47066600 case digest on election law

8/13/2019 47066600 Case Digest on Election Law

1/40

1. Soller v. COMELEC G.R. NO. 139853

FACTS

Petitioner and private respondent (Saulong) were both candidates formayor of the municipality of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in the May 11,1! elections" #he petitioner was proclaimed as mayor by themunicipal board of canvassers" Private respondent filed a petition withthe $OM%&%$ to annul the proclamation" &ater, private respondentfiled an election protest against petitioner with the '#$" #he $OM%&%$dismissed the preproclamation case filed by private respondent, whilethe '#$ denied petitioners motion to dismiss" Petitioner moved forreconsideration but said motion was denied"

Petitioner then filed with the $OM%&%$ a petition for certioraricontending that respondent '#$ acted without or in e*cess of+urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing privaterespondents election protest" #he $OM%&%$ en banc dismissedpetitioners suit" Petitioner now uestions this decision of the $OM%&%$en banc"

ISSUE:

Whether or not the COMELEC has the authority to decide on the case.

HELD

#he S$ has ruled in previous cases that the $OM%&%$, sitting en banc,does not have the reuisite authority to hear and decide election casesincluding preproclamation controversies in the first instance" #hispower pertains to the divisions of the $ommission" -ny decision by the$ommission en banc as regards election cases decided by it in the firstinstance is null and void" .n the S$s view, the authority to resolvepetition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protest, li/e

the uestioned order of the trial court, falls within the division of the$OM%&%$ and not on the $OM%&%$ en banc"


2/40

2. AQUINO vs. COMELEC(248 SCRA 400)

FACTS

On 0 March 12, -gapito -" -uino filed his $ertificate of $andidacyfor the position of 'epresentative for the new Second &egislative3istrict of Ma/ati $ity" .n his certificate of candidacy, -uino stated

that he was a resident of the aforementioned district for 1 months"4aced with a petition for disualification, he amended the entry on hisresidency in his certificate of candidacy to 1 year and 15 days" #he$ommission on %lections dismissed the petition on 6 May and allowed-uino to run in the election of ! May" -uino won" -cting on a motionfor reconsideration of the above dismissal, the $ommission on %lectionlater issued an order suspending the proclamation of -uino until the$ommission resolved the issue" On 0 7une, the $ommission on%lections found -uino ineligible and disualified for the elective officefor lac/ of constitutional ualification of residence"

ISSUE

8hether 9residency: in the certificate of candidacy actually connotes9domicile: to warrant thedisualification of -uino from the position in the electoral district"

HELD

#he place 9where a party actually or constructively has his permanenthome,: where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time,eventually intends to return and remain, i"e", his domicile, is that towhich the $onstitution refers when it spea/s of residence for thepurposes of election law" #he purpose is to e*clude strangers ornewcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and needs of the community


3/40

from ta/ing advantage of favorable circumstances e*isting in thatcommunity for electoral gain" -uinos certificate of candidacy in aprevious (10) election indicates that he was a resident and aregistered voter of San 7ose, $oncepcion, #arlac for more than 20 yearsprior to that election" -uinos connection to the Second 3istrict of

Ma/ati $ity is an alleged lease agreement of a condominium unit in thearea" #he intention not to establish a permanent home in Ma/ati $ity isevident in his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one" #heshort length of time he claims to be a resident of Ma/ati (and the factof his stated domicile in #arlac and his claims of other residences inMetro Manila) indicate that his sole purpose in transferring his physicalresidence is not to acuire a new, residence or domicile but only toualify as a candidate for 'epresentative of the Second 3istrict ofMa/ati $ity" -uino was thus rightfully disualified by the $ommissionon %lections"


4/40

3. ON! L. "EN#AREN vs COMMISSION ONELECIONS $%& E'#IN CRISOLOGO

G.R. No. 19393

Facts

Petitioner #ony &" Benwaren and private respondent %dwin $risologo

were candidates for the position of Municipal Mayor of the Municipality

of #ineg, -bra in the May 0; elections"

