not mandated to conduct a technical

examination before it dismisses a petition for nullification of
election when the petition is, on its face, without merit. In the case
of TYPOCO vs. COMELEC 319 scar 498, petitioner Typoco
buttressed his petition with independent evidence that compelled
the COMELEC to conduct a technical examination of the questioned
returns. Typoco filed a Motion to Admit Evidence to prove that a
substantial number of election returns were manufactured and
claimed that the returns were prepared by only one person based
on the report of a licensed examiner of questioned documents who
examined copied of the election returns. Pasandalan failed to
attach independent and objective evidence other than the selfserving affidavits of his own poll watchers.
Basher vs. COMELEC
330 SCRA 736,

the SC held that the fact that an election is actually held prevents
as a rule, a declaration of failure of elections, but the Court,
however, can annul an election if it finds that the election is
attended with patent and massive irregularities and illegalities. In
this case, after a series of failed elections during the 1997 Barangay
Elections, the election was reset to 30 august 1997. Due to the
prevailing tension in the locality, the voting started only at around
9p.m. and lasted until the early morning of the following day.
Basher filed a petition for the nullification of the elections which
wad dismissed by the COMELEC on the ground that actual voting
had taken place. The SC overturned the COMELEC ruling because
the election was unauthorized and invalid. The electorate was not
given sufficient notice that the election would push through after
9pm of the same day. Moreover, the voting did not comply with the
procedure laid down by the COMELEC in its Resolution.
Mitmug v. COMELEC,
230 SCRA 54
the SC ruled that the COMELEC could dismiss outright a petition for
nullification of election if it is plainly groundless and the allegations
therein could be better ventilated in an election protest.
In
Banaga, Jr. v. COMELEC 336 SCRA 701 on the other hand, it was
ruled that the fact that a verified petition has been filed does not
mean that a hearing on the case should first be held before the
COMELEC can act on it. The petition must show on its face that the
conditions necessary to declare a failure of elections are present.
Ampatuan et. al. v. COMELEC
FACTS: private respondents filed a petition for declaration of failure
of elections in several municipalities of Maguindanao. While the
hearing on the said petition was still pending, the COMELEC
proclaimed the petitioners as winners for the position of Governor,
vice-governor and board members.
Thereafter, the COMELEC
issued an Order directing the continuation of the hearing on the
failure of elections and issued an order outlining the procedure to
be followed in the conduct of the technical examination.
Petitioners, relying on the case of Typoco, Jr. v. COMELEC,
contended that by virtue of their proclamation, the only remedy left
for private respondents is to file an election protest, in which case,
original jurisdiction lies with the regular courts and that the
COMELEC no longer has jurisdiction to conduct a technical
examination as it would defeat the summary nature of a petition for
declaration of failure of elections citing several rulings that an
election protest is the proper remedy for a losing candidate after
the proclamation of the winning candidates.
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC was divested of its jurisdiction to
hear and decide a petition for declaration of failure of elections
after the winners have already been proclaimed.
HELD: 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 this case, it
cannot be assumed that the proclamation of petitioners was legal
precisely because the conduct by which the elections were held was
put in issue by respondents in their petition for annulment of
elections results and/or declaration of failure of elections. The
cases relied upon by the petitioners that an election protest
is the proper remedy for a losing candidate after
proclamation of the winning candidate involved preproclamation controversies.
The SC made reference to its ruling in Loong v. COMELEC,
257 SCRA 1, that a pre-proclamation controversy is not the same
as an action for annulment of election results, or failure of
elections. In pre-proclamation cases, the COMELEC is restricted to
an examination of the election returns on their face and is without
jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and investigate election
irregularities.
The COMELEC is duty-bound to investigate
allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence and other analogous causes
in actions for annulment of election results or for declaration of
failure of elections conformably with the OEC.
Accordingly, the COMELEC, in the case of actions for
annulment of election results or declaration of failure of
elections, may conduct a technical examination of election
documents and compare and analyze voters signatures and
thumbprints in order to determine WoN the elections had
indeed been free, honest and clean.
Additional cases:
1. Samson Alcantara et al. vs. Comelec 696 SCRA 547
5.
Luis Lokin Jr. vs. Comelec et al. 674 SCRA 538
6.
Atienza vs. Comelec 612 SCRA 961
7.
Liberal Party vs. Comelec 620 SCRA 393
Election Laws
8.
LDP vs. Comelec 423 SCRA 665
9.
A-IPRA vs. Comelec 696 SCRA 563
10.
Damasen vs. Tumamao 613 SCRA 49
11.
Atong Paglaum Inc. vs. Comelec (2013)
12.
Cocofed vs. Comelec 703 SCRA 165
13.
Lokin Jr. vs. Comelec 621 SCRA 385
14.
Alliance for Nationalism or Democracy vs. Comelec 605 SCRA 340
15.
Abayhon vs. HRET 612 SCRA 375
16.
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood vs. Comelec 619 SCRA 585
17.
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood 646 SCRA 63
18.
Amores vs. HRET 62 SCRA 593
19.
Ang Ladlad vs. Comelec 618 SCRA 32
20.
AKLAT vs. Comelec (2004) GR 162203
21.
Bantay Act RA 7941 vs. Comelec 523 SCRA 1
22.
BANAT et al vs. Comelec (2009) GR 178271 and 12972 (prevailing
rule)
Kilosbayan vs. COMELEC

(procedure in election offense case, 261 of OEC) 80 SCRA 892,
Kilosbayan filed a letter-complaint with the COMELEC against
incumbent officials running for public elective office for violation of
Sec. 261 of the OEC alleging illegal disbursement of public funds
and submitting as evidence to support the complaint, published
writings in newspapers without any additional evidence to support
the newspaper articles arguing that it was the COMELECs
constitutional duty to prosecute election offenses upon any
information of alleged commission of election offenses.
The
COMELEC dismissed the complaint there being no probable cause
found. The SC held that it is not the duty of COMELEC to search for
evidence to prove an election complaint filed before it. The task of
COMELEC as investigator and prosecutor is not the physical
searching and gathering of proof in support of the alleged
commission of an election offense. The complainant still has the
burden to prove his complaint.
Jose Miguel Arroyo v. SOJ
Aquino v. COMELEC
Congress
passed
RA
9716,
reapportioning
the
composition of the 1st and 2nd legislative districts in the Province of
Camarines Sur and thereby creating a new legislative district from
such
reapportionment.
Petitioners
contend
that
the
reapportionment introduced by Republic Act No. 9716, runs afoul of
the explicit constitutional standard that requires a minimum
population of two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) for the creation
of a legislative district. The petitioners claim that the
reconfiguration by Republic Act No. 9716 of the first and second
districts of Camarines Sur is unconstitutional, because the proposed
first district will end up with a population of less than 250,000 or
only 176,383. The petitioners posit that the 250,000 figure
appearing in Section 5(3) of Article VI is the minimum population
requirement for the creation of a legislative district. Hence, if the
reapportionment would result in the creation of a legislative seat
representing a populace of less than 250,000 inhabitants, the
reapportionment must be stricken down as invalid for noncompliance with the minimum population requirement.
ISSUE: Should a new legislative district carved out from a
previously created legislative district comply with the 250,000
population requirement under Section 5(3), Article VI?
Ruling:
POPULATION REQUIREMENT ONLY APPLIES TO CITIES.
There is no specific provision in the Constitution that fixes a
250,000 minimum population that must compose a legislative
district.
The second sentence of Section 5(3), Article VI of the
Constitution, succinctly provides: "Each city with a population of at
least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at
least one representative."
The provision draws a plain and clear distinction between the
entitlement of a city to a district on one hand, and the entitlement
of a province to a district on the other. For while a province is
entitled to at least a representative, with nothing mentioned about
population, a city must first meet a population minimum of 250,000

in order to be similarly entitled.
A CITY NEED NOT INCREASE ITS POPULATION BY
ANOTHER 250,000 TO JUSTIFY THE CREATION OF ANOTHER
DISTRICT. Citing Mariano, the application of the 250,000 minimum
population requirementfor cities is limited only to its initial
legislative district. In other words, while Section 5(3), Article VI of
the Constitution requires a city to have a minimum population of
250,000 to be entitled to a representative, it does not have to
increase its population by another 250,000 to be entitled to an
additional district. There is no reason why the Mariano case, which
involves the creation of an additional district within a city, should
not be applied to additional districts in provinces. Indeed, if an
additional legislative district created within a city is not
required to represent a population of at least 250,000 in
order to be valid, neither should such be needed for an
additional district in a province, considering moreover that
a province is entitled to
an initial seat by the mere fact of its creation and
regardless of its population.
UNIQUE PARAMETERS OF THE PHILIPPINE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM

