Case Digests Election Law (AGRA)

MODULE  1:  FAILURE  AND  POSTPONEMENT  OF  ELECTIONS   elections,   the   incumbents   can   legally   remain   in   office   as   Barangay   Chairmen   of   their  
  respective  barangays  in  a  hold-­‐over  capacity.  They  shall  continue  to  discharge  their  
Mutilan  vs.  COMELEC   powers   and   duties   as   Punong   Barangay,   and   enjoy   the   rights   and   privileges  
520  SCRA  152  (2007)   pertaining   to   the   office.   True,   Sec.   43(c)   of   the   Local   Government   Code   limits   the  
  term   of   elective   barangay   officials   to   three   years.   However,   Sec.   5   of   RA   9164  
There   are   three   instances   where   a   failure   of   elections   may   be   declared:   (1)   the   explicitly   provides   that   incumbent   barangay   officials   may   continue   in   office   in   a   hold  
election  in  any  polling  place  has  not  been  held  on  the  date  fixed  on  account  of  force   over  capacity  until  their  successors  are  elected  and  qualified.  
majeure,  violence,  terrorism,  fraud  or  other  analogous  causes;  (2)  the  election  in  any    
polling  place  has  been  suspended  before  the  hour  fixed  by  law  for  the  closing  of  the   The  application  of  the  hold-­‐over  principle  preserves  continuity  in  the  transaction  of  
voting   on   account   of   force   majeure,   violence,   terrorism,   fraud   or   other   analogous   official  business  and  prevents  a  hiatus  in  government  pending  the  assumption  of  a  
causes;   or   (3)   after   the   voting   and   during   the   preparation   and   transmission   of   the   successor   into   office.   As   held   previously   by   the   Court,   cases   of   extreme   necessity  
election   returns   or   in   the   custody   or   canvass   thereof,   such   election   results   in   a   justify  the  application  of  the  hold-­‐over  principle.  
failure   to   elect   on   account   of   force   majeure,   violence,   terrorism,   fraud   or   other    
analogous  causes.    
  MODULE  4:  QUALIFICATIONS  AND  DISQUALIFICATIONS  OF  CANDIDATES  
Furthermore,  the  Court  explains  that  the  nullification  of  elections  or  declaration  of    
failure   of   elections   is   an   extraordinary   remedy.   The   party   who   seeks   the   nullification   Lluz  vs.  COMELEC  
of  an  election  has  the  burden  of  proving  entitlement  to  this  remedy.  It  is  not  enough   523  SCRA  456  (2007)  
that  a  verified  petition  is  filed.  The  allegations  in  the  petition  must  make  out  a  prima    
facie   case   for   declaration   of   failure   of   election,   and   convincing   evidence   must   Profession  or  occupation  is  not  a  qualification  for  elective  office,  and  therefore  not  a  
substantiate  the  allegations.   material   fact   in   a   certificate   of   candidacy.   Profession   or   occupation   not   being   a  
  qualification   for   elective   office,   misrepresentation   of   such   does   not   constitute   a  
MODULE  3:  PUBLIC  OFFICES  AND  ELECTIVE  OFFICIALS   material  misrepresentation.    
   
BA-­‐RA  vs.  COMELEC   Luna  vs.  COMELEC  
523  SCRA  1  (2007)   522  SCRA  107  (2007)  
   