3uring the canvass of the election return of Precinct


5/40

election return for the said precinct= and then canvass the said return

and proclaim the winning candidate>s= or

3uring the e*amination of the election return, the MB$ found that the

integrity of the ballot bo* was violated as it was left unattended andwas never delivered to its proper custodian" #he ballots were not also

placed in properly sealed or placed in enveloped prepared by $omelec"

#he


6/40

0" 8hether or not $OM%&%$ gravely abused its discretion amounting

to lac/ or e*cess of +urisdiction when it illegally proclaimed private

respondent $risologo based on incomplete canvass of votes"

5" 8hether or not $OM%&%$ en banc 'esolution dated -ugust 51,02 was illegally promulgated since former $ommissioners Airgilio O"

arcillano and Manuel -" Barcelona, 7r" were no longer members of the

$OM%&%$ at the time of promulgation"

Ruin!:

1"


7/40

5"


8/40

Petitioner #rinidad won the May 12 elections" Private respondentSunga filed a disualification case against petitioner and as/ing the$OM%&%$ to proclaim him as the duly elected mayor" $OM%&%$promulgated it decision on 7une 00, 1!, disualifying #rinidad"Petitioner filed a Motion 4or 'econsideration claiming that he was

deprived of due process" Petitioner was again proclaimed winner in theMay 1! elections" On October 15, 1! $OM%&%$ denied petitionersM' as well as annulling his proclamation as elected mayor"

#hus this petition for certiorari"

Issues:

1" 8O< petitioner was deprived of due process in the proceedingsbefore the $OM%&%$ insofar as his disualification under the May !,12 and May !, 1! elections were concerned"

0" 8O< petitioners proclamation as Mayor under the May 11, 1!elections may be cancelled on account of the disualification case filedagainst him during the May !, 12 elections"

5" 8O< private respondent, as the candidate receiving the secondhighest number of votes, may be proclaimed as Mayor in the event of

petitioners disualification"

HELD

1"


9/40

5"


10/40

ran/ing of the 15 Senators proclaimed in 'esolution


11/40

$OM%&%$ illegally disbursed public funds= nor claim that theysustained personal in+ury because of the issuance of 'esolutions 12 and 16"

Issue:

8O< the Special %lection held on May 1;, 01 should be nullifiedE

(1) for failure to give notice by the body empowered to and

(0) for not following the procedure of filling up the vacancy pursuant to'"-" 66;2"

HELD:

(1) 8here the law does not fi* the time and place for holding a specialelection but empowers some authority to fi* the time and place afterthe happening of a condition precedent, the statutory provision on thegiving of notice is considered mandatory, and failure to do so willrender the election a nullity"

#he test in determining the validity of a special election in relation tothe failure to give notice of the special election is whether want ofnotice has resulted in misleading a sufficient number of voters aswould change the result of special election" .f the lac/ of official noticemisled a substantial number of voters who wrongly believed that therewas no special election to fill vacancy, a choice by small percentage ofvoters would be void"

(0) #here is no basis in the petitioners claim that the manner by whichthe $OM%&%$ conducted the special Senatorial election on May 1;,01 is a nullity because the $OM%&%$ failed to document separatelythe candidates and to canvass separately the votes cast for the specialelection"


12/40

uingona would be filled" Dowever, upon the suggestion of Senator'aul 'oco, the Senate agreed to amend the resolution by providing asit now appears, that 9the senatorial cabdidate garnering the 15thhighest number of votes shall serve only for the une*pired term offormer Senator #eofisto iongona, 7r":

. $le vs S$%*os
http://joiemanuel.tk/election-law/taule-vs-santos/http://joiemanuel.tk/election-law/taule-vs-santos/


