BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
ELECTION LAW 2010
ATTY. JOSE M. ROY III | 2D
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Definition
SUFFRAGE: the right to vote in the election of officers chosen by the
people and in the determination of questions submitted to the people.
Includes within its scope: election, plebiscite, initiative and referendum
ELECTION: the means by which the people choose their officials for a
definite and fixed period and to whom they entrust for the time being
the exercise of the powers of government
a.
b.
REGULAR: one provided by law for the election of officers
either nation-wide or in certain subdivisions thereof, after
the expiration of the full term of the former officers
SPECIAL: one held to fill a vacancy in office before the
expiration of the full term for which the incumbent was
elected
B. Theories of Suffrage
1. NATURAL RIGHT THEORY: suffrage is a natural and inherent right
of every person who is not qualified by reason of his own
reprehensible conduct of unfitness.
2. SOCIAL EXPEDIENCY: suffrage is public office or function
conferred upon the citizen for reasons of social expediency;
conferred upon those who are fit and capable of discharging it.
3. TRIBAL THOERY: it is a necessary attribute of membership in the
State.
4. FEUDAL THEORY: it is an adjunct of a particular status, generally
tenurial in character, i.e. vested privilege usually accompanying
ownership of land.
5. ETHICAL THEORY: it is a necessary and essential means for the
development of society.
* Theory prevailing in the Philippines: SUFFRAGE is both a PRIVILEGE
and an OBLIGATION.
C. Qualifications for Suffrage
D. Disqualifications
1987 Philippine Constitution
ARTICLE V
SUFFRAGE
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines,
not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of
age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year
and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months
immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other
substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the
secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee
voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
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.
Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines
BP Blg. 881
Section 117. Qualifications of a voter. - Every citizen of the
Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by law, eighteen years of age or
over, who shall have resided in the Philippines for one year and in the
city or municipality wherein he proposes to vote for at least six months
immediately preceding the election, may be registered as a voter.
Any person who transfers residence to another city, municipality or
country solely by reason of his occupation; profession; employment in
private or 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, shall be deemed not to
have lost his original residence.
Section 118. Disqualifications. - The following shall be disqualified
from voting:
(a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer
imprisonment for not less than one year, such disability not having
been removed by plenary pardon or granted amnesty: Provided,
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
1
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
however, That any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph
shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five
years after service of sentence.
(b) 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 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 years after
service of sentence.
(c) Insane or incompetent persons as declared by competent authority.
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003
RA No. 9189
Sec. 5. Disqualifications. – The following shall be disqualified from
voting under this Act:
1. Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance
with Philippine laws;
2. Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine
citizenship and who have pledged allegiance to a foreign
country;
3. Those who have committed and are convicted in a final
judgment by a court or tribunal of an offense punishable by
imprisonment of not less than one (1) year, including those
who have committed and been found guilty of Disloyalty as
defined under Article 137 of the Revised Penal Code, such
disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or
amnesty; Provided, however, That any person disqualified to
vote under this subsection shall automatically acquire the right
to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of
sentence; Provided, further, That the Commission may take
cognizance of final judgments issued by foreign courts or
tribunals only on the basis of reciprocity and subject to the
formalities and processes prescribed by the Rules of Court on
execution of judgments;
4. An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as
such in the host country, unless he/she executes, upon
registration, an affidavit prepared for the purpose by the
Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical
permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three (3)
years from approval of his/her registration under this Act. Such
affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for
citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be the
cause for the removal of the name of the immigrant or
permanent resident from the National Registry of Absentee
Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to vote in
absentia.
5. Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared
insane or incompetent by competent authority in the
Philippines or abroad, as verified by the Philippine
embassies, consulates or foreign service establishments
concerned,
unless
such
competent
authority
subsequently certifies that such person is no longer
insane or incompetent.
CASES
1. O’HARA v COMELEC
FACTS
On May 19, 2001, the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) proclaimed
petitioner Teodoro O’Hara as the duly elected vice-governor with
216,798 votes over respondent Jovita Rodriguez’s 215,443 votes.