The   Court   cannot   revoke   the   accreditation   given   by   COMELEC   to   the   party-­‐list   A   valid   withdrawal   of   a   certificate   of   candidacy   and   the   compliance   with   the  
groups   in   question.   This   will   entail   an   evaluation   of   the   qualities   of   the   sectoral   procedural   requirements   for   a   valid   substitution   equates   to   a   valid   substitution,  
groups’   qualifications,   which   would   require   the   Court   to   make   factual   even  if  the  substituted  candidate  was  under  age,  hence  ineligible.    
determinations,  which  is  outside  the  scope  of  judicial  review  by  way  of  certiorari.    
  Sec.   78   of   the   Election   Code   provides   that   in   case   a   person   filing   a   certificate   of  
Adap  vs.  COMELEC   candidacy   has   committed   false   material   representation,   a   verified   petition   to   deny  
516  SCRA  403  (2007)   due   course   to   or   cancel   the   certificate   of   candidacy   of   said   person   may   be   filed   at  
  any  time  not  later  than  25  days  from  the  time  of  filing  of  the  certificate  of  candidacy.  
As   the   law   now   stands,   the   language   of   Sec.   5   of   RA   91641   is   clear.   Since   there   was   a    
failure  of  elections  in  the  July  2002  regular  elections  and  in  the  August  2002  special   Rivera  vs.  COMELEC  
523  SCRA  41  (2007)  
 
1
Sec. 5. Hold Over. – All incumbent barangay officials and sangguniang kabataan officials For   the   three-­‐term   limit   for   elective   local   government   officials   to   apply,   two  
shall remain in office unless sooner removed or suspended for cause until their successors shall
have been elected and qualified. The provisions of the Omnibus Election Code relative to
conditions   or   requisites   must   concur,   to   wit:   (1)   that   the   official   concerned   has   been  
failure of elections and special elections are hereby reiterated in this Act. elected   for   three   consecutive   terms   in   the   same   local   government   post,   and   (2)   that  

Maria Samantha V. David

2B (2008-2009)
Page 1 of 3
Case Digests Election Law (AGRA)
he   has   fully   served   three   consecutive   terms.     An   RTC   decision   nullifying   the   The   COMELEC   Rules   of   Procedure   provides   that   the   COMELEC   may   refuse   to   take  
proclamation  after  the  term  of  the  contested  office  has  expired  is  of  no  legal  value,   action  on  a  petition  until  the  proper  fees  are  paid.  
especially   if   the   presumptive   winner   was   proclaimed   (even   under   protest)   and    
continuously  exercised  the  functions  of  his  office  from  start  to  finish  of  the  term.   Mutilan  vs.  COMELEC  
  520  SCRA  152  
   
MODULE  5:  COMELEC,  ELECTORAL  TRIBUNALS  AND  REGULAR  COURTS   While  automatic  elevation  of  a  case  erroneously  filed  with  the  Division  to  en  banc  is  
  not  provided  in  the  COMELEC  Rules  of  Procedure,  such  action  is  not  prohibited.    
Province  of  Agusan  vs.  COMELEC    
522  SCRA  94      
  Manzala  vs.  COMELEC  
The  Constitution  invests  the  COMELEC  with  broad  power  to  enforce  and  administer   523  SCRA  31  
all  laws  and  regulations  relative  to  the  conduct  of  an  election,  plebiscite  and  other    
electoral  exercises.  In  the  discharge  of  its  legal  duties,  the  COMELEC  is  provided  by   The   appreciation   of   the   contested   ballots   and   election   documents   involves   a  
the   law   with   tools,   ample   wherewithal,   and   considerable   latitude   in   adopting   means   question  of  fact  best  left  to  the  determination  of  the  COMELEC,  a  specialized  agency  
that  will  ensure  the  accomplishment  of  the  great  objectives  for  which  it  was  created   tasked   with   the   supervision   of   elections   all   over   the   country.   To   reiterate,   the  
-­‐   to   promote   free,   orderly   and   honest   elections.   Conceived   by   the   charter   as   the   COMELEC   is   the   constitutional   commission   vested   with   the   exclusive   original  
effective   instrument   to   preserve   the   sanctity   of   popular   suffrage,   endowed   with   jurisdiction  over  election  contests  involving  regional,  provincial  and  city  officials,  as  
independence   and   all   the   needed   concomitant   powers,   COMELEC   deserves   to   be   well  as  appellate  jurisdiction  over  election  protests  involving  elective  municipal  and  
accorded   by   the   Court   the   greatest   measure   of   presumption   of   regularity   in   its   barangay  officials.  Consequently,  in  the  absence  of  grave  abuse  of  discretion  or  any  
course  of  action  and  choice  of  means  in  performing  its  duties,  to  the  end  that  it  may   jurisdictional   infirmity   or   error   of   law,   the   factual   findings,   conclusions,   rulings   and  
achieve  its  designed  place  in  the  democratic  fabric  of  our  government.     decisions  rendered  by  the  said  Commission  on  matters  falling  within  its  competence  
  shall  not  be  interfered  with  by  the  Court.    
   