13/40

A/s* 12 1991

G. R. No. 9033

#his is a petition for certiorari see/ing the reversal of the resolutions ofrespondent Secretary dated -ugust ;, 1! and September 2, 1! forbeing null and void"

Facts:

-n election for the officers of the 4ederation of -ssociations ofBarangay $ouncil (4-B$) was held on 7une 1!, 1! despite theabsence of other members of the said council" .ncluding Petitioner waselected as the president"

'espondent Aerceles sent a letter of protest to respondent Santos,see/ing its nullification in view of several flagrant irregularities in themanner it was conducted"

Petitioner denied the allegations of respondent Aerceles anddenouncing respondent for intervening in the said election which is apurely nonpartisan affair" -nd reuesting for his appointment as amember of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province being theduly elected President of the 4-B$ in $atanduanes"

'espondent Santos issued a resolution on -ugust ;, 1! nullifying theelection and ordering a new one to be conducted as early as possibleto be presided by the 'egional 3irector of 'egion A of the 3epartmentof &ocal overnment" Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but itwas denied by respondent Santos in his resolution on September 2,1!"

#hus this petition before the Supreme $ourt"

IssuesE

1" 8O< the respondent Santos has +urisdiction to entertain anelection protest involving the election of the officers of the 4-B$"

0" 8O< the respondent Aerceles has the legal personality to file anelection protest"


14/40

Hed:

1" $onsultants" #herefore, there was a clear violationof the said mandatory provision"


15/40

I Pending resolution, petitioner also filed a supplemental petitionalleging that public respondent &ocal overnment Secretary, in hismemorandum dated 7une C, 1, designated -ugusto -ntonio,despite him being absent on said election" #he Secretary of &ocalovernment has no authority to appoint anyone who does not meet

the minimum ualification to be the president of the federation ofbarangay councils"

. S+%+-$ vs Ml$ $%& Co,,+ss+o% o% Ele-*+o%s

.n this case, assailed was the $OM%&%$ 'esolution on Oct" 6, 1! inSP-


16/40

b) it lac/s approval of Sen" Barbers as a +oint signatory of thesubstitution"

#he $OM%&%$ Second 3ivision dismissed the disualification case"Dowever, when respondent Mula filed a Motion for 'econsideration,

$OM%&%$ en banc set aside the resolution of the Second 3ivision anddisualified %MM-


17/40

8. Ro,$l&eM$r-os vs Co,,+ss+o% o% Ele-*+o%s

G.R. No.1199:Se*e,er 18 1995

Facts:

Petitioner .melda 'omualdeHMarcos filed her $ertificate of $andidacy

for the position of 'epresentative of the 4irst 3istrict of &eyte" Privaterespondent $irilo 'oy Monte+o, a candidate for the same position, fileda petition for cancellation and disualification with the $OM%&%$alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional reuirement forresidency" Private respondent contended that petitioner lac/ed the$onstitutions oneyear residency reuirement for candidates for theDouse of 'epresentatives"

Issue:

8hether or not petitioner has satisfied the residency reuirement as

mandated by -rt" A., Sec" 6 of the $onstitution

Hed:

Fes" 4or election purposes, residence is used synonymously withdomicile" #he $ourt upheld the ualification of petitioner, despite herown declaration in her certificate of candidacy that she had resided in
http://joiemanuel.tk/election-law/romualdez-marcos-vs-commission-on-elections/http://joiemanuel.tk/election-law/romualdez-marcos-vs-commission-on-elections/


18/40

the district for only C months, because of the followingE (a) a minorfollows the domicile of her parents= #acloban became petitionersdomicile of origin by operation of law when her father brought thefamily to &eyte= (b) domicile of origin is lost only when there is actualremoval or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the

former residence and establishing a new one, and acts whichcorrespond with the purpose= in the absence of clear and positive proofof the concurrence of all these, the domicile of origin should bedeemed to continue= (c) the wife does not automatically gain thehusbands domicile because the term 9residence: in $ivil &aw does notmean the same thing in Political &aw= when petitioner marriedPresident Marcos in 12;, she /ept her domicile of origin and merelygained a new home, not a domicilium necessarium= (d) even assumingthat she gained a new domicile after her marriage and acuired theright to choose a new one only after her husband died, her acts

following her return to the country clearly indicate that she chose#acloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice

9. G$&or vs Co,,+ss+o% o% Ele-*+o%s

G.R. No. L5235

6$%$r7 22 1980

#his petition for mandamus with a prayer for a writ of preliminaryin+unction was filed on 7anuary 01, 1! at ;E;Cpm as/ing the Supreme$ourt to immediately order the respondent $OM%&%$ to include thename his name in the list of candidates for Mayor of the $ity ofOHamiH"

Facts:

#he petition alleges that the petitioner is a candidate for the Office ofMayor of the $ity of OHamiH as .ndependent this coming 7anuary 5,1! local election" De filed his certificate of candidacy with the%lection 'egistrar of OHamis $ity on 7anuary C, 1! because of thenews in the Bulletin #oday" #he said news stated that the respondent$OM%&%$ issued a resolution for the e*tension of time for filing $O$"
http://joiemanuel.tk/election-law/gador-vs-commission-on-elections/http://joiemanuel.tk/election-law/gador-vs-commission-on-elections/


19/40

Dowever, the President denied said resolution" #herefore, respondent$OM%&%$ informed the petitioner that his name might not be includedin the list of candidates for mayor because of the said incident" #hus,this petition"

ISSUE:

8O< the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner which was filed on7anuary C, 1! is valid"

DeldE


20/40

his certificate of candidacy (automatic resignation) however it e*emptsthose elected officials saying that 9-ny person holding an electiveoffice or position shall not be considered resigned upon the filing of hiscertificate of candidacy for the same or any other elective office orposition":

Sec"15(par" 5) of 'epublic -ct (9'"-":)


21/40

4our (;) reuisites of valid classification must be complied with in orderthat a discriminatory governmental act may pass the constitutionalnorm of eual protectionE

(1) .t must be based upon substantial distinctions=

(0) .t must be germane to the purposes of the law"

(5) .t must not be limited to e*isting conditions only= and

(;) .t must apply eually to all members of the class"

-ccording to the Supreme $ourt, the differential treatment of personsholding appointive offices as opposed to those holding elective ones isnot germane to the purposes of the law"

#he obvious reason for the challenged provision is to prevent the useof a governmental position to promote ones candidacy, or even towield a dangerous or coercive influence on the electorate" anddiscipline of the public service by eliminating the danger that thedischarge of official duty would be motivated by politicalconsiderations rather than the welfare of the public" #he restriction isalso +ustified by the proposition that the entry of civil servants to theelectoral arena, while still in office, could result in neglect orinefficiency in the performance of duty because they would be

attending to their campaign rather than to their office wor/" .nconsidering persons holding appointive positions as ipso facto resignedfrom their posts upon the filing of their $o$s, but not considering asresigned all other civil servants, specifically the elective ones, the lawunduly discriminates against the first class" #he fact alone that there issubstantial distinction between those who hold appointive positionsand those occupying elective posts, does not +ustify such differentialtreatment" #he classification simply fails to meet the test that it shouldbe germane to the purposes of the law"

11. S$l-e&o II vs Co,,+ss+o% o% Ele-*+o%sA/. 1 1999

#his is a petition for certiorari see/ing to reverse the earlier 'esolutionissued by its Second 3ivision on -ugust 10, 1!"