(Ang Bagong Bayani v. Comelec):
"First, the twenty percent allocation -- the combined
number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty
percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives,
including those elected under the party-list.
"Second, the two percent threshold -- only those parties
garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for
the party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the House of
Representatives.
***[Note: In the case of BANAT v. Comelec, SC: We rule that,
in computing the
allocation of additional seats, the continued
operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution
of the additional seats as found in the second clause of
Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional. This
Court finds that the two percent threshold makes it
mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum
number of available party list seats when the number of
available party list seats exceeds 50. The continued
operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution
of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the
permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House
of
Representatives
shall
consist
of
party-list
representatives.]
"Third, the three-seat limit -- each qualified party, regardless
of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a
maximum of three seats; that is, one qualifying and two additional
seats.
"Fourth, proportional representation -- the additional seats
which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in
proportion to their total number of votes.
BANAT v. COMELEC 595 SCRA 477
GARCIA v. COMELEC not interfere w/ the COMELEC's finding of

PC absent GAOD
COMELEC v. SILVA - superceded by the new rules w/ respect to

concurrent jurisdiction
Assignment until ITEM X-XIV
SAMSON ALCANTARA ET AL V COMELEC

COMELEC necessarily possesses the power to pass upon the
question of who, among the legitimate officers of the party-list
group, are entitled to exercise the rights and privileges granted to a
party-list group under the law. The COMELEC's jurisdiction on this
point is well settled and is not here disputed
LOKIN JR TERESITA PLANAS V COMELEC

Comelec possess the authority to pass upon intraparty
disputes
POLITICAL LAW: COMELECs jurisdiction over intra-party
disputes
In the 2010 case Atienza v. Commission on Elections, it was
expressly settled that the COMELEC possessed the authority to
resolve intra-party disputes as a necessary tributary of its
constitutionally mandated power to enforce election laws and
register political parties. The Court therein cited Kalaw v.
Commission on Elections and Palmares v. Commission on Elections,
which uniformly upheld the COMELECs jurisdiction over intra-party
disputes:
Election Laws
The COMELECs jurisdiction over intra-party leadership disputes

has already been settled by the Court. The Court ruled in Kalaw v.
Commission on Elections that the COMELECs powers and
functions under Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, include
the ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its
legitimate officers responsible for its acts. The Court also declared
in another case that the COMELECs power to register political
parties necessarily involved the determination of the persons who
must act on its behalf. Thus, the COMELEC may resolve an intraparty leadership dispute, in a proper case brought before it, as an
incident of its power to register political parties.
ATIENZA V COMELEC 612 S 961
the authority to sign certificates of candidacy of the official

candidates of the party. While it has jurisdiction to rule upon
questions of party identity and leadership as an incident to its
enforcement powers it was well within its competence to inquire
into which party officer has authority to sign and endorse certificate
of candidacy of partys nominees. And to resolve the issue raised,
the Comelec need only to turn to the Party Constitution and election
laws. The Comelec Resolution is INDECISION in the guise of equity.
What is worse is that, Comelec divided the LDP into wings both
having authority to nominate candidates for every elective position.
Consequently, Comelec planted seeds of confusion among the
electorate who are apt to be confounded by two candidates from a
single political party. This was not only a disservice to the
opposition but to the voting public as well as its Resolution
facilitated rather than forestalled, the division of the minority party.
LIBERAL PARTY V COMELEC 620 S 393

COMELEC set a deadline for registration of polparties. NPNPC
filed an application as a coalition and at the same time sought
accreditation as a dominant minority party. COMELEC duly
registered but did not rule on the matter of accreditation. LP
questioned the jurisdiction in so far as the coalition is concerned.
W/N there is GAOD? No. Petition for certiorari is premature because
the decision of the COMELEC is not complete since it did not touch
on the issue on accreditation. While the COMELEC en banc. Is the
present petition premature, since its object is to foreclose a ruling
on the unsettled NP-NPC accreditation issue?
RULING:
the SC distinguished REGISTRATION and ACCREDITATION of a
political party. The root of this petition before the SC is the NP-NPC
petition before the COMELEC for registration as a coalition and
accreditation as the dominant minority party. While the Comelec En
Banc claimed jurisdiction over the registration of coalitions and has
in fact decreed NP-NPCs registration, the Comelec however did
NOT rule on the accreditation aspect. The registration of a
coalition and the accreditation of a dominant minority party
are two separate matters that are substantively distinct
from each other.
Section 2(5), Article XI-C and Rule 32 of the

CRP regulate the registration of political
parties, organizations or coalition of political
parties.
Accreditation as a dominant party is
governed by Comelec Resolution No. 8752, Section 1
of which states that the petition for accreditation
shall be filed with the Clerk of the Commission who
shall docket it as an SPP (DM) case. This was the
manner the NP-NPC was docketed.
Registration of political parties is a special

proceedings assigned to a Division for handling
under the CRP. No similar clear cut rule is available
to a petition for accreditation as a dominant party.
Registration must first take place before a request

for accreditation can be made. Accreditation is the
next natural step to follow after registration.
Hence, when the Comelec En Banc, resolved the registration of
the NP- NPC the case is terminated and ripe for review by the SC via
a Petition for Certiorari. The issue with respect to accreditation is a
separate issue which is treated in a separate proceeding. As ruled,
a Motion for Reconsideration of a Resolution of the Comelec En
Banc is a prohibited pleading (Sec. 1(d) Rule 13). The remedy
available to a party is a petition for certiorari with the SC pursuant
to Article IX-A, Sec. 7 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
AGAPAY /A-IPRA V COMELEC 696 S 563

As regards the legitimacy of the nomination of the Lota Group
raised by the Insigne group in their petition for intervention and
opposition, the same is more aptly addressed to the COMELEC. The
determination of who is the rightful representative of a political
party or the legitimate nominee of a party-list group lies with the
COMELEC, as part and parcel of its constitutional task of registering
political parties, organizations and coalitions under Section 2 (5), 18
Article IX (C)
of the 1987 Constitution.
I n Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino v. COMELEC, 19 this Court
held that the COMELEC correctly ruled that "the ascertainment of
the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers is a matter
that is well within its authority. The source of this authority is no
other than the fundamental law itself, which vests upon the
COMELEC the power and function to enforce and administer all laws
and regulations relative to the conduct of an election." 20
Apparently, the COMELEC failed to resolve the issue of the
legitimacy of the nomination of the Lota Group in its Resolution
dated November 7, 2012 and this was raised as an issue by the
Insigne Group in the instant petition. However, with the remand of
all the petitions to the COMELEC and the directive for it to
redetermine the qualifications of the petitioning party-list groups, it
is only appropriate that the Insigne Group present their challenge to
the legitimacy of
the Lota Group's nomination before the Commission to give it
the opportunity to rule on the matter at the same time that it
reevaluates A-IPRA's qualifications to run in the May 2013 elections
based on the new set of guidelines in Atong Paglaum.
DAMACEN V. TUMAMAO 657 SCRA 49

Issue: W/N COMELEC has the authority to decide over matters
in accepting members in a political party? NO
Ruling: the discretion of accepting members to a political
party is a right and a privilege, a purely internal matter, which the
Court cannot meddle in. The reason behind the right given to a
political party to nominate a replacement where a permanent
vacancy occurs in the Sanggunian is to maintain the party
representation as willed by the people in the election (Sec. 45 (b) of
RA 7160 Rule on Succession and as held in Navarro v. CA 672 SCRA
355 (2010). Damasen was not a bonafide member. Tumamao was
husband of the VM who died).
RA 7941
Purpose of Accreditation in Partylist system
LDP LABAN V COMELEC 423 S 665

