Election Law; Case Doctrines

Page 1 of 6

Yetyet2013

RECALL ELECTIONS
Garcia vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 111511. October 5, 1993

Claudio vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 140560. May 4, 2000

To be sure, there is nothing in the Constitution that will remotely suggest that the people have the "sole and
exclusive right to decide on whether to initiate a recall proceeding." The Constitution did not provide for any
mode, let alone a single mode, of initiating recall elections. Neither did it prohibit the adoption of multiple
modes of initiating recall elections.
There are two limitations in paragraph (b) on the holding of recalls; (1) that no recall shall take place within
one year from the date of assumption of office of the official concerned, and (2) that no recall shall take place
within one year immediately preceding a regular local election.
But however the period of prohibition is determined, the principle announced is that the purpose of the
limitation is to provide a reasonable basis for evaluating the performance of an elective local official. Hence, in
this case, as long as the election is held outside the one-year period, the preliminary proceedings to initiate a
recall can be held even before the end of the first year in office of a local official.

FAILURE OF ELECTIONS; SPECIAL ELECTIONS

Sison vs. Comelec
Under the pertinent codal provision of the Omnibus Election Code, there are only three (3) instances where a
G.R. No. 134096. March 3, 1999
failure of elections may be declared, namely: (a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date
fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; (b) the election in any
polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or (c) after the voting and during the
preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election
results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes
Ampatuan vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 149803. January 31, 2002

ELECTION OFFENSES
People vs. Ferrer
G.R. No. L-8957 April 29, 1957

The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed office does not deprive the Comelec of its authority to
annul any canvass and illegal proclamation. In the case at bar, we cannot assume that petitioners'
proclamation and assumption into office on June 30, 2001, was legal precisely because the conduct by which
the elections were held was put in issue by respondents in their petition for annulment of election results
and/or declaration of failure of elections.
Nevertheless, the information is defective, because it charges two violations of the Revised Election Code, to
wit: section 51 to which a heavier penalty is attached, and section 54 for which a lighter penalty is provided.
And the prosecuting attorneys had that in mind when at the end of the information filed by them they stated:
"Contrary to Sections 51 and 54 in relation to Sections 183, 184 and 185 of Republic Act No. 180, as
amended." Causing cigarettes which are things of value to be distributed, made unlawful by section 51 and
punished by section 183, cannot be deemed a necessary means to commit the lesser violation of section 54
were the penalty attached to it taken into consideration.

Election Law; Case Doctrines

Page 2 of 6

Yetyet2013

Mappala vs. Nunez

A.M. No. RTJ-94-1208. January 26, 1995

To support a conviction under Section 261(p) of the Omnibus Election Code, it is not necessary that the
deadly weapon should have been seized from the accused while he was in the precinct or within a radius of
100 meters therefrom. It is enough that the accused carried the deadly weapon "in the polling place and
within a radius of one hundred meters thereof" during any of the specified days and hours.

People vs. Bayona

February 16, 1935 G.R. No. L-42288

The law which the defendant violated is a statutory provision, and the intent with which he violated it is
immaterial. It may be conceded that the defendant did not intend to intimidate any elector or to violate the
law in any other way, but when he got out of his automobile and carried his revolver inside of the fence
surrounding the polling place, he committed the act complained of, and he committed it willfully. The act
prohibited by the Election Law was complete.

Lozano vs. Yorac

G.R. No. 94521. October 28, 1991

No clear and convincing proof exists to show that respondent Binay was indeed engaged in vote buying. The
traditional gift-giving of the Municipality of Makati during the Christmas season is not refuted. That it was
implemented by respondent Binay as OIC Mayor of Makati at that time does not sufficiently establish that
respondent was trying to influence and induce his constituents to vote for him.

Ong vs. Martinez

G.R. No. 87743 August 21, 1990

The appointment of respondent is not covered by the election ban contemplated under Sec. 261 (g) of the
Omnibus Election Code.
The permanent vacancy for councilor exists and its filling up is governed by the Local Government Code while
the appointment referred to in the election ban provision is covered by the Civil Service Law.

Regalado vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 115962. February 15, 2000

Thus, contrary to petitioner's claim, a transfer under 24(c) of P.D. No. 807 in fact includes personnel
movement from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency.
As the Solicitor General notes, "the word transfer or detail, as used [above], is modified by the word whatever.
This indicates that any movement of personnel from one station to another, whether or not in the same office
or agency, during the election is covered by the prohibition."

Comelec vs. Tagle

G.R. Nos. 148948
February 17, 2003

&

Section 28 of R.A. No. 6646 on Prosecution of Vote-Buying and Vote-Selling:

148951-60. The giver, offeror, the promisor as well as the solicitor, acceptor, recipient and conspirator referred to in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 shall be liable as principals: Provided, That
any person, otherwise guilty under said paragraphs who voluntarily gives information and willingly testifies
on any violation thereof in any official investigation or proceeding shall be exempt from prosecution and
punishment for the offenses with reference to which his information and testimony were given: Provided,
further, That nothing herein shall exempt such person from criminal prosecution for perjury or false
testimony.

Election Law; Case Doctrines

Page 3 of 6

Yetyet2013

ELECTION ADJUDICATION SYSTEM

Jalosjos vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 192474, July 26, 2012

Lokin vs. CIBAC

G.R. Nos. 179431-31 June 22, 2010

The court has already settled the question of when the jurisdiction of the Comelec ends and when that of the
HRET begins. The proclamation of a congressional candidate following the election divests the Comelec of
jurisdiction over disputed relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the proclaimed representative
in favour of the HRET.
Sec. 8 of RA No. 7941 enumerates only 3 instances in which the party list organization can substitute another
person in place of the nominee whose names has been submitted to the Comelec, namely; (a) when the
nominee dies; (b) when the nominee withdraws in writing his nomination; and (c) when the nominee
becomes incapacitated.
Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 expanded the exceptions under Section 8 of RA No. 7941 by adding another
exception which is nomination withdrawn by the party.