However on May 23, 2001, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of
Binangonan, Rizal filed with the COMELEC en banc, a petition to correct
entries in the certificate of canvass of votes, to allegedly correct
typographical errors in the number of votes garnered by petitioner and
respondent resulting in the addition of 7,000 votes to petitioner
together with the petition MBC also submitted the affidavit of Evelyn
Ramirez, the Municipal Accountant admitting that she committed the
mathematical error due to due to fatigue, sleepless nights and physical
exhaustion.
Respondent Rodriguez then filed with the COMELEC a petition to annul
the proclamation of the winning candidate for vice-governor, and to
correct an alleged manifest mathematical error, while petitioner filed
his answer arguing that there was no manifest error to be corrected,
and that respondent’s petition was filed out of time.
On July 25, 2001, the COMELEC issued a resolution in favor of
respondent and ordered the correction of the error. Thereafter the PBC
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
2
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
reconvened, however petitioner was not notified of the proceedings,
which lead to the proclamation of the respondent as the duly elected
Vice-Governor of Rizal. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether there exist a manifest error in the certificate if canvas of
votes.
HELD
NONE. According to the Court, It is apparent that the errors sought to
be corrected does not appear on the face of the certificate of canvass,
that there is nothing on the certificate of canvass that shows the
addition of 7,000 votes in favor of petitioner.
To the court A manifest clerical error is “one that is visible to the eye
or obvious to the understanding, and is apparent from the papers to
the eye of the appraiser and collector, and does not include an error
which may, by evidence dehors the record be shown to have
committed."
This Court explained that to be manifest, the errors must appear on
the face of the certificates of canvass or election returns sought to be
corrected and/or objections thereto must have been made before the
board of canvassers and specifically noted in the minutes of their
respective proceedings.
Additionally, according to the Court, MBC failed to specify the one
hundred precincts where the 7,000 votes came from, and that the
preceding page referred to by both MBC and Evelyn from which the
7,000 subtotal was from was never identified. For the majority
COMELEC relied heavily on the self-serving affidavits of the MBC and
Evelyn in reaching its decision, which has long been frowned upon by
the courts.
To the Court it would have been more prudent to order at least the
examination of the election returns to verify the existence of the
alleged error instead of concluding outright that the Statements of
Votes submitted by respondents were accurate and correctly prepared.
A more thorough study of the matter would have been more
appropriate under the circumstances especially considering that what
is at stake is the sanctity of the right of suffrage which we are bound
to uphold.
In its decision the Court stated the following:




In any election contest, the ultimate issue is to determine the
electoral will. In other words, who among the candidates was
the voters’ choice.
That under the Philippine Jurisdiction election means, "the
choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular
vote, through the use of the ballot, and elected officials are
determined through the will of the electorate.”
An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the
expression of the sovereign power of the people. Specifically,
the term election, in the context of the Constitution, may refer
to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the
holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and
counting of votes.
Election contests involve public interest, and technicalities and
procedural barriers must yield if they constitute an obstacle to
the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice
of their elective officials.
The Dissenting opinion:
According to Justice Puno, he believes that there exists a manifest
error. In the opinion of the justice, the majority has missed the issued
by confining its focus on the certificate of canvass. The manifest error
in the case at bar refers to the typographical error committed in
transferring the votes from the statement of votes to the certificate of
canvass. In his opinion the Majority shouldn’t have look for a manifest
error in the certificate of canvass or concerned themselves with the
origin of the 7,000 votes as this wasn’t the issue at hand.
Additionally, Justice Puno pointed out that during the whole procedure
petitioner O’Hara never questioned the validity of the statement of
votes from the municipality of Binangonan, when it was presented as
evidence by the respondent to show the manifest error that was
committed, where it showed that O’Hara garnered 28,754 votes and
not 35,754. Furthermore in the same way O’Hara never questioned the
affidavit of Evelyn, nor did petitioner ever asked Evelyn to be crossexamined to determine the truthfulness of her affidavit, hence in the
opinion of Justice Puno, the affidavit along with the other evidences
presented in the case should not be dismissed as self-serving as it was
properly submitted and that the petitioner never questioned its validity
throughout the proceeding. Lastly following jurisprudence such
mathematical errors or typographical errors are historically allowed to
be corrected by the Commission.