FACTS: The LDP informed the Comelec by way of
Manifestation that only the Party Chairman or his authorized
representative may endorse the COC of the partys official
candidates; the Representative Butch Aquino was on indefinite
forced leave and in the meantime Ambassador Enrique Zaldivar
was designation Acting Secretary General.
Aquino in a comment alleged that the Party Chairman
does not have the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions on the
Secretary General and that the Manifestation filed has no basis
praying that Comelec disregards the same. Comelec issued an
order requiring the parties to file verified petition. Pending
resolution, a Certificate of Nomination of Senator Panfilo Lacson as
LDP candidate for President was filed with the Comelec which was
signed by Representative Aquino as LDP Secretary General.
Comelec issued a Resolution granting the petition with LEGAL
EQUITY for both Petitioner and Oppositor (Angara Wing and Aquino
Wing).
ISSUE: whether or not Comelec gravely abused its discretion
in issuing the subject Resolution
RULING:
Comelec gravely abused its discretion. The issue is simply
Who as between the Party Chairman and Secretary General has
ATONG PAGLAUM INC V COMELEC APRIL 2, 2013

ADOPTION OF NEW PARAMETERS. The Court adopted new
parameters in the qualification of national, regional, and sectoral
parties under the party-list system, thereby abandoning
inconsistent rulings in previous Decisions.
INTENT OF THE FRAMERS IS INCLUSIVE AS TO NONSECTORAL PARTIES. The framers of the
1987 Constitution intended the party-list system to include not
only sectoral parties but also non-sectoral parties. The framers
intended the sectoral parties to constitute a part, but not the
entirety, of the party-list system. As explained by Commissioner
Wilfredo Villacorta, political parties can participate in the party-list
system "For as long as they field candidates who come from the
different marginalized sectors that we shall designate in this
Constitution."
What the framers intended, and what they expressly wrote in
Section 5(1), could not be any clearer: the party-list system is
composed of three different groups, and the sectoral parties belong
to only one of the three groups. The text of Section 5(1) leaves no
room for any doubt that national and regional parties are separate
from sectoral parties.
Election Laws
THREE GROUPS COMPRISING THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM.

The party-list system is composed of three different groups: (1)
national parties or organizations; (2) regional parties or
organizations; and (3) sectoral parties or organizations.
National and regional parties or organizations are different
from sectoral parties or organizations. National and regional parties
or organizations need not be organized along sectoral lines and
need not represent any particular sector.
NO
REQUIREMENT
OF
MARGINALIZED/SECTORAL
REPRESENTATION AS TO POLITICAL PARTIES. R.A. No. 7941
does not require national and regional parties or organizations to
represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors. To
require all national and regional parties under the party-list system
to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" is to deprive
and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented
parties from the party-list system.
political constituencies," giving them the opportunity to have

members in the House of Representatives.
To participate in party-list elections, a major political party that
fields candidates in the legislative district elections must organize a
sectoral wing, like a labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
professional, women or youth wing, that can register under the
party-list system.
Such sectoral wing of a major political party must have its own
constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, officers
and members, a majority of whom must belong to the sector
represented. The sectoral wing is in itself an independent sectoral
party, and is linked to a major political party through a coalition.
This linkage is allowed by Section 3 of R.A. No. 7941, which provides
that "component parties or organizations of a coalition may
participate independently (in party-list elections) provided the
coalition of which they form part does not participate in the partylist system."
How will these ideology-based and cause-oriented parties, who

cannot win in legislative district elections, participate in the
electoral process if they are excluded from the party-list system? To
exclude them from the party-list system is to prevent them from
joining the parliamentary struggle, leaving as their only option the
armed struggle. To exclude them from the party-list system is, apart
from being obviously senseless, patently contrary to the clear intent
and express wording of the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.
NEW PARAMETERS INTRODUCED.

1.
Three different groups may participate in the partylist
system:
(1) national parties or organizations,
(2) regional parties or organizations, and
(3) sectoral parties or organizations.
2.
National parties or organizations and regional
parties or organizations do not need to organize along
sectoral lines and do not need to represent any
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector.
3.
Political parties can participate in party-list elections
provided they register under the party-list system and do
not field candidates in legislative district elections. A
political party, whether major or not, that fields
candidates in legislative district elections can participate
in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that
can separately register under the party-list system. The
sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party,
and is linked to a political party through a coalition.
4.
Sectoral parties or organizations may either be
"marginalized and underrepresented" or lacking in "welldefined political constituencies." It is enough that their
principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. The sectors that are
"marginalized and underrepresented" include labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas
workers. The sectors that lack "well-defined political
constituencies" include professionals, the elderly, women,
and the youth.
5.
A majority of the members of sectoral parties or
organizations that represent the "marginalized and
underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector they represent. Similarly, a
majority of the members of sectoral parties or
organizations
that
lack
"well-defined
political
constituencies" must belong to the sector they represent.
The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that
represent the "marginalized and underrepresented," or
that represent those who lack "well-defined political
constituencies," either must belong to their respective
sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their
respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional
parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of
such parties or organizations.
6.
National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations
shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are
disqualified, provided that they have at least one
nominee who remains qualified.
Under the party-list system, an ideology-based or causeoriented political party is clearly different from a sectoral party. A
political party need not be organized as a sectoral party and need
not represent any particular sector. There is no requirement in R.A.
No. 7941 that a national or regional political party must represent a
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector. It is sufficient that the
political party consists of citizens who advocate the same ideology
or platform, or the same governance principles and policies,
regardless of their economic status as citizens.
Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 states that "the sectors shall include
labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans,
overseas workers, andprofessionals." The sectors mentioned in
Section
5
are
not
all
necessarily
"marginalized
and
underrepresented." For sure, "professionals" are not by definition
"marginalized and underrepresented," not even the elderly, women,
and the youth. However, professionals, the elderly, women, and the
youth may "lack well-defined political constituencies," and
can thus organize themselves into sectoral parties in
advocacy of the special interests and concerns of their
respective sectors.
Further, none of the 8 grounds under Section 6 of RA
7941 to refuse or cancel registration refers to nonrepresentation of the "marginalized and underrepresented."
INTERPRETATION
OF
MARGINALIZED
AND
UNDERREPRESENTED
REQUIREMENT.
The
phrase
"marginalized and underrepresented" should refer only to the
sectors in Section 5 that are, by their nature, economically
"marginalized and underrepresented." These sectors are: labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and other similar sectors.
For these sectors, a majority of the members of the sectoral party
must belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented." The
nominees of the sectoral party either must belong to the sector, or
must have a track record of advocacy for the sector represented.
Belonging to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector does
not mean one must "wallow in poverty, destitution or infirmity." It is
sufficient that one, or his or her sector, is below the middle class.
More
specifically,
the
economically
"marginalized
and
underrepresented" are those who fall in the low income group as
classified by the National Statistical Coordination Board.
This interpretation will harmonize the 1987 Constitution and
R.A. No. 7941 and will give rise to a multi-party system where those
"marginalized and underrepresented," both in economic and
ideological status, will have the opportunity to send their own
members to the House of Representatives. This interpretation will
also make the party-list system honest and transparent, eliminating
the need for relatively well-off party-list representatives to
masquerade as "wallowing in poverty, destitution and infirmity,"
even as they attend sessions in Congress riding in SUVs.
AS TO MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES. The major political
parties are those that field candidates in the legislative district
elections. Major political parties cannot participate in the party-list
elections since they neither lack "well-defined political
constituencies" nor represent "marginalized and underrepresented"
sectors. Thus, the national or regional parties under the party-list
system are necessarily those that do not belong to major political
parties. This automatically reserves the national and regional
parties under the party-list system to those who "lack well-defined
COCOFED V COMELEC 703 S