Facts:
http://joiemanuel.tk/election-law/salcedo-ii-vs-commission-on-elections/http://joiemanuel.tk/election-law/salcedo-ii-vs-commission-on-elections/


22/40

Salcedo married $eliH, marriage contract issued by the Municipal $ivil'egistrar of -+uy, .loilo" 8ithout his first marriage having beendissolved, Salcedo married private respondent $acao in a civilceremony" #wo days later, %rmelita $acao contracted anothermarriage with a certain 7esus -guirre, marriage certificate filed with

the Office of the $ivil 'egistrar"

Petitioner Aictorino Salcedo .. and private respondent $acao Salcedoboth ran for the position of mayor of the municipality of Sara, .loilo inthe May 11, 1! elections, both of them having filed their respectivecertificates of candidacy" Dowever, petitioner filed with the $omelec apetition see/ing the cancellation of private respondents certificate ofcandidacy on the ground that she had made a false representationtherein by stating that her surname was 9Salcedo": Petitionercontended that private respondent had no right to use said surname

because she was not legally married to


23/40

8hether or not the use by respondent of the surname 9Salcedo: in hercertificate of candidacy constitutes material misrepresentation underSection C! in relation to Section C; of the Omnibus %lection $ode"

Hed:

Private respondent did not commit any material misrepresentation bythe use of the surname 9Salcedo: in her certificate of candidacy"

- false representation under section C! must consist of a 9deliberateattempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwiserender a candidate ineligible": .t must be made with an intention todeceive the electorate as to ones ualifications for public office" #heuse of a surname, when not intended to mislead or deceive the publicas to ones identity, is not within the scope of the provision" #here is

absolutely no showing that the inhabitants of Sara, .loilo were deceivedby the use of such surname by private respondent" Petitioner does notallege that the electorate did not /now who they were voting for whenthey cast their ballots in favor of 9%rmelita $acao Salcedo: or that theywere fooled into voting for someone else by the use of such name"

#he $ourt -44.'MS the en banc 'esolution of the $ommission on%lections denying the petition to cancel private respondents certificateof candidacy"

12. ',+*M+-ele%$ vs "o$&o
http://joiemanuel.tk/election-law/dumpit-michelena-vs-boado/http://joiemanuel.tk/election-law/dumpit-michelena-vs-boado/


24/40

Nov. 1 2005

#his is a petition assailing $OM%&%$ resolution disualifying 3umpit inthe May 0; election"

Facts:

3umpitMichelena was a candidate for the position of mayor in themunicipality of -goo, &a Gnion during the May 1, 0; SynchroniHed


25/40

G.R. No. 1349

6l7 31 2000

#his special civil action for certiorari see/s to annul the en bancresolution of public respondent $ommission on %lections promulgatedon 7une 0, 1!, in a $OM%&%$ special action case, SP- or 4or -nnulment of%lections, alleging that said election was replete with election offenses,such as vote buying and flying voters" De also alleged that numerous%lection 'eturns pertaining to the position of AiceMayor in the $ity ofParaaue appear to be altered, falsified or fabricated"

.n fact, there were people arrested who admitted the said electionoffenses" #herefore, the incidents were sufficient to declare a failure of

elections because it cannot be considered as the true will of thepeople"

Petitioner Banaga, 7r" is praying that he should be ad+udged as the dulyelected AiceMayor in the $ity of Paraaue, during the May 1! localelections"

'espondent $OM%&%$ dismissed petitioners suit and held that theelection offenses relied upon by petitioner do not fall under any of theinstances enumerated in Section 6 of the Omnibus %lection $ode" #he

election tribunal concluded that based on the allegations of thepetition, it is clear that an election too/ place and that it did not resultin a failure to elect and therefore, cannot be viewed as an electionprotest"

#hus, this petition for certiorari alleging that the respondent $OM%&%$committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac/ or e*cess of


26/40

+urisdiction for dismissing his petition motu propio without any basiswhatsoever and without giving him the benefit of a hearing"

Issues:

8O< petition to declare a failure of elections and>or for annulment ofelection is considered as an election protest"

8O< respondent $OM%&%$ acted with grave abuse of discretion indismissing petitioners petition, in the light of petitioners foregoingcontentions"

