(Libanan v. HRET, G.R. No.

129783, December 22, 1997) tan

Facts : Libanan filed a petition with the HRET to annul the election and
proclamation of Ramirez alleging that some of the ballots were not signed
by the BEI chairman and hence invalid. The evidence and the issues
submitted by the parties for consideration by the HRET related mainly to
the proper appreciation of the ballots objected to, or claimed by, the
parties during the revision. No evidence was presented in support of the
other allegations of the protest so the HRET concentrated on the
appreciation of ballots. The HRET recounted the votes cast on the valid
ballots and declared Ramirez as the winner of the election in Eastern
Samar.

Issue : WON the absence of the signature of the BEI chairman makes the
ballot invalid.

Held : For a ballot to be rejected for being spurious, the ballot must have
any of the following authenticating marks: a) the COMELEC watermark;
b) the signatures or initial of the BEI Chairman at the back of the ballot;
and c) red and blue fibers. In the present case, all the ballots examined
by the Tribunal had COMELEC watermarks. "Fraud is not presumed. It
must be sufficiently established. Moreover, Section 211 of the Omnibus
Election Code provides in part that 'in the reading and appreciation of
ballots, every ballot shall be presumed to be valid unless there is clear
and good reason to justify its rejection.' The absence of the BEI
Chairman's signature at the back of the ballot cannot be an indication of
ballot switching or substitution. At best, such absence of BEI Chairman's
signature is a prima facie evidence that the BEI Chairmen concerned
were derelict in their duty of authenticating the ballots. Such omission,
as stated in the Decision, is not fatal to the validity of the ballots.

Castromayor v. COMELEC, 250 SCRA 298

Facts: Castromayor was declared and proclaimed winner in an election contest held in
1995 in Calinog, Iloilo, taking the 8th Sangguniang Bayan seat. When the chairman of the
Municipal Board of Canvassers rechecked the totals of the Statement of Votes, there was
some disparity and it appeared that another candidate, Demorito has more votes than
Castromayor and the reason was that votes from one (1) precinct was overlooked. The
COMELEC then issued a resolution based on the request. Petitioner then assailed the
resolution by contending that he was denied due process since the issue involves a
preproclamation controversy and he should be entitled to notice and hearing so that he
can be afforded an opportunity to refute the allegations.

Issue: WON the proclamation of petitioner is valid.

Ruling :

The Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate of Canvass and of the
proclamation, any error in the statement ultimately affects the validity of the
proclamation. It begs the question, therefore, to say that this is not a pre-proclamation
controversy and the procedure for pre-proclamation controversies cannot be applied to
the correction in the computation of the totals in the Statement of Votes.
What is involved here is a simple problem of arithmetic. The Statement of Votes is
merely a tabulation per precinct of the votes obtained by the candidates as reflected in the
election returns. In making the correction in computation, the MBC will be acting in an
administrative capacity, under the control and supervision of the COMELEC. Hence any
question pertaining to the proceedings of the MBC may be raised directly to the
COMELEC en banc in the exercise of its constitutional function to decide questions
affecting elections.

Sanchez v. COMELEC, 153 SCRA 67

Facts : In the mayoral contest in Pampanga, Biliwang was proclaimed winner. Sanchez
filed an action to annul the proclamation with the COMELEC on the ground that massive
terrorism was made by the incumbent mayor in ordering armed men to hold at gunpoint
teachers who were counting the ballots and replacing the ballots with pre-prepared ones
in favor of Baliwag. Baliwag denied the allegations. The COMELEC issued a resolution
declaring that there was failure of elections. Biliwag contends that the ground of
terrorism cannot be invoked in pre-proclamation controversy.

Issue: WON fraud and terrorism is considered a pre-proclamation controversy to justify

the resolution of declaring that there was a failure of election in San Fernando Pampanga.

Held: Election is not complete until all the essential acts thereof are concluded. In this
case, election is not complete unless there is a proclaimed winner. The matter involves a
failure to elect based on the ground that the election was marred by massive terrorism.
The 1973 Constitution vests power to the COMELEC to be the sole judge of all election
contest and controversy and that it had the power to declare a failure of election and call
for a special election.

Ututalum v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 335

Facts: Ututalum and Anni were candidates for the 2nd congressional district of Sulu.
Utatalum filed with the Provincial Board of Canvassers that the election returns appeared
to be tampered with or falsified and that there were excess number of voters in Siasi. It
was dismissed, so he filed a written petition with the COMELEC to annul the elections in
Siasi and to conduct another election. The COMELEC resolved that there was no failure
of elections and Anni was proclaimed the winner. While Ututalums petition was pending,
the governor of Sulu sought to annul the list of voters of Siasi which was upheld by the
SC. Ututalum wanted to have the case applied to his petition even if he was not a party to
the case filed by the governor.

Issue: WON the petition should be granted on the ground of vote-padding.