APPEAL, ELECTION PROTEST and QUO WARRANTO

As a general rue, the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent
Dumayas vs. Comelec
filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving
337 SCRA 358
the Comelec of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his
proclamation.
Exceptions: (a) the board of canvassers was improperly constituted; (b) quo warranto was not the proper
remedy; (c) what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but a petition to
annul a proclamation; (d) the filing of quo warranto or election protest was expressly made without prejudice
to the pre-proclamation controversy; (e) the proclamation was null and void.
Sande vs. Comelec
102 SCRA 1

A petition to disqualify a candidate based on a change of political party affiliation within six months
immediately preceding of following an election filed with the Court after January 30, 1980, arising from a preproclamation controversy, should be dismissed without prejudice to such ground being passed upon in a
proper election protest or quo warranto proceeding.

Luna vs. Comelec

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

There was no petition to deny due course to or cancel the certificate of candidacy of Roger. The Comelec only
declared that Roger did not file a valid COC and, thus, was not a valid candidate in the petition to deny due
course to or cancel Lunas certificate of candidacy. In effect, the Comelec, without the proper proceedings,
cancelled Rogers COC and declared the substitution by Luna invalid.

Loreto-Go vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 147741, May 10, 2001

There is nothing in Section 73 of the OEC which mandates that the affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with
the same office where the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed. Thus, it can be filed directly with
the main office of the Comelec, the office of the regional election director concerned, the office of the
provincial election supervisor of the province to which the municipality involved belongs, or the office of the

Election Law; Case Doctrines

Page 4 of 6

Yetyet2013

municipality election officer of the said municipality.

Divinagracia vs. Comelec
Resolution No. 8486 (2008):
G.R. Nos. 186007 & 186016, July 27,
1. If the appellant had already paid the amount of P1,000 before the RTC, MTC or lower courts within the
2009
five day period and appeal was given due course by the court, said appellant is required to pay the
Comelec appeal fee of P3,200 at the Comelec, within a period of 15 days from the time of the filing of
the notice of appeal with the lower court. If no payment is made within the prescribed period, the
appeal shall be dismissed.
2. If the appellant failed to pay the P1,000 appeal fee with the lower court within 5 day period but the
case was nonetheless elevated to the Commission, the appeal shall be dismissed outright by the
Comelec.
3.
Santos vs. Comelec
A valid exercise of the discretion to allow execution pending appeal requires that it should be based upon
G.R. No. 155618, March 26, 2003
good reasons to be stated in a special order. The following constitute good reasons and a combination of 2 or
more of them will suffice to grant execution pending appeal:
1. Public interest involved/ will of electorate;
2. Shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office;
3. Length of time that the election contest has been pending.
4.
Navarosa vs. Comelec
To grant execution pending appeal in election protest cases, the following requisites must concur: (1) there
G.R. No. 157957, September 18, 2003
must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to adverse party; (2) there must be good reasons for the
execution pending appeal; and (3) the order granting execution pending appeal must state the good reasons.
Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous RA 9186 and Resolution 6486 create an additional qualification that all candidates for Senator must be
Drugs Board & PDEA
certified as drug free. No provision in the Constitution authorizing the Congress or Comelec to expand the
G. R. No. 157870, November 3, 2008
qualification requirement of candidates for Senator.

Election Law; Case Doctrines

Page 5 of 6

Yetyet2013

RECALL ELECTION
Definition
Legal Basis
Termination of
office of elective
officials by loss
of confidence

1.Local
Government
Code
2.1987
Constitution

Who may
initiate?
1.
Registered
Voters
2. Preparatory
Recall Assembly
(no longer a
mode
under
Comelec
Resolution No.
7505 & RA
9244)

Subject of Recall
1. Provincial,
City.
Municipal,
and Barangay
Elective
Officials

Voting
Population
a. At
least
20,000 25%
b. At
least
75,000 20%
c. At
least
300,000

15%
d. Over
300,000

10%

When should
NOT be filed?
a. Not earlier
than 1 year
from the date
of assumption
of office

Limitations

Where should
be filed?
Only once.
1. City,
municipal,
*Resignation is
barangay
not a bar to
Office
of
recall election.
Election
Officer
b. Within
1
2. Provincial
year
Provincial
immediately
Election
preceding
Supervisor
the
next
regular
election

SPECIAL ELECTIONS
Omnibus Election Code (Sec.7)
R.A. 7166 (Sec.4)
2 kinds of Special Election
Vacancy 18 months or more before the regular -at least 1 year before the expiration of the term
No serious arm threat regular election officers
election
Date within 60 days from occurrence of -not earlier than 60 days nor longer than 90 days Serious Arm threats placed under COMELEC
vacancy
from occurrence of vacancy.

ELECTION
ADJUDICATION
SYSTEM
Who may file?
How many days?
What
elective

MTC/MC

RTC

COMELEC

HRET

SET

PET

candidate
w/n 10 days
Brgy & SK

candidate
w/n 10 days
Municipal officilas

candidate
w/n 10 days
Provincial, regional

candidate
w/n 15 days
District, partylist,

candidate
w/n 15 days
senators

Candidate
President/ vice

Election Law; Case Doctrines

Page 6 of 6

Yetyet2013

positions?
Revisions?
Pilot precinct rule?

Use of PCOS

Use of PCOS
20%

and city
Use of PCOS
20%

congressman
Use of PCOS
25%

Use of PCOS
25%

president
Use of PCOS