SC made distinction between Sec. 4 and 5 of 7941
Section 4. Manifestation to Participate in the Party-List
System. Any party, organization, or coalition already registered
with the Commission need not register anew. However, such party,
organization, or coalition shall file with the Commission, not later
than ninety (90) days before the election, a manifestation of its
desire to participate in the party-list system.
Section 5. Registration. Any organized group of persons
may register as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of the
party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety
(90) days before the election a petition verified by its president or
secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as
a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of
such parties or organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, bylaws, platform or program of government, list of officers, coalition
agreement and other relevant information as the COMELEC may
require: Provided, That the sectors shall include labor, peasant,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and
professionals.
Election Laws
HR who are nominated in the party-list system shall not

be considered resigned.
Another issue in rel to Sec. 8, 7941

FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE LIST OF FIVE NOMINEES
BEFORE THE ELECTION WARRANTS THE CANCELLATION OF
ITS REGISTRATION
The law expressly requires the submission of a list containing at
least qualified nominees. Section 8 of RA No. 7941 reads:
Section 8. Nomination of Party-List Representatives.
Each registered party, organization or coalition shall
submit to the COMELEC not later than forty-ve (45) days
before the election a list of names, not less than ve (5),
from which party-list representatives shall be chosen in
case it obtains the required number of votes. [emphases
and underscores ours; italics supplied]
As early as February 8, 2012, the COMELEC had informed, through
Resolution No. 9359, 18 all registered parties who wished to
participate in the May 2013 party-list elections that they "shall le
with the [COMELEC] a Manifestation of Intent to participate in the
part-list election together with its list of at least five (5) nominees,
no later than May 31, 2012[.]" Under Section 6 (5) of RA No. 7941,
violation of or failure to comply with laws, rules or regulations
relating to elections is a ground for the cancellation of registration.
However, not every kind of violation automatically warrants the
cancellation of a party-list group's registration. Since a reading of
the entire Section 6 shows that all the grounds for cancellation
actually pertain to the party itself, then the laws, rules and
regulations violated to warrant cancellation under Section 6 (5)
must be one that is primarily imputable to the party itself and not
one that is chiefly confined to an individual member or its nominee.
COCOFED's failure to submit a list of ve nominees , despite
ample opportunity to do so before the elections, is a violation
imputable to the party under Section 6 (5) of RA No. 7941.
First, the language of Section 8 of RA No. 7941 does not only
use the word "shall" in connection with the requirement of
submitting a list of nominees; it uses this mandatory term in
conjunction with the number of names to be submitted that is
couched negatively, i.e., "not less than ve." The use of these terms
together is a plain indication of legislative intent to make the
statutory requirement mandatory for the party to undertake. 19
With the date and manner of submission 20 of the list having been
determined by law a condition precedent for the registration of
new party-list groups or for participation in the party-list elections in
case of previously registered party-list groups, 21 and was in fact
reiterated by the COMELEC through its resolutions COCOFED
cannot now claim good faith, much less dictate its own terms of
compliance.
Pursuant to the terms of Section 8 of RA No. 7941, the Court
cannot leave to the party the discretion to determine the number of
nominees it would submit. A contrary view overlooks the fact that
the requirement of submission of a list of ve nominees is primarily
a statutory requirement for the registration of party-list groups and
the submission of this list is part of a registered party's continuing
compliance with the law to maintain its registration. A party-list
group's previous registration with the COMELEC confers no vested
right to the maintenance of its registration. In order to maintain a
party in a continuing compliance status, the party must prove not
only its continued possession of the requisite qualications but,
equally, must show its compliance with the basic requirements of
the law.
LOKIN JR V COMELEC
The SC ruled that Comelec cannot issue rules and regulations
that provide a ground for the substitution of a party-list nominee
NOT written in R.A.7941.
Sec. 8 provides Nomination of Party-List
Representatives. Each registered party, organization
or coalition shall submit to the Comelec not later than
45 days before the election a list of names, not less
than five (5), from which party-list representatives
shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number
of votes.
A person may be nominated in one (1) list only.
Only persons who have given their consent in writing may be
named in the list. The list shall not include any candidate for
any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an
elective office in the immediately preceding election. NO
change of names or alteration of the order of nominees
shall be allowed after the same shall have been
submitted to the Comelec except in cases (1) where the
nominee dies, or (2) withdraws in writing his
nomination, (3) becomes incapacitated in which case
the name of the substitute nominee shall be placed last
in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the
CIBAC (Citizens Battle Against Corruption) thru its President

Emmanuel Villanueva manifested their intent to participate in the
May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local elections and
submitted their list of 5 nominees (Villanueva, Lokin (herein
petitioner), Cruz-Gonzales, Tugna and Galang). The list was later
published in the newspapers of general circulation. Before the
elections, Villanueva filed a certificate of nomination, substitution
and amendment of the list of nominees whereby it withdrew the
nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang and substituted Borje. The
amended list included Villanueva, Cruz-Gonzales and Borje.
Subsequently, Villanueva transmitted to Comelec the signed
petitions of more than 81% if the CIBAC members in order to
confirm the withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and
Galang.
Based on the Party-List Canvas Report, it showed that CIBAC
was entitled to a second seat, hence, the counsel of CIBAC filed
with the Comelec sitting as National Board of Canvassers, a request
to proclaim Lokin as the 2nd nominee which was opposed by
Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales. Since Comelec failed to act on the
filing of the certificate of nomination, substitution and amendment
of the list of nominees and the petitions of the more than 81% of
CIBAC members, Villanueva filed a petition to confirm the said
certificate with the Comelec which was docketed as E.M. No. 07054. In the meantime, Comelec as NBC partially proclaimed several
party lists as having won which included Cibac.
The Secretary General of CIBAC informed the Secretary
General of the HR to formally swear Lokin into office but which was
denied in view of the pendency of E.M. No. 07-054 which approved
the withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin et. al. and the
substitution of Borje. Cruz-Gonzales was proclaimed as the official
second nominee.
Lokin brought before the SC via Mandamus to compel
respondent Comelec to proclaim him as the official second nominee
of CIBAC. Also, in another petition, Lokin assailed Sec. 13 of
Resolution No. 7804 (Rules and Regulations Governing the filing of
Manifestation of Intent to Participate and submission of Names of
Nominees under the Party-List) and its resolution in E.M. No. 07054.
The Comelec asserts that a petition for certiorari is an
inappropriate recourse in law due to the proclamation of CruzGonzales as representative and her assumption of that office; that
Lokins proper recourse was an electoral protest filed in the HRET,
therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter being raised
by Lokin. CIBAC posits that Lokin is guilty of forum shopping for
filing a petition for mandamus and a petition for certiorari,
considering that both petitions ultimately seek to have him
proclaimed as the second nominee of CIBAC.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the
controversy? YES
RULING:
(a) The Court has jurisdiction. The controversy involving Lokin is
neither an EP nor an action for QW, for it concerns a very
peculiar situation in which Lokin is seeking to be seated as
second nominee of CIBAC. Although an EP may properly be
available to one part-list organization seeking to unseat
another party-list organization to determine which between
the defeated and the winning party-list organizations actually
obtained the majority of the legal votes, Lokins case is not
one in which a nominee of a particular party-list organization
thereby wants to unseat another nominee of the same party
list. Neither does an action for QW lie, considering that the
case does not involve the ineligibility and disloyalty of CruzGonzales to the RP, or some other case of disqualification.
Lokin has correctly brought this special civil action for
certiorari against the Comelec to seek the review of its
resolution in accordance with Section 7 of Article IX-A of the
1987 Constitution, notwithstanding the oath and assumption
of office by Cruz-Gonzales. The constitutional mandate is now
implemented by Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, which
provides for the review of the judgments, final orders or
resolution of the Comelec and the Commission on Audit. As
Rule 64 states, the mode of review is by a petition for
certiorari in accordance with Rule 65 to be filed in the SC
within the limited period of 30 days. The Court has original
and exclusive jurisdiction over Lokins certiorari and for
mandamus.
(b)
Both actions, certiorari and mandamus did not violate the rule
against forum shopping even if the actions involved the same
parties, because they were based on different causes of
action and the reliefs they sought were different.
(c)
Comelec gravely abused its discretion in promulgating

Section 13 of Res. No. 7804 as it expanded the
Election Laws
exceptions under Sec. 8 of RA 7941 Section 8

enumerates only 3 instances in which the party-list
organization can substitute another person in place of
the nominee.
The enumeration is exclusive. [Three
instances: Dies, withdraws, incapacitated]
ANAD V. COMELEC 605 S 340
ABAYHON V. HRET 612 S 375