Hed:

or to annul election results must show on its facethat the conditions necessary to declare a failure to elect are present"'espondent $OM%&%$ only based its decision on the provisions of theOmnibus %lection $ode with regard to declaring a failure of election"

#here are three instances where a failure of election may be declared,namelyE

the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fi*ed onaccount of force ma+eure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogouscauses=

the election in any polling place has been suspended before the hourfi*ed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force ma+eure,violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes= or

after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of theelection returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election


27/40

results in a failure to elect on account of force ma+eure, violence,terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes"

#he instances being not present in the petition of Mr" Banaga, 7r" #herespondent $OM%&%$ have no other recourse but to dismiss the

petition"

14. Mer-$&o vs M$%$%o

Facts:

Petitioner %rnesto Mercado and Private respondent %duardo ManHano

are candidates for the position of AiceMayor of Ma/ati $ity in the May,1! elections" Private respondent was the winner of the said electionbut the proclamation was suspended due to the petition of %rnestoMamaril regarding the citiHenship of private respondent" Mamarilalleged that the private respondent is not a citiHen of the Philippinesbut of the Gnited States" $OM%&%$ granted the petition anddisualified the private respondent for being a dual citiHen, pursuant tothe &ocal overnment code that provides that persons who possessdual citiHenship are disualified from running any public position"Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which remained

pending until after election" Petitioner sought to intervene in the casefor disualification" $OM%&%$ reversed the decision and declaredprivate respondent ualified to run for the position" Pursuant to theruling of the $OM%&%$, the board of canvassers proclaimed privaterespondent as vice mayor" #his petition sought the reversal of theresolution of the $OM%&%$ and to declare the private respondentdisualified to hold the office of the vice mayor of Ma/ati"

Issue:

8hether or


28/40

3ual citiHenship is different from dual allegiance" #he former ariseswhen, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws oftwo or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a nationalby the said states" 4or instance, such a situation may arise when aperson whose parents are citiHens of a state which adheres to the

principle of +us sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of+us soli" Private respondent is considered as a dual citiHen because heis born of 4ilipino parents but was born in San 4rancisco, GS-" Such aperson, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, isconcurrently considered a citiHen of both states" $onsidering thecitiHenship clause (-rt" .A) of our $onstitution, it is possible for thefollowing classes of citiHens of the Philippines to posses dualcitiHenshipE (1) #hose born of 4ilipino fathers and>or mothers in foreigncountries which follow the principle of +us soli= (0) #hose born in thePhilippines of 4ilipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their

fathers country such children are citiHens of that country= (5) #hosewho marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country the former areconsidered citiHens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed tohave renounced Philippine citiHenship" 3ual allegiance, on the otherhand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, bysome positive act, loyalty to two or more states" 8hile dual citiHenshipis involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individuals volition"

By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post,private respondent elected Philippine citiHenship and in effect

renounced his -merican citiHenship" #he filing of such certificate ofcandidacy sufficed to renounce his -merican citiHenship, effectivelyremoving any disualification he might have as a dual citiHen"

By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a 4ilipino citiHen=that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country=that he will defend and support the $onstitution of the Philippines andbear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so withoutmental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the laws of thiscountry are concerned, effectively repudiated his -merican citiHenship

and anything which he may have said before as a dual citiHen" On theother hand, private respondents oath of allegiance to the Philippine,when considered with the fact that he has spent his youth andadulthood, received his education, practiced his profession as an artist,and ta/en part in past elections in this country, leaves no doubt of hiselection of Philippine citiHenship"


29/40

15. RA!MUN'O A'ORMEO


30/40

.n the case at bar, #alaga did not serve for 5 consecutive terms" 4ornearly 0 years, he was a private citiHen" #he continuity of hismayorship was disrupted by his defeat in the 1! elections"9.f one is elected representative to serve the une*pired term ofanother, that une*pired term, no matter how short, will be considered

one term for the purpose of computing the number of successive termsallowed:Nthis comment of $onstitutional $ommissioner 4r" Bernasapplies only to members of the Douse of 'epresentatives" Gnli/egovernment officials, there is no recall election for members of$ongress"