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
3
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
2. MACALINTAL v COMELEC
FACTS
Fifteen years since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution requiring
Congress to provide a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos
abroad, the congress enacted Republic Act No. 9189 (The Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003) in compliance with Art. V Sec 2 of the
Philippine Constitution, which provides that the congress shall provide
a system for voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
Petitioner, Romulo B. Macalintal, member of the Philippine Bar, as a
taxpayer and as a lawyer seeks for the declaration that certain
provisions of Republic Act No. 9189 suffer from constitutional infirmity.
Section 5(d) provides, that an immigrant or a permanent resident who
is recognized as such in the host country is disqualified from voting,
unless he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the
purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual
physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three (3)
years from approval of his/her registration under this Act. Such
affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for citizenship in
another country. Failure to return shall be cause for the removal of the
name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the National
Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to
vote in absentia.
Petitioner asserts that Section 5(d) is unconstitutional because it
violates Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Constitution which requires
that the voter must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one
year and in the place where he proposes to vote for at least six months
immediately preceding an election. Additionally in a case decided by
the Court, it held that a "green card" holder immigrant to the United
States is deemed to have abandoned his domicile and residence in the
Philippines.
ISSUES
Does Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 9189 allowing the registration of
voters who are immigrants or permanent residents in other countries
by their mere act of executing an affidavit expressing their intention to
return to the Philippines, violate the residency requirement in Section 1
of Article V of the Constitution?
HELD
NO. Section 5 (d) of R.A. 9189 is valid.
In the opinion of the Court, Seeing as the R.A. was enacted in
compliance to Art. V Sec. 2 of the Constitution and that essence of R.A.
No. 9189 which is to enfranchise overseas qualified Filipinos, it
behooves the Court to take a holistic view of the pertinent provisions
of both the Constitution and R.A. No. 9189. It is a basic rule in
constitutional construction that the Constitution should be construed as
a whole. Furthermore seeing as Section 2 does not provide for the
parameters of the exercise of legislative authority in enacting the said
law. Hence, in the absence of restrictions, Congress is presumed to
have duly exercised its function based on the doctrine of Presumption
of Regularity.
Contrary to petitioner’s claim that Section 5(d) circumvents the
Constitution, Congress enacted the law prescribing a system of
overseas absentee voting in compliance with the constitutional
mandate. Such mandate expressly requires that Congress provide a
system of absentee voting that necessarily presupposes that the
"qualified citizen of the Philippines abroad" is not physically present in
the country. The provisions of Sections 5(d) and 11 are components of
the system of overseas absentee voting established by R.A. No. 9189.
The qualified Filipino abroad who executed the affidavit is deemed to
have retained his domicile in the Philippines. He is presumed not to
have lost his domicile by his physical absence from this country. His
having become an immigrant or permanent resident of his host country
does not necessarily imply an abandonment of his intention to return
to his domicile of origin, the Philippines. Therefore, under the law, he
must be given the opportunity to express that he has not actually
abandoned his domicile in the Philippines by executing the affidavit
required by Sections 5(d) and 8(c) of the law.
As to the eventuality that the Filipino abroad would renege on his
undertaking to return to the Philippines, the penalty of perpetual
disenfranchisement provided for by Section 5(d) would suffice to serve
as deterrence to non-compliance with his/her undertaking under the
affidavit. Petitioner argues that should a sizable number of
"immigrants" renege on their promise to return, the result of the
elections would be affected and could even be a ground to contest the
proclamation of the winning candidates and cause further confusion
and doubt on the integrity of the results of the election. Indeed, the
probability that after an immigrant has exercised the right to vote, he
shall opt to remain in his host country beyond the third year from the
execution of the affidavit, is not farfetched. However, it is not for this
Court to determine the wisdom of a legislative exercise. As expressed
in Tañada vs. Tuvera,40 the Court is not called upon to rule on the
wisdom of the law or to repeal it or modify it if we find it impractical.