These two cases were consolidated and jointly resolved as it
both concerns the authority of the HRET to pass upon the
eligibilities of the nominees of the party-list groups that won seats
in the lower house of Congress.
Abayhon is the 1st nominee of the Aangat Tayo party-list that
won a seat in the HR during the 2007 elections. Palparan on the
other hand was the 1st nominee of Bantay party-list. A petition for
QW was filed with HRET against the party-list groups and its
nominee claiming that it was not eligible for a party-list since it did
not represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
Abayhon is the spouse of an incumbent congressional district
representative and likewise does not belong to the UR and
marginalized. Petitioners also claim that Abayhon lost her bid as
party-list rep called An Waray in the immediately preceding
elections of May 10, 2004. Palparan also was alleged to have
committed various human rights violations against the marginalized
sectors (Bantay represents the victims of communist rebels, CAFGU,
security guards and former rebels.)
Abayhon and Palparan postures that the Comelec already
confirmed the status of the party list as a national multi-sectoral
party-list organization, that HRET had no jurisdiction over the
petitioner for QW since the petitioners collaterally attacked the
registration of the party-list organization, a matter that fell within
the jurisdiction of the Comelec. That it was the party-list that was
taking a seat in the HR and not them, being only its nominees. All
questions involving their eligibility as nominee, were internal
concerns of the organization. The HRET dismissed the petition
against party-list but upheld its jurisdiction over nominees who both
filed an MR which was denied. Hence, this special civil action for
certiorari alleging that the HRET gravely abused its discretion.
ISSUE: Was the dismissal by the HRET committed with
GAOD?
RULING: The Court made reference to Sec. 5(1) of Article VI
(which identifies who the members of that House are. The
HR shall be composed of not more than 250 members, unless
otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative
districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ration, and those who, as provided by law, shall
be elected through a party-list system of registered
national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations.
Clearly the members of the HR are 2 kinds members
who shall be elected from legislative districts and those who shall
be elected through a party-list system. From the point of view of
the Constitution, it is the party-list representatives who are
elected into office, NOT their parties or organizations. These
representatives are elected, however, through that peculiar partylist system that the Constitution authorized and that Congress by
law established where the voters cast their votes for the
organizations or parties to which such party-list reps belong.
Once elected, both the district reps and the party-list reps are
treated in like manners. They have the same deliberative rights,
salaries, and emoluments. They can participate in the making of
laws that will directly benefit their legislative districts or sectors.
They are also subject to the same term limitations of 3 years for a
max of 3 consecutive terms. The party list system act itself
recognizes party list nominees as members of the HR (Sec. 2, RA
7941 Declaration of Policy The State shall promote
proportional representation in the election of reps in the HR through
a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral
parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable
Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and UR
sectors x x x x to become members of the HR .
The Court held that initially, the authority to determine the
qualifications of a party-list nominee belongs to the organization
and to choose five from among the aspiring nominees to comply
with the law. But where an allegation is made that the party or
organization had chosen and allowed a disqualified nominee to
become its party-list rep in the lower house and enjoy the secured
tenure that goes with the position, the resolution of the dispute is
taken out of its hand. Hence, pursuant to Section 17 of Article VI,
the HRET being the sole judge of all contests relating to, among
other things, the qualifications of the members of the HR, the HRET
has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications.
The
HRET was correct in dismissing the QW and retaining authority to
rule on the qualifications.
PHIL. GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD INC 619 S 585

(DELISTING) The Comelec may motu propio OR upon verified
complaint of any interested party, remove, or cancel, after due
notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or
sectoral party, organization or coalition IF It:
(a) fails to participate in the last 2 preceding
elections; OR
(b) fails to obtain at least 2% of the votes casts under
the party-list system in the 2 preceding elections
for the constituency in which it was registered
(Section 6 RA 7941).
The word OR is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation
and independence of one thing from the other things enumerated.
A party list group or organization that failed to garner 2% in a prior
election and immediately thereafter did not participate in the
preceding election is something that is not covered by Section
6(8) of RA 7941. From this perspective, it may ben an unintended
gap in the law and as such is a matter for Congress to address. This
case abandoned the Minero vs. Comelec G.R. No. 177548 May 10,
2007.
646 S 63
AMORES V. HRET 622 S 593
ANG LADLAD LGBT

COMELEC refused to accredit Ang Ladlad as a party-list
organization under RA 7941. Ang Ladlad is an organization
composed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians,
gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs). COMELEC
denied their petition on moral grounds, ruling that The ANG
LADLAD apparently advocates sexual immorality should this
Commission grant the petition, we will be exposing our youth to an
environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith.
Lehman Strauss, a famous bible teacher and writer in the U.S.A.
said in one article that older practicing homosexuals are a threat to
the youth. As an agency of the government, ours too is the States
avowed duty under Section 13, Article II of the Constitution to
protect our youth from moral and spiritual degradation.
COMELEC further argued that Ang Ladlad does not have a
concrete and genuine national political agenda to benefit the nation
and that the petition was validly dismissed on moral grounds. It also
argued that the LGBT sector is not among the sectors enumerated
by the Constitution and RA 7941, and that petitioner made
untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged its national
existence contrary to actual verification reports by COMELECs field
personnel. Hence, the Petition.
Issue: Was the COMELEC correct in refusing to accredit Ang
Ladlad as a party-list on the ground of alleged immorality.
Ruling:
CLARIFICATION OF ANG BAGONG BAYANI RULING.
Comelec mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani
stands for the proposition that only those sectors specifically
enumerated in the law or related to said sectors may be registered
under the party-list system. As we explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong
Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, the
enumeration of marginalized and under-represented sectors is not
exclusive. The crucial element is not whether a sector is
specifically
enumerated,
but
whether
a
particular
organization complies with the requirements of the
Constitution and RA 7941.
Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the
Assailed Resolutions should depend, instead, on whether the
COMELEC is able to advance some justification for its rulings
beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine. Otherwise stated,
government must act for secular purposes and in ways that have
primarily secular effects.
VALIDITY OF PUBLIC MORALS AS A GROUND TO DENY
ANG
LADLADS
PETITION
FOR
REGISTRATION.
Moral
disapproval, without more, is not a sufficient governmental interest
to justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the partylist system. The denial of Ang Ladlads registration on purely moral
grounds amounts more to a statement of dislike and disapproval of
homosexuals, rather than a tool to further any substantial public
interest. Respondents blanket justifications give rise to the
inevitable conclusion that the COMELEC targets homosexuals
themselves as a class, not because of any particular morally
reprehensible act. It is this selective targeting that implicates our
equal protection clause.
Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are sought
to be prevented, or why special protection is required for the youth.
Neither has the COMELEC condescended to justify its position that
petitioners admission into the party-list system would be so
harmful as to irreparably damage the moral fabric of society.
AKLAT APRIL 14, 2004 GR 162203
Election Laws
BANTAY ACT REP ACT 7941 523 S 1

BANAT ET AL V. COMELEC APRIL 21, 2009
The qualifications of party-list nominees are prescribed in
Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941: Qualifications of
Party-List Nominees. No person shall be nominated as
party-list representative unless he is a natural born
citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of
the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year
immediately preceding the day of the elections, able to
read and write, bona fide member of the party or
organization which he seeks to represent for at least
ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is
at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the
election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at
least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30)
years of age on the day of the election. Any youth
sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30)
during his term shall be allowed to continue until the
expiration of his term.
Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7941, it is not necessary that
the party-list organizations nominee wallow in poverty,
destitution and infirmity as there is no financial status required
in the law. It is enough that the nominee of the sectoral
party/organization/coalition belongs to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, that is, if the nominee represents
the fisherfolk, he or she must be a fisherfolk, or if the nominee
represents the senior citizens, he or she must be a senior
citizen
***Modified by Atong Paglaum decision, thus: The
nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent
the "marginalized and underrepresented," or that represent
those who lack "well-defined political constituencies," either
must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track
record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees
of national and regional parties or organizations must be
bonafide members of such parties or organizations.
GR NO. 18271
12972 PREVAILING RULE
REVIEW OF REGISTRATION OF VOTERS

ANG BAGONG BAYANI LABOR PARTY V COMELEC
We discussed the 8 point Guidelines to Screening Participants.
These are what the Comelec should take into consideration in
screening party-lists because during that time considering that it is
the first time that the party list took into effect, the Comelec just
approved all-- everyone. So, the Supreme Court remanded back to
the Comelec the issue W/N the Comelec abused its discretion in
approving all the application for party-list representation and set
forth the guidelines to enable Comelec to use as basis for screening
the party list representations.
First, the political party, sector, organization or
coalition
must
represent
the
marginalized
and
underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA
7941. In other words, it must show -- through its constitution,
articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government
and track record -- that it represents and seeks to uplift
marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of its
membership
should
belong
to
the
marginalized
and
underrepresented. And it must demonstrate that in a conflict of
interests, it has chosen or is likely to choose the interest of such
sectors.
Second, while even major political parties are expressly
allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in
the party-list system, they must comply with the declared
statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be
elected to the House of Representatives. In other words, while
they are not disqualified merely on the ground that they are
political parties, they must show, however, that they represent the
interests of the marginalized and underrepresented.
Fourth, a party or an organization must not be
disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the
grounds for disqualification as follows:
(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or
association organized for religious purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;