Arbonida  vs.  COMELEC    
518  SCRA  320   Dimayuga  vs.  COMELEC  
  522  SCRA  220  
The  COMELEC  could  also  decide  the  case  as  a  division,  and  it  did  need  not  to  have    
been   decided   en   banc.   The   Constitution   clearly   mandates   that   pre-­‐proclamation   NO.   The   power   of   the   Court   to   review   decisions   of   the   COMELEC   as   prescribed   in  
controversies   must   be   first   heard   and   decided   by   a   division   of   the   COMELEC,   and   Art.   9-­‐A.   Sec.   7   of   the   Constitution   refers   to   final   orders,   rulings   and   decisions   of   the  
then   by   the   en   banc   if   a   motion   for   reconsideration   were   filed.   This   Court   has   COMELEC  en  banc.  Hence,  the  status  quo  ante  order  of  the  COMELEC  en  banc,  being  
consistently   ruled   that   the   requirement   of   hearing   and   decision   of   election   cases,   in  the  nature  of  an  interlocutory  order,  will  not  be  reviewed  by  the  Court.  
including   pre-­‐proclamation   controversies,   at   the   first   instance   by   a   division   of   the    
COMELEC,   and   not   by   it   as   a   whole,   is   mandatory   and   jurisdictional.   The    
constitutional   provision   yields   to   no   other   interpretation   other   than   what   its   plain   MODULE  6:  CASTING  AND  COUNTING  OF  VOTES  
meaning  presents.    
  Delos  Reyes  vs.  COMELEC  
   
Cayat  vs.  COMELEC   It  is  true  that  in  election  contests,  where  the  correctness  of  the  number  of  votes  of  
522  SCRA  23   each   candidate   is   at   issue,   the   ballots   are   the   best   and   most   conclusive   evidence,  
  unless   the   same   cannot   be   produced,   in   which   case   the   election   returns   would   be  
the   best   evidence.   And   when   the   handwritings   on   the   ballots   are   the   subject   matter  