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
4
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
Congress itself was conscious of said probability and in fact, it has
addressed the expected problem. It must be emphasized that Section
5(d) does not only require an affidavit or a promise to "resume actual
physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three
years from approval of his/her registration," the Filipinos abroad must
also declare that they have not applied for citizenship in another
country. Thus, they must return to the Philippines; otherwise, their
failure to return "shall be cause for the removal" of their names "from
the National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent
disqualification to vote in absentia." Additionally, Under Section 9,
should a registered overseas absentee voter fail to vote for two
consecutive national elections, his name may be ordered removed
from the National Registry of Overseas Absentee Voters.
Other serious legal questions that may be raised would be: what
happens to the votes cast by the qualified voters abroad who were not
able to return within three years as promised? What is the effect on
the votes cast by the non-returnees in favor of the winning candidates?
The votes cast by qualified Filipinos abroad who failed to return within
three years shall not be invalidated because they were qualified to vote
on the date of the elections, but their failure to return shall be cause
for the removal of the names of the immigrants or permanent
residents from the National Registry of Absentee Voters and their
permanent disqualification to vote in absentia.
Lastly, the jurisprudential declaration in Caasi vs. Court of Appeals that
green card holders are disqualified to run for any elective office finds
no application to the present case because the Caasi case did not, for
obvious reasons, consider the absentee voting rights of Filipinos who
are immigrants and permanent residents in their host countries. (The
RA in question was not yet enacted at that time, therefore absentee
voting wasn’t even possible at that time.)
In the advent of The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 or R.A.
9189, they may still be considered as a "qualified citizen of the
Philippines abroad" upon fulfillment of the requirements of registration
under the new law for the purpose of exercising their right of suffrage.
3. ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v COMELEC
FACTS
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, applied as a candidate to contest elections
to the House of Representatives in the district of Leyte. The incumbent
representative of the constituency of Leyte, Cirilo Roy Montejo (a
candidate for the same position) applied to COMELEC have Imelda
Romualdez-Marcos’s application rejected on the grounds that it did not
meet the constitutional requirement for residency. The constitutional
requirement for residency for election purposes stated that in order to
contest a position, the candidate must have resided in the location for
which they are standing for a period of one year or more. The purpose
of the provision was to prevent the possibility of strangers or
newcomers who were unacquainted with the needs of a community
standing for office.
In her original application form, Imelda Romualdez-Marcos had stated
that she had resided in Leyte for seven months. In response to the
complaint fled by Cirilo Roy Montejo she amended the time of
residency in her application from seven months to “since childhood”.
She claimed that the entry of the word “seven” in her original
Certificate
of
Candidacy
was
the
result
of
an
“honest
misinterpretation”, which she now sought to rectify. She further stated
that she had always maintained Tacloban (in the district of Leyte) as
her domicile or residence.
COMELEC, after considering the petition of Cirilo Roy Montejo to have
the candidacy of Imelda Romualdez-Marcos rejected, found the claim
meritorious and refused her original application for candidacy and her
amended version. COMELEC rejected her application for candidacy on
the basis that her conduct revealed that she did not intend to make
Tacloban her domicile, that she had registered as a voter in different
places, and on several occasions had declared that she was a resident
of Manila. COMELEC stated that although she spent her school days in
Tacloban she had abandoned residency when she chose to stay and
reside in other places. Imelda Romualdez-Marcos subsequently
appealed to the Supreme Court requesting a declaration that she had
been a resident, for election purposes, of the First District of Leyte for
a period of one year at the time she applied to contest the 1995
elections.
She argued that the meaning of residency in the Constitution, which
designated the requirements for candidacy for election purposes, was
that of domicile. She argued that she had domicile in Leyte because
that was her place of original domicile and she had not acted to replace
that domicile with another. She also argued that her marriage and
changes of residency alongside her husband when he changed
residency did not result in a change in her place of domicile. In support
of that argument she claimed that section 69 of the Family Code 1988,
which gives a husband and wife the right to jointly fix the family
domicile, illustrates the intent of the Philippines Parliament to
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
5
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
recognize the rights of women. She claimed therefore that since she
had domicile in Leyte she automatically fulfilled the requirements for a
one-year residency for election purposes.