(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government,
foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or
through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third
parties for partisan election purposes;
(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations
relating to elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one 1 year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two 2 preceding elections or
fails to obtain at least two per centum 2% of the votes cast under
the party-list system in the two 2 preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered.
Note should be taken of paragraph 5, which disqualifies a
party or group for violation of or failure to comply with election laws
and regulations. These laws include Section 2 of RA 7941, which
states that the party-list system seeks to enable Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties x x x to become members of the House of
Representatives. A party or an organization, therefore, that does
not comply with this policy must be disqualified.
Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct
of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by,
the government. By the very nature of the party-list system, the
party or organization must be a group of citizens, organized by
citizens and operated by citizens. It must be independent of the
government. The participation of the government or its officials in
the affairs of a party-list candidate is not only illegal and unfair to
other parties, but also deleterious to the objective of the law: to
enable citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented
sectors and organizations to be elected to the House of
Representatives.
Sixth, the party must not only comply with the
requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do
so. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows:
SEC. 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees.
No person shall be nominated as party-list representative
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered
voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one
1 year immediately preceding the day of the election, able to read
and write, a bona fide member of the party or organization which
he seeks to represent for at least ninety 90 days preceding the day
of the election, and is at least twenty-five 25 years of age on the
day of the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be
twenty-five 25 but not more than thirty 30 years of age on the day
of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the
age of thirty 30 during his term shall be allowed to continue in
office until the expiration of his term.
Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization
must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors;
so also must its nominees. To repeat, under Section 2 of RA
7941, the nominees must be Filipino citizens who belong to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and
parties. Surely, the interests of the youth cannot be fully
represented by a retiree; neither can those of the urban poor or the
working class, by an industrialist. To allow otherwise is to betray the
State policy to give genuine representation to the marginalized and
underrepresented.
Eighth, as previously discussed, while lacking a welldefined political constituency, the nominee must likewise be
able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a
whole. Senator Jose Lina explained during the bicameral
committee proceedings that the nominee of a party, national or
regional, is not going to represent a particular district x x x.
AKLAT-ASOSASYON VS COMELEC (no discussion)
BANTAY REPUBLIC ACT VS COMELEC
With respect to the disclosure of the names of the nominees.
Sa party-list you only vote for the party-list diba, but eventually
Election Laws
there were several cases, jurisprudence which would show that

nominees of the party-list does not represent the marginalized or
underrepresented, and this Bantay Ba-ra 7941 petitioned the
Commission on Elections to divulge the name of the nominees
which the Comelec denied. The Comelec used as basis the last
paragraph of Sec. 7:
SEC. 7. Certified List of Registered Parties.- The COMELEC
shall, not later than sixty (60) days before election, prepare a
certified list of national, regional, or sectoral parties, organizations
or coalitions which have applied or who have manifested their
desire to participate under the party-list system and distribute
copies thereof to all precincts for posting in the polling places on
election day. The names of the party-list nominees shall not
be shown on the certified list.
because the rationale behind that is that if the Comelec will
still put the name of the nominees in the certified list of candidates,
the list of candidates will be very, very long and the Supreme Court
said that the reason of the Comelec to not divulge the name of the
nominees on the basis of this last sentence of Sec. 7 of RA 7941
constitutes as grave abuse of discretion.
POWER TO REGULATE OR SUPERVISE

ENJOYMENT OR UTILIZATION OF
FRANCHISE
Objective
So what is the objective behind this power granted to the
Commission on Elections under the Constitution? The power to
supervise the enjoyment and the utilization of franchise. To regulate
the enjoyment and utilization of franchise during the elections. For
what purpose?
To ensure equal opportunity, time, and space for all candidates
and equal rates for the public.
PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE VS COMELEC

The Commission on Elections here promulgated Resolution No.
2772 for the purpose of implementing the Rules and Regulations
relating to the Fair Elections Law or RA. 9006. Based on Sec. 2 of
Comelec Resolution No. 2772 with respect to Comelec Space, the
Commission said that it should procure free print space of not less
than one half (1/2) page in at least one newspaper of general
circulation in every province or city for use as "Comelec Space"
from March 6, 1995 in the case of candidates for senator and from
March 21, 1995 until May 12, 1995. In the absence of said
newspaper, "Comelec Space" shall be obtained from any magazine
or periodical of said province or city.
In Sec. 3 of Resolution no. 2772, it covers the uses of Comelec
space and it provides: "Comelec Space" shall be allocated by the
Commission, free of charge, among all candidates within the area in
which the newspaper, magazine or periodical is circulated to enable
the candidates to make known their qualifications, their stand on
public issues and their platforms and programs of government.
So the Philippine Press Institute, raised before the Supreme
Court the unconstitutionality of Sections 2 and 3 of this Comelec
Resolution No. 2772 and they seeked to declare the resolution as
unconstitutional and void on the ground that it violates the
prohibition imposed by the constitution upon the government and
any of its agencies against taking private property for public use
without just compensation. So they are saying that the owner of the
tabloid, the magazines, are engaged in business and Comelec
cannot demand from them to give to Comelec free space because it
is a business and the provision of Comelec mandating the
newspaper publications, tabloids, and the magazine publication to
give to Comelec free of charge, theyre saying it is unconstitutional.
So, petitioner here, Philippine Press Institute also contends that the
directive of Comelec requiring publishers to give free Comelec
Space and at the same time process raw data to make it camera
ready constitute impositions of involuntary servitude contrary to
Sec. 8 of the same resolution which is violative of the
Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech of the press and of
freedom of expression. So, the Supreme court here said that
Comelec cannot mandate or direct these newspaper publications to
allocate to Comelec free of charge and it agreed with the
petitioners that it is sort of taking of property without due process
of law. So if the Comelec wants to use a page in the newspaper or
in the magazine, Comelec must pay unless of course the publication
company would like to offer free of charge or donate to Comelec a
portion.
This was distinguished with the use of Comelec of air time. So
the Supreme Court here distinguished the matter with respect to
print publication and the use of airtimetelevision network because
during the election period Comelec can direct the television