1. RONAL' ALLAN >OE $.?.$. =ERNAN'O >OE 6R.AGALARRO!O>.E.. CASE No. 002. M$r- 29 2005

Facts:

.n the 0; election, loria Macapagal -rroyo (M-) wasproclaimed the duly elected President of the Philippines" #hesecondplacer in the elections, 4ernando Poe, 7r" (4P7), filed anelection protest before the %lectoral #ribunal" 8hen theProtestant died in the course of his medical treatment, his widow,Mrs" 7esusa Sonora Poe a"/"a" Susan 'oces filed a motion tointervene as a substitute for deceased protestant 4P7" She claimsthat there is an urgent need for her to continue and substitute for

her late husband to ascertain the true and genuine will of theelectorate in the interest of the 4ilipino people" #he Protestee,M- asserts that the widow of a deceased candidate is not theproper party to replace the deceased protestant since a publicoffice is personal and not a property that passes on to the heirs"Protestee also contends that under the 'ules of the Presidential%lectoral #ribunal, only the registered candidates who obtained


31/40

the 0nd and 5rd highest votes for the presidency may contest theelection of the president"

Issue:

May the widow substitute>intervene for the protestant who diedduring the pendency of the latters protest case

Hed:

Only the registered candidate for President or for AicePresidentof the Philippines who received the second or third highestnumber of votes may contest the election of the President or theAicePresident, as the case may be, by filing a verified petitionwith the $ler/ of the Presidential %lectoral #ribunal within thirty(5) days after the proclamation of the winner"-n election protest is not purely personal and e*clusive to theprotestant or to the protestee, hence, substitution andintervention is allowed but only by a real party in interest"


32/40

1. A'IONG v. COMELECG.R. No. 10395M$r- 31 1992

FACTS:

On 7anuary 15, 10, the $OM%&%$ promulgated 'esolution


33/40

(a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals Provided, #hat decals andstic/ers may be posted only in any of the authoriHed posting areasprovided in paragraph (&) of Section 01 hereof"

Section 01 (&) of the same resolution providesE

Sec" 01(&)" Prohibited forms of election propaganda" N

.t is unlawfulE

(&) #o draw, paint, inscribe, post, display or publicly e*hibit any electionpropaganda in any place, whether public or private, mobile orstationary, e*cept in the $OM%&%$ common posted areas and>orbillboards

Petitioner Blo Gmpar -diong, a senatorial candidate in the May 11,10 elections assails the $OM%&%$Qs 'esolution insofar as it prohibitsthe posting of decals and stic/ers in RmobileR places li/e cars and othermoving vehicles" -ccording to him such prohibition is violative ofSection !0 of the Omnibus %lection $ode and Section 11(a) of 'epublic-ct


34/40

#he regulation stri/es at the freedom of an individual to e*press hispreference and, by displaying it on his car, to convince others to agreewith him"

-lso, the uestioned prohibition premised on the statute ('- 66;6) and

as couched in the resolution is void for overbreadth" #he restriction asto where the decals and stic/ers should be posted is so broad that itencompasses even the citiHenQs private property, which in this case is aprivatelyowned vehicle (#he provisions allowing regulation are soloosely worded that they include the posting of decals or stic/ers in theprivacy of oneQs living room or bedroom") .n conseuence of thisprohibition, another cardinal rule prescribed by the $onstitution wouldbe violated" Section 1, -rticle ... of the Bill of 'ights provides that noperson shall be deprived of his property without due process of law"(#he right to property may be sub+ect to a greater degree of regulation

but when this right is +oined by a RlibertyR interest, the burden of+ustification on the part of the overnment must be e*ceptionallyconvincing and irrefutable" #he burden is not met in this case")