The respondents argued the meaning of residency in Article 110 of the
Civil Code 1950 was the meaning that should be applied to the
constitutional requirement for a one-year residency prior to qualifying
for candidacy for the elections. Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, they
argued, had changed her residency to that of her husband upon her
marriage and at the same time automatically gained her husband’s
domicile. After returning to Leyte she had resided there for only seven
months and she therefore did not satisfy the one year requirement for
candidacy.
ISSUE
Whether Imelda Marcos possessed the necessary residence
qualifications to run in Leyte as a candidate for House of
Representatives
HELD
YES. The Court held that the term “residence” in the context of
qualifying for certain elected positions is synonymous with the term
domicile. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence to which one
intends to return after an absence. A person can only have a single
domicile, although they can abandon one domicile in favor of another.
To successfully change domicile, one must demonstrate three (3)
requirements:
1. an actual removal or an actual change of domicile;
2. a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence
and establishing a new one;
3. and one must act in accordance with that intent.
Only with clear and positive evidence that all three requirements have
been met will the residence of origin be lost, otherwise residency will
be deemed to continue.
The Court held that the meaning of “residence” in Article 110 of the
Civil Code, which states that “the husband shall fix the residence of the
family”, is different therefore to the meaning of residence in the
Constitution. The term residence may have one meaning in civil law
(as under the Civil Code) and another different meaning in political law
as represented in the election requirements identified in the
Constitution. Residency is satisfied under the Civil Code if a person
establishes that they intend to leave a place when the purpose for
which they have taken up their abode ends. The purpose of residency
might be for pleasure, business, or health and a person may have
different residences in various places. However, residency in the
Constitution as opposed to the Civil Code means domicile and therefore
the key issue is to determine the domicile of the petitioner, Imelda
Romualdez-Marcos. The Court held that Article 110 does not create a
presumption that a wife automatically gains a husband’s domicile upon
marriage. When the petitioner was married to then Congressman
Marcos in 1954, she was obliged by virtue of Article 110 of the Civil
Code to follow her husband’s actual place of residence as fixed by him.
The right of the husband to fix the residence was in harmony with the
intention of the law to strengthen and unify the family. It recognised
the fact that the husband and wife bring into the marriage different
domiciles and if the husband has to stay in or transfer to any one of
their residences, the wife should necessarily be with him in order that
they may “live together.” However, the term “residence” in Article 110
of the Civil Code does not mean domicile and therefore it cannot be
correctly argued that petitioner lost her domicile as a result of her
marriage to the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1952. The Court
also held that it would be illogical for the Court to assume that a wife
cannot regain her original domicile upon the death of her husband, if
she has not positively selected a new one during the subsistence of the
marriage itself.
The Court held that the new Family Code, which was introduced to
replace the Civil Code, confirmed the petitioner’s argument that
marriage does not automatically change a wife’s domicile to that of her
husband. The Family Code replaced the term “residence” (used in the
Civil Code) with the term “domicile”. Article 69 of the Family Code
gives a husband and wife the right to jointly fix the family domicile.
The provision recognised revolutionary changes in the concept of
women’s rights in the intervening years by making the choice of
domicile a product of mutual agreement between the spouses. The
provision recognised the right of women to choose their own domicile
and removed the automatic transfer of a husband’s domicile to his
wife.
II. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
A. Qualifications of the Chairman and Commissioners
1.
2.
3.
4.
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines
At least thirty-five years of age
Holders of a college degree
Must not have been candidates for any elective positions in the
immediately preceding elections
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
6
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
5. A majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years.
B. Purpose
least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must
not have been candidates for any elective positions in the
immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof,
including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar
who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.
C. Constitutional and Statutory Powers
1. Have exclusive charge of enforcement and administration of
election law
2. Exercise supervision and control over officials required to perform
duties relative to the conduct of election
3. Authorize any instrumentality of the government, except civilian
home defense forces, to act as deputies
4. Promulgate rules and regulations
5. Summon parties to a controversy pending before it
6. Punish contempt only in connection with its judicial functions
7. Enforce its decisions and orders
8. Prescribe forms to be used in the election
9. Procure supplies and materials needed for the election
10. Prescribe latest technological and electronic devices upon notice to
accredited political parties and candidates not less than 30 days
before.