Ruling: Such irregularities as fraud, vote-buying and terrorism are proper grounds in an
election contest but may not as a rule be invoked to declare a failure of election and to
disenfranchise the greater number of the electorate through the misdeeds, precisely, of
only a relative few. Otherwise, elections will never be carried out with the resultant
disenfranchisement of the innocent voters, for the losers will always cry fraud and
terrorism"

Lanot v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 164858, November 16, 2006

FACTS: Petitioners filed a petition for disqualification under Sections 68 and 80 of the Omnibus
Election Code against Eusebio before the COMELEC stating that the latter engaged in an
election campaign in various forms on various occasions outside of the designated campaign
period, such as (1) addressing a large group of people during a medical mission sponsored by
the Pasig City government; (2) uttering defamatory statements against Lanot; (3) causing the
publication of a press release predicting his victory; (4) installing billboards, streamers, posters,
and stickers printed with his surname across Pasig City; and (5) distributing shoes to
schoolchildren in Pasig public schools to induce their parents to vote for him. Eusebio won the
election and any other complaints was dismissed by the COMELEC.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a pre-campaign offense committed by Eusebio.

RULING: There is no dispute that Eusebios acts of election campaigning or partisan political
activities were committed outside of the campaign period. The only question is whether Eusebio,
who filed his certificate of candidacy on 29 December 2003, was a "candidate" when he
committed those acts before the start of the campaign period on 24 March 2004. Under Section
11 of RA 8436, Eusebio became a "candidate," for purposes of Section 80 of the Omnibus
Election Code, only on 23 March 2004, the last day for filing certificates of candidacy. Applying
the facts - as found by Director Ladra and affirmed by the COMELEC First Division - to Section 11
of RA 8436, Eusebio clearly did not violate Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code which
requires the existence of a "candidate," one who has filed his certificate of candidacy, during the
commission of the questioned acts.

Monsale v. Nico
G.R. No. L-2539, May 28, 1949

FACTS: Jose F. Monsale withdrew his certificate of candidacy on October 10, 1947, but, on
November 7, attempted to revive it by withdrawing his withdrawal. The Commission on Elections,
however, ruled on November 8 that the protestant could no longer be a candidate in spite of his
desire to withdraw his withdrawal. A canvass of the election returns showed that the protestee
Paulino M. Nico received 2,291 votes; another candidate, Gregorio Fagutao, 126, votes; and the
protestant Jose F. Monsale, none, evidently because the votes cast in his favor had not been
counted for the reason that he was not a registered candidate. Consequently, Nico was
proclaimed elected.

ISSUE: Whether or not a candidate who has withdrawn his certificate of candidacy may revive it,
either by withdrawing his letter of withdrawal or by filing a new certificate of candidacy, after the
deadline provided by law for the filing of such certificate.|||

RULING: There is no question as to the right of a candidate to withdraw or annul his own
certificate of candidacy, there being no legal prohibition against such withdrawal. Therefore, on
October 10, or thirty-one days before the election, the protestant ceased to be a candidate by his
own voluntary act, and as a matter of fact the boards of election inspectors of the municipality of
Miagao were duly notified of his withdrawal. His letter to the Commission on Elections dated
November 6, 1947, which the subscribed and swore to before a notary public on November 7,
whereby he withdrew his withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy, can only be considered as a
new certificate of candidacy which, having been filed only four days before the election, could not
legally be accepted under the law, which expressly provides that such certificate should be filed at
least sixty days before the election.||

CAASI vs. COMELEC Case Digest

(EN BANC, G.R. No. 88831 November 8, 1990)

Facts: Private respondent Merito Miguel was elected as municipal mayor of Bolinao,
Pangasinan during the local elections of January 18, 1988. His disqualification, however,
was sought by herein petitioner, Mateo Caasi, on the ground that under Section 68 of the
Omnibus Election Code private respondent was not qualified because he is a green card
holder, hence, a permanent resident of the United States of America, not of Bolinao.

Issues:
1. Whether or not a green card is proof that the holder is a permanent resident of the United
States.
2. Whether respondent Miguel had waived his status as a permanent resident of or
immigrant to the U.S.A. prior to the local elections on January 18, 1988.

Held: The Supreme Court held that Miguels application for immigrant status and permanent
residence in the U.S. and his possession of a green card attesting to such status are
conclusive proof that he is a permanent resident of the U.S. despite his occasional visits to
the Philippines. The waiver of such immigrant status should be as indubitable as his
application for it. Absent clear evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of that status or
that he surrendered his green card to the appropriate U.S. authorities before he ran for
mayor of Bolinao in the local election on January 18, 1988, the Courts conclusion is that he
was disqualified to run for said public office, hence, his election thereto was null and void.

Caasi vs. Comelec

Luna v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 165983, April 24, 2007

Facts: On January 15 2004, Hans Roger withdrew his certificate of candidacy. On the same date,
Joy Chrisma Luna filed her certificate of candidacy as a substitute candidate for Hans Roger for
the 2004 elections as vice mayor of Lagayan, Abra. Tomas Layao, together with several others
filed a disqualification petition against her since she was not a registered voter Lagayan, Abra, but
of Bangued. It is also contested that there can be no valid substitution since Hans Roger, the
candidate sought to be substituted, is only 20 years old on the day of the election. COMELEC
ruled in favor of the disqualification case.
Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that
there was no valid substitution by Luna for Hans Roger.

Held: The COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in declaring that Hans Roger, being under age, could not be considered to have filed a
valid certificate of candidacy and, thus, could not be validly substituted by Luna. The substitution
of Luna for Hans Roger was valid. The COMELEC may not, by itself, without the proper
proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. Since Hans
Roger withdrew his certificate of candidacy and the COMELEC found that Luna complied with all
the procedural requirements for a valid substitution, Luna can validly substitute for Hans Roger.
The Court ruled that the question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate for non-age is beyond
the usual and proper cognizance of the COMELEC.