-dditionally, the constitutional ob+ective to give a rich candidate and apoor candidate eual opportunity to inform the electorate as regardstheir candidacies, mandated by -rticle .., Section 06 and -rticle ...,section 1 in relation to -rticle . (c) Section ; of the $onstitution, is notimpaired by posting decals and stic/ers on cars and other privatevehicles" .t is to be reiterated that the posting of decals and stic/ers on

cars, caesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other moving vehicles needs theconsent of the owner of the vehicle" Dence, the preference of thecitiHen becomes crucial in this /ind of election propaganda not thefinancial resources of the candidate"

.n sum, the prohibition on posting of decals and stic/ers on RmobileRplaces whether public or private e*cept in the authoriHed areasdesignated by the $OM%&%$ becomes censorship which cannot be

+ustified by the $onstitution"

18. EO'ULO M. COQUILLA >EIIONER


35/40

FACTS:

Petitioner $ouilla was born on 4ebruary 1C, 15! of 4ilipino parents inOras, %astern Samar" .n 162, he +oined the GS


36/40

citiHen after enlisting in the GS


37/40

1" >+l++%e "$r Asso-+$*+o% vs. COMELEC140 SCRA 4556$%$r7 198

FACTS:

%leven petitions were filed for prohibition against the enforcement ofBP !!5 which calls for special national elections on 4ebruary C, 1!6(snap elections) for the offices of President and Aice President of thePhilippines" BP !!5 in conflict with the constitution in that it allows thePresident to continue holding office after the calling of the specialelection"

Senator PelaeH submits that President Marcos letter of conditional9resignation: did not create the actual vacancy reuired in Section ,-rticle C of the $onstitution which could be the basis of the holding of aspecial election for President and Aice President earlier than theregular elections for such positions in 1!C" #he letter states that thePresident isE 9irrevocably vacat(ing) the position of President effectiveonly when the election is held and after the winner is proclaimed andualified as President by ta/ing his oath office ten (1) days after hisproclamation":

#he unified opposition, rather than insist on strict compliance with thecited constitutional provision that the incumbent President actuallyresign, vacate his office and turn it over to the Spea/er of theBatasang Pambansa as acting President, their standard bearers havenot filed any suit or petition in intervention for the purpose norrepudiated the scheduled election" #hey have not insisted thatPresident Marcos vacate his office, so long as the election is clean, fairand honest"

ISSUE:

.s BP !!5 unconstitutional, and should the Supreme $ourt thereforestop and prohibit the holding of the elections

HELD

#he petitions in these cases are dismissed and the prayer for theissuance of an in+unction restraining respondents from holding the


38/40

election on 4ebruary C, 1!6, in as much as there are less than thereuired 1 votes to declare BP !!5 unconstitutional"

#he events that have transpired since 3ecember 5,as the $ourt did notissue any restraining order, have turned the issue into a political

uestion (from the purely +usticiable issue of the uestionedconstitutionality of the act due to the lac/ of the actual vacancy of thePresidents office) which can be truly decided only by the people intheir sovereign capacity at the scheduled election, since there is noissue more political than the election" #he $ourt cannot stand in theway of letting the people decide through their ballot, either to give theincumbent president a new mandate or to elect a new president"


39/40

20. S$lv$ v. M$?$l+%*$l

GR No. 1320318 Se*e,er 2000

FACTS:

Salva, et al, officials and residents of Barangay San 'afael, $alaca,Batangas filed a class suit against the Sangguniang Panlalawigan ofBatangas, Sangguniang Pambayan of $alaca, and the $OM%&%$ forannulment of Ordinance


40/40

#he powers vested by the $onstitution and the law on the $OM%&%$may either be classified as those pertaining to its ad+udicatory or uasi

+udicial functions, or those which are inherently administrative andsometimes ministerial in character

47066600 case digest on election law

Documents