11. Carry out campaign to educate the public about elections
12. Enlist non-partisan groups to assist
13. Conduct hearings on controversies pending before it in the cities
and provinces
14. Fix periods for pre-election requirements
15. Recommend the imposition of disciplinary action upon an employee
it has deputized for violation of its order
16. Make minor adjustments of the apportionment of legislative districts
17. Adjust the apportionment in case of creation of new province or city
18. Divide a province with only one legislative district into two districts
for purposes of the election of the members of the Sangguniang
Kabataan
1987 Philippine Constitution
ARTICLE IX
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
C. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Section 1.
1. There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a
Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born
citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at
2. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the
President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for
a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first
appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two
Members for five years, and the last Members for three years,
without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only
for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any
Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
capacity.
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following
powers and functions:
1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and
recall.
2. Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating
to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective
regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction
over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided
by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective
barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on
election contests involving elective municipal and barangay
offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.
3. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions
affecting elections, including determination of the number and
location of polling places, appointment of election officials and
inspectors, and registration of voters.
4. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law
enforcement
agencies
and
instrumentalities
of
the
Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for
the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest,
peaceful, and credible elections.
5. Register,
after
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
sufficient
publication,
political
parties,
7
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other
requirements, must present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on
Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be
registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through
violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to
this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign
government shall likewise be refused registration. Financial
contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to
political parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates related
to elections, constitute interference in national affairs, and,
when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the
cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in
addition to other penalties that may be prescribed by law.
ballots properly. No name of any actual candidate shall be written on
the spaces for voting on the sample official ballots provided by the
Commission, nor shall they be used for voting.
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.
"(g) Appointment of new employees, creation of new position,
promotion, or giving salary increases. - During the period of forty-five
(45) days before a regular election and thirty (30) days before a
special election, (1) any head, official or appointing officer of a
government office, agency or instrumentality, whether national or
local, ,including government- owned or controlled corporations, who
appoints or hires any new employee, whether provisional, temporary
or casual, or creates and fills any new positions, except upon prior
authority of the Commission. The Commission shall not grant the
authority sought unless, it is satisfied that the office or agency
concerned, and that the position shall not be filled in a manner that
may influence the election.
7. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize
election spending, including limitation of places where
propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and
penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices,
and nuisance candidacies.
8. Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or
employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any other
disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience
to, its directive, order, or decision.
9. Submit to the President and the Congress, a comprehensive
report on the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, or recall.
Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines
BP Blg. 881
Section 185. Sample official ballots. - The Commission shall provide
the board of election inspectors with sample official ballots at the rate
of thirty ballots per polling place. The sample official ballots shall be
printed on colored paper, in all respects like the official ballots but
bearing instead the words "Sample Official Ballot", to be shown to the
public and used in demonstrating how to fill out and fold the official
COMELEC Resolution No. 8747
Authority of COMELEC to appoint, fill-up positions and transfer
or reassign its personnel in connection with the May 10, 2010
National and Local Elections
WHEREAS, Section 261 (g), and (h) of the Omnibus Election Code of
the Philippines provides that:
"SEC. 261. Prohibited Acts. - The following shall be guilty of an
election offense:
"As an exception to the foregoing provisions, a new employee may be
appointed in case of urgent need: Provided, however, that notice of the
appointment shall be given to the Commission within three days from
the date of appointment. Any appointment or hiring in violation of this
provision shall be null and void.
XXX
XXX
XXX
"(h) Transfer of officers and employees in the civil service. - Any public
official who mikes or causes any transfer or detail whatever of any
officer or employee in the civil service including public school teachers
within the election period, except upon approval of the Commission."
XXX
XXX
XXX
WHEREAS, on December 29, 2009, the Commission promulgated
Resolution No. 8737 to enforce effectively the foregoing prohibitions of
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
8
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
Section 261 (g), and (h) of the Omnibus Election Code;
provisional, temporary, substitute or casual; or
b. Create and fill any new position.