stations, the radio stations, to allocate certain number of hours to
Comelec free of charge.
So what is the difference between print and air time?
So this was in relation to Sec. 92 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881
which was again alleged as violative of due process clause and
eminent domain provision of the Constitution--by taking from
television and broadcasting stations without payment of just
compensation. And the Supreme Court ruled that all broadcasting
whether by radio or tv stations are licensed by the government. It is
a privilege granted to these stations. Airwave frequencies must be
allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast than
there are frequencies assigned. So a franchise is a privilege, subject
to amendment by Congress in accordance with the Constitutional
provision when the common good requires.
So the Comelec time and space provisions under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881 have been made as amendments to the
franchises granted to radio and tv stations and was not thought of
as taking of private property without just compensation. The right
of the viewers and listeners is paramount over the right of the
broadcasters. So that is the distinction between print media and
radio and tv stations kasi yung franchise diba you have to apply for
franchise. It is granted by the government and the government can
amend it anytime subject to the common good. So the SC was
saying that these provisions, sec. 92 of BP 881 constitute as an
amendment to the franchise privilege granted to the radio and tv
stations.
TELECOMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS OF
THE PHILIPPINES AND GMA NETWORK
So what is telebap? Telebap is an organization of lawyers of
radio and broadcasting networks. They sued as citizens, taxpayers,
and registered voters, and GMA Network challenging again sec. 92
of BP 881 Comelec Time and Space, they were alleging that
Comelec, sec. 92 of BP 881 takes property without due process of
law and just compensation. It denies the radio and tv stations equal
protection of the laws and it is in excess of the power given to the
Comelec to supervise and regulate the operation of media of
communication or information during the election period. So there
were two issues here with respect to the personality of Telebap
whether or not Telebap has the personality to raise this issue in
behalf of the tv stations.
The Supreme Court said that Telebap has no legal standing
because a citizen shall only be allowed to raise a constitutional
question when he can show that he has personally suffered some
actual or threatened injury as a result of the alleged illegal conduct
of the government. The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged
action and that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable
action.
So the second issue is whether or not Telebap can raise the
issue as registered voters. Again, the Supreme Court said that
Telebap cannot sue as regular voterswhy? Since the case does not
concern their right of Suffrage as much less as taxpayers since this
did not involve the exercise of Congress of its taxing and spending
power.
Okay.
So with respect to the issue of Sec. 92 we discussed earlier.
ABS-CBN VS COMELEC
This refers to exit pollshow this was submitted by the
Comelec following the enactment, the effectivity of RA 9006 which
provides for election polls and election surveys. Here, ABS-CBN filed
a petition in Comelec to allow them to conduct exit polls which was
denied by the Comelec on the grounds that it might cause
confusion on the part of the voters.
What is an exit poll? It is a species of electoral survey
Conducted by whom? conducted by qualified individuals or
groups of individuals
For what purpose?for the purpose of determining the probable
result of an election
How? by confidentially asking
Who? randomly selected voters whom they have voted for,
When? immediately after they have officially cast their ballots.
(It is a species of electoral survey conducted by qualified
individuals or groups of individuals for the purpose of determining
the probable result of an election by confidentially asking randomly
selected voters whom they have voted for, immediately after they
have officially cast their ballots. The results of the survey are
announced to the public, usually through the mass media, to give
an advance overview of how, in the opinion of the polling
individuals or organizations, the electorate voted. In our electoral
Election Laws
history, exit polls had not been resorted to until the recent May 11,
1998 elections.)
So the Supreme Court said that an absolute prohibition is
unreasonably restrictive because it effectively prevents the use of
exit poll data not only for election-day projections, but also for longterm research.
Kasi the Comelec was saying that there might be a noncommunicative effect of the exit polls which might cause disorder in
the voting centers and this justification of the Comelec, the SC said
is not the reason proposed by the Comelec is not justified. It does
not justify the denial of the exit polls. So the Comelec it perceives
that disorder or confusion will be the result, should institute safety
measures in order to avoid such confusion or disorder but not to
deny or absolutely prohibit the conduct of exit polls.
Sec 5.5 of RA 9006 provides for the requirements of taing an
exit poll.
Sec. 5.5 Exit polls may only be taken subject to the following
requirements:
Pollsters shall not conduct their surveys within fifty (50)

meters from the poling place, whether said survey is taken in a
home, dwelling place and other places;
Pollsters shall wear distinctive clothing;
Pollsters shall inform the voters that they may refuse to

answer; and
The result of the exit polls may be announced after the closing
of the polls on election day, and must dearly identify the total
number of respondents, and the places where they were taken.
Said announcement shall state that the same is unofficial and does
not represent a trend.
SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS INC VS COMELEC

This pertains to an election survey.
Comelec issued a
Resolution to implement Sec 5.4 of the Fair Elections Law or R.A
9006:
Sec 5.4 Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be
published fifteen (15) days before an election and surveys affecting
local candidates shall not be published seven (7) days before an
election.
So petitioner here SWS states that it wishes to conduct an
election survey throughout the period of the election both in the
national and local levels and to release to media the results of such
survey as well as publish the results.
Kamahalan which is a publishing company also states that it
intends to publish election results up to the last day of the
elections, May 14, 2001.
The Comelec denied so the constitutionality of this provision
was brought to the court and the SC said that Sec 5.4 constitutes
an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of speech, expression,
and the press.
Why is it invalid? Because it imposes a prior restraint on the
freedom of expression and it is a direct and total suppression of a
categorical expression even though the suppression is only for a
limited period. The governmental interest which it seeks to promote
can be achieved by other means other than the suppression of
freedom of expression.
So what is an election survey? Election surveys refer to the
measurement of opinions and perceptions of the voters as regards
a candidates popularity, qualifications, platforms or a matter of
public discussion in relation to the election, including voters
preference for candidates or publicly discussed issues during the
campaign period.
Under BP 881 there is no provision with respect to exit polls or
surveys kasi election surveys occurred after the lifting of that
political ad ban, the effectivity of RA 9006. And recently, while we
said that election surveys, the constitutionality of a Comelec
resolution was brought again in the SC in the case of SWS and Pulse
Asia vs Comelec.
SWS and PULSE ASIA VS COMELEC
So ano bang ginagawa nitong mga SWS or Pulse Asia? Diba

they conduct surveys but they do not table the commissioner who
commissioned them or paid for the survey. They do not divulge
because they say its confidential.
In Comelec Resolution No. 9674, the resolution directed SWS
and Pulse Asia as well as other survey firms of similar circumstance
to submit to the Comelec the names of all the commissioners of all
surveys published from February 12, 2013 to April 12, 2013
including those of their subscribers.
Because of this provision of Comelec No. 9674, UNA (United
Nationalist Alliance) wrote SWS to furnish them with the identity of
persons who paid for the pre-election surveys. SWS replied but did
not disclose the names of the payors or who commissioned them.
There were two issues hereunder the Comelec resolution there is
a penal sanction for failure of the survey companies to submit the
names. So there was an issue whether there was due process in the
filing of the case against SWS for their failure to comply with this
provision of law and this was brought before the Supreme Court.
The SC made a rationale behind this power of Comelec under
the RA 9006. The SC said that RA 9006 implements the
constitutional desire to guarantee equal access to opportunity for
public service and the Fair Elections Act represents the legislatures
compliance with the requirement of Article 13 sec. 1 which is the
mandate for Congress to give highest priority to the enactment of
measures that reduce political inequality by equitably diffusing
wealth and political power for the common good.
Moreover, the constitutional desire to "guarantee equal access
to opportunities for public service" is the same intent that animates
the Constitution's investiture in COMELEC of the power to
"supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises
or permits for the operation of transportation and other public
utilities, media of communication or information, all grants, special
privileges, or concessions granted by the Government or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any
government-owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary."
The SC further said that the inclusion of election surveys in the
list of items regulated by the Fair Election Act is a recognition that
election surveys are not a mere descriptive aggregation of data.
Publishing surveys are a means to shape the preference of voters,
inform the strategy of campaign machineries, and ultimately, affect
the outcome of elections. Election surveys have a similar nature as
election propaganda. They are expensive, normally paid for by
those interested in the outcome of elections, and have tremendous
consequences on election results.
So what are the effects? The SC said Election Result surveys
have various effects with respect to a voters behavior.
First, there is the bandwagon effect where "electors rally to
support the candidate leading in the polls." This "assumes that
knowledge of a popular 'tide' will likely change voting intentions in
[favor] of the frontrunner, that many electors feel more comfortable
supporting a popular choice or that people accept the perceived
collective wisdom of others as being enough reason for supporting
a candidate."
Second, there is the underdog effect where "electors rally to
support the candidate trailing in the polls." This shift can be
motivated by sympathy for the perceived underdog.
Third, there is the motivating effect where "individuals who
had not intended to vote are persuaded to do so," having been
alerted to the fact of an election's imminence.
Fourth, there is also the demotivating effect where "voters
abstain from voting out of certainty that their candidate or party
will win[.]"
Fifth, there are reports of a behavior known as strategic
voting where "voting is influenced by the chances of winning[.]"
Lastly, there is also the theory of a free-will effect where
"voters cast their ballots to prove the polls wrong[.]"
Election surveys published during election periods create the
"politics of expectations." Voters act in accordance with what is
perceived to be an existing or emerging state of affairs with respect
to how candidates are faring.
RA 9006 provides for what are the lawful campaign
propaganda so with respect to posting of campaign materials, the
law provides that the COMELEC may authorize political parties and
party-list groups to erect common poster areas for their candidates
in not more than ten (10) public places such as plazas, markets,
barangay centers and the like, wherein candidates can post. display
or exhibit election propaganda. Unlike in BP 881, it is the Comelec
that identifies the area, the 10 areas where the candidates or
political parties may post their campaign material. There is this size
limitation of 8 and a half by 12 if it is a streamer, 5 and a half by 16
yung ganon. So pursuant to this, to Sec. 9 of RA 9006, as far as
posting for campaign materials is concerned, is the issue in the
case of:
Election Laws
ONE UNITED TRANSPORT COALITION VS COMELEC