Maria Samantha V. David

2B (2008-2009)
Page 2 of 3
Case Digests Election Law (AGRA)
of   the   election   contest,   the   best   evidence   would   be   the   ballots   themselves   as   the   directly   with   the   COMELEC,   or   any   matter   raised   under   Sections   233,   234,   235,   and  
COMELEC   can   examine   or   compare   these   handwritings   even   without   assistance   236   of   the   Omnibus   Election   Code,   in   relation   to   the   preparation,   transmission,  
from  handwriting  experts.   receipt,   custody,   and   appreciation   of   the   election   returns.   It   is   limited   to   an  
  examination   of   the   election   returns   on   their   face   and   the   COMELEC,   as   a   general  
However,   in   election   contests   involving   the   issue   of   whether   multiple   ballots   were   rule,   need   not   go   beyond   the   face   of   the   returns   and   is   without   jurisdiction   to   go  
written   by   one   person,   it   is   not   enough   for   the   COMELEC   to   merely   rely   on   said   beyond  or  behind  them  and  investigate  the  alleged  election  irregularities.  
ballots.  Assisted  voting  authorized  under  Section  196  of  Batas  Pambansa  Blg.  88133    
is  a  reality  which  must  be  recognized  and  given  effect.    
  MODULE  9:  ELECTION  PROTEST  
Villagracia  vs.  COMELEC    
  Pagaduan  vs.  COMELEC  
The  distinction  should  always  be  between  marks  that  were  apparently  carelessly  or   519  SCRA  512  (2007)  
innocently   made,   which   do   not   invalidate   the   ballot,   and   marks   purposely   placed    
thereon  by  the  voter  with  a  view  to  possible  future  identification,  which  invalidates   Pursuant  to  Section  211  of  the  Omnibus  Election  Code,  which  mandates  liberality  in  
it.  The  marks  which  shall  be  considered  sufficient  to  invalidate  the  ballot  are  those   the  appreciation  of  ballots,  all  doubts  should  be  resolved  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  
which   the   voter   himself   deliberately   placed   on   his   ballot   for   the   purpose   of   the   ballot.   Hence,   after   re-­‐examining   the   ballots,   the   COMELEC   ruled   that   the  
identifying  it  thereafter.   appearance   of   some   erasures,   superimpositions,   alteration   of   letters,   are   attempts  
  by   the   voters   to   correct   or   rectify   what   they   had   originally   written,   while   the  
In   the   case   at   bar,   the   marks   indicate   no   other   intention   than   to   identify   the   ballots.   appearance  of  crosses  or  lines  put  on  the  spaces  for  which  the  voter  had  not  voted  
It  was  observed  that  these  marks  were  all  written  in  the  number  7  slot  of  the  list  of   are  signs  to  indicate  the  voter's  desistance  from  voting.  
Kagawad   for   Sangguniang   Barangay.   Hence,   it   was   obvious   that   there   is   reason   to    
believe  that  the  marks  were  intentionally  placed  there  by  the  voter.   Rosal  vs.  COMELEC  
  518  SCRA  473  (2007)  
Perman  vs.  COMELEC    
  The  purpose  of  an  election  protest  is  to  ascertain  whether  the  candidate  proclaimed  
The   Supreme   Court   held   that   the   allowance   or   rejection   of   a   ballot   filled   by   more   elected   by   the   board   of   canvassers   is   the   true   and   lawful   choice   of   the   electorate.  
than  one  person  depends  on  its  condition  before  it  was  cast  in  the  ballot  box:  If  at   Such  a  proceeding  is  usually  instituted  on  the  theory  that  the  election  returns,  which  
the  time  it  was  cast  it  was  filled  only  by  one  person,  but  thereafter  it  was  tampered   are  deemed  prima  facie  to  be  true  reports  of  how  the  electorate  voted  on  election  
and   entries   were   made   thereon   by   other   persons,   the   ballot   is   valid.   If,   on   the   other   day   and   which   serve   as   the   basis   for   proclaiming   the   winning   candidate,   do   not  
hand,  it  already  bore  the  fillings  of  two  or  more  persons  when  cast,  said  ballots  are   accurately   reflect   the   true   will   of   the   voters   due   to   alleged   irregularities   that  
deemed  marked  and  thus  void.   attended   the   counting   of   ballots.   In   a   protest   prosecuted   on   such   a   theory,   the  
  protestant   ordinarily   prays   that   the   official   count   as   reflected   in   the   election   returns  
The   presumption   juris   tantum   is   that   a   ballot   found   to   be   with   the   handwriting   of   be   set   aside   in   favor   of   a   revision   and   recount   of   the   ballots,   the   results   of   which  
two  or  more  persons  suffered  this  defect  before  it  was  cast.  It  is  only  a  presumption   should   be   made   to   prevail   over   those   reflected   in   the   returns   pursuant   to   the  
juris  tantum,  rebuttable  by  evidence.   doctrine  that  "in  an  election  contest  where  what  is  involved  is  the  number  of  votes  
  of   each   candidate,   the   best   and   most   conclusive   evidence   are   the   ballots  
Tamayo-­‐Reyes  v.  COMELEC   themselves."  
524  SCRA  577    
 
A  pre-­‐proclamation  controversy  refers  to  any  question  pertaining  to  or  affecting  the  
proceedings   of   the   board   of   canvassers   which   may   be   raised   by   any   candidate   or   by  
any   registered   political   party   or   coalition   or   political   parties   before   the   board   or  

Maria Samantha V. David

2B (2008-2009)
Page 3 of 3