WHEREAS, there is an essential need to appoint, assign, reassign or
transfer Commission personnel during the prohibited period in order
that it can effectively and efficiently carry out its constitutional
mandate to conduct free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
elections;
2. No government official shall promote or give any increase of
salary or remuneration or privilege to any government official or
employee, including those in government-owned or controlled
corporations.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission by virtue of the powers conferred
upon by it by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code and other
election laws, has RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to authorize
the appointment, hiring of new employees or filling of new positions,
and transfer or assignment or reassignment of Commission personnej
during the election period.
SECTION2. Request for authority of the Commission on transfer
or detail; Where and How to file.
A. Requests for authority to make or cause any transfer or detail shall
be in writing, indicating the (1)office and place to which the officer
or employee is proposed to be transferred or detailed or otherwise
moved; and (2) stating the reasons therefor:
COMELEC Resolution No. 8737
In the matter of enforcing the prohibitions against appointment
or hiring of new employees, creating or filling of new positions,
giving any salary increase or transferring or detailing any
officer or employee in the Civil Service and suspension of
elective local officials, in connection with the May 10, 2010
National and Local Elections
B. Said request shall be filed with:
1. The Law Department –
Requests for authority to make or cause any transfer or detail of
any officer or employee in the civil service shall be filed with the
Law Department, when:
a. The official station is in the central/main offices of national
agencies and government-owned or controlled corporations
SECTION 1.Prohibited acts.
A. During the election period from January 10, 2010 to June 09, 2010,
no public official shall, except upon prior written authority of the
Commission:
1. Make or cause any transfer or detail whatsoever of any officer or
employee in the civil service, including public school teachers.
"Transfer” as used in this provision shall be construed as any
personnel movement from one government agency to another or
from one department, division, geographical unit or subdivision
of a government agency to another with or without the issuance
of an appointment.
2. Suspend any elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay
officer, unless the suspension will be for purposes of applying
the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act" in relation to the
suspension and removal of elective officials.
B. Beginning March 26, 2010 until May 10, 2010
1. No head or appointing officer of any national or local government
office, agency or instrumentality, including government-owned
or controlled corporations, shall, except upon prior authority of
the Commission:
a. Appoint or hire any new employee, whether permanent,
b.
It involves Regional Directors, Assistant Regional Directors
or positions of similar rank, Philippine National Police
Provincial/District Directors or Commanders, Officers
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines with the rank of
major or equivalent rank, and/or holding positions of
battalion commanders or higher, Provincial Treasurers and
Schools Division Superintendents, irrespective of their
official stations and government employees with official
stations in the field offices including the National Capital
Region; and
c.
The transfer or detail is inter-regional.
2. With the Regional Election Director Requests for transfer or detail involving City/Municipal
Treasurers and Assistant Superintendents, irrespective of their
official stations and government employees with official stations
in the field offices including the National Capital Region shall be
filed with the corresponding offices of the Regional Election
Directors where the employee/s sought to be transferred or
detailed is stationed.
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
9
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
SECTION 3. Request for authority of the Commission to appoint
or hire new emplovees; Where and How to file.
A. Requests for authority to appoint or hire new employees shall be in
writing stating all the necessary data and reasons for the same.
B. Said request shall be filed with:
1. The Law Department –
Requests for authority to appoint or hire new employees in the
central or main offices of national government agencies and
government-owned and controlled corporations
2. With the Regional Election Director –
Similar requests shall be submitted to the Office of the Regional
Election Director of the region where the vacancy exists.
SECTION 4. Request for authoritv of the Commission to create
and fill new positions: Where and How to file.
A. Requests for authority to create and fill new positions shall be
submitted in writing to the Law Department of the Commission.
B. The Commission shall
that the position to be
the office or agency
position shall not in
elections.
not grant the authority unless it is satisfied
filled is essential to the proper functioning of
concerned and that the filling up of such
any manner influence the results of the
SECTION 5. Request for authority of the Commission to suspend
an elective