Sec. 9 of RA 9006 of the Fair Elections Act was passed which reads:
SEC. 9. Posting of Campaign Materials. - The COMELEC may
authorize political parties and party-list groups to erect common
poster areas for their candidates in not more than ten (10) public
places such as plazas, markets, barangay centers and the like,
wherein candidates can post. display or exhibit election propaganda:
Provided, That the size of the poster areas shall not exceed twelve
(12) by sixteen (16) feet or its equivalent.
Independent candidates with no political parties may likewise be
authorized to erect common poster areas in not more than ten (10)
public places, the size of which shall not exceed four (4) by six (6)
feet or its equivalent.
Candidates may post any lawful propaganda material in private
places with the consent of the owner thereof, and in public places or
property which shall be allocated equitably and impartially among the
candidates.
On January 15, 2013 the Comelec promulgated for the rules

implementing RA 9006 in connection with the May 13, 2013
national and local elections. And Sec. 7 of that Comelec Resolution
enumerates the prohibited forms of election propaganda which
provides:
SEC. 7. Prohibited Forms of Election Propaganda. - During the
campaign period, it is unlawful:
xxx
(f) To post, display or exhibit any election campaign or
propaganda material outside of authorized common poster areas, in
public places, or in private properties without the consent of the
owner thereof.
There is a precedent case on this which is ADIONG VS
COMELEC because prior to the lifting of the political ad ban,
posting of campaign materials outside the common designated
areas is prohibited. So you cannot post any campaign material even
in private, or even in your own residence. So, in that case, the SC
lifted partially the matter with respect to posting campaign
material. Stickers can now be posted in mga trisikad as long as it is
with the consent of the owner.
But here, it provided that it is a prohibited form of election
propaganda to post, display or exhibit any election campaign or
propaganda material outside of authorized common poster areas
and another paragraph defines public area.
So what is public area?

(g) Public places referred to in the previous subsection (f)
include any of the following:
xxxx
5. Public utility vehicles such as buses, jeepneys, trains, taxi
cabs, ferries, pedicabs and tricycles, whether motorized or not;
6. Within the premises of public transport terminals, such as
bus terminals, airports, seaports, docks, piers, train stations, and
the like.
The violation of items [5 and 6] under subsection (g) shall be a
cause for the revocation of the public utility franchise and will make
the owner and/or operator of the transportation service and/or
terminal liable for an election offense under Section 9 of Republic
Act No. 9006 as implemented by Section 18 (n) of these Rules.
So in a letter, petitioner here sought clarification from Comelec

with regards to the application of this sec. 7 paragraph g and 5 and
6 of Comelec Resolution No. 9615 in connection with the privately
owned public utility vehicles and transport terminals. Petitioner
requested Comelec to reconsider the implementation of the
assailed provisions to allow private owners of PUVs and transport
terminals to post election campaign materials in their vehicles and
transport terminals.
Comelec denied and Comelec asserted that privately owned

PUVs and terminals are public places that are subject to its
regulation pursuant to the powers vested on it. Comelec pointed
out that PUVs and transport terminals hold a captive audience.
What does captive audience mean?
The commuters, who have no choice but be subjected to the
blare of political propaganda.
So the issue was raised to the SC. Whether or not the Comelec
Resolution 9165 violates the right to free speech of owners of PUVs
and transport terminals. With respect to this first issue, the SC ruled
that this provision of Comelec Resolution is violative and the SC
said that it is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates
any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has
no effect.
So next is, whether or not the resolution is void as a prior
restraint to freedom of speech and expression and the SC said that
Resolution No. 9615 unduly infringe on the fundamental right of the
people to freedom of speech. The Comelecs supervisory powers do
not extend to the very freedom of an individual to express his
preference of candidates in an election by placing election
campaign stickers on his vehicle.
So that is giving reference to the Adiong vs Comelec case. So,
whether the Constitutional objective to give an equal opportunity to
inform the electorate is not impaired by posting political
advertisements on PUVs and transport terminals and whether
ownership of facilities is different and independent from the
franchise and operation of the public utility. The SC said that the
COMELEC's constitutionally delegated powers of supervision and
regulation do not extend to the ownership per se of PUVs and
transport terminals, but only to the franchise or permit to operate
the same.
There is a marked difference between the franchise or permit
to operate transportation for the use of the public and the
ownership per se of the vehicles used for public transport.
So its different. Comelec cannot impose the restriction upon
vehicles privately owned but is a public utility vehicle.
So what do we understand here about the Captive Audience
Doctrine?
This doctrine states that when a listener cannot, as a practical
matter, escape from intrusive speech, the speech can be restricted.
The "captive-audience" doctrine recognizes that a listener has a
right not to be exposed to an unwanted message in circumstances
in which the communication cannot be avoided.
So the prohibition under the assailed provision of the Comelec
Resolution is not justified because Comelec used this as justification
to deny the posting of campaign materials in the buses, terminals,
sort of, would constitute as the commuters as captive audience. So,
the SC said that the resolution is not justified under the captiveaudience doctrine because the commuters are not forced or
compelled to read the election campaign materials posted on PUVs
and transport terminals. Nor are they incapable of declining to
receive the messages contained in the posted election campaign
materials since they may simply avert their eyes if they find the
same unbearably intrusive.
You have to relate this to the provisions of RA 9006 in so far as the
exercise of the power of the Comelec over media over franchise,
over the utilization of franchise.

Election Final Autosaved

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Election Final Autosaved

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Election Laws

EXAM II- ATTY. JOCELYN ARRO-VALENCIA

July 25, 2016

How are election cases initiated?

There are 2 ways through which a complaint for election offenses

may be signed by the Chairman of the Comelec and need

must be verified and supported by affidavits and other

What is the distinction between complaint filed by parties

investigating officer submits his

probable cause is determined

probable cause is determined

appeal to the Comelec lies

Why? The exercise by the

Although a motion for reconsideration of such resolution is

Provincial Election Supervisor or any lawyer or election officer

That is the case of Faelnar and Herman Tiu Laurel.

Petition for Certiorari DENIED.

Take note that the Provision of Section 43 of RA 9369 or the

Petitioners thus assail the findings of the preliminary

burden of proof rests upon the Complainants to support his case

Question on the extent of the power to investigate: In the

Rule 34, Rules of Comelec Procedure

examine. If the parties so desire, they may submit

Thereafter, the investigation shall be deemed concluded,

Sec. 7. Presumption of Existence of Probable Cause. - A

If the investigating officer finds no cause to hold the

If the investigating officer finds cause to hold the

In either case, the investigating officer shall, within five

Sec. 4. Form of Complaint and Where to File. a

When not initiated motu proprio by the Commission, the

The complaint shall be filed with the Law Department of

If filed with the Regional Election Directors or Provincial

Sec. 5. Referral for Preliminary Investigation. - if the

If on the basis of the complaint, affidavits and the

Such counter-affidavits and other supporting evidence

The State Prosecutor, Provincial Fiscal or City

Within ten (10) days from receipt of the records stated in

In cases investigated by the lawyers or the field

In all other cases, if the recommendation to dismiss or

If the recommendation to dismiss is reversed on the

If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if

If the investigating officer believes that there are matters

The Director of the Law Department of the

Sec. 9. Duty of the Law Department, State Prosecutor,

Sec. 6. Conduct of Preliminary Investigation. a

Sec. 10. Appeals from the Action of the State Prosecutor,

How will the Comelec be aware that such violence occurred

Sec. 6. Failure of election. - If, on account of force majeure,

What is the distinction between the power of the Comelec

Comelec may motu proprio

Comelec only may only declare

What are the cirucmstances that should be present for the

Pasandalan vs. Comelec

Facts: Pasandalan and Private Respondent were candidates for

What is the nature of the petition of Pasandalan to declare

What is the difference between Pasandalan and Typoco?

Typoco vs. Comelec

which give rise to the consequence of failure to elect must as

Thus, here we see that a Petition to Declare the Failure of Election

What is the doctrine insofar as the power of the Comelec is

Pasandalan on extraordinary remedy. We discussed that already.

AUG. 25, 2016

PARTYLIST SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION

Why is there a need to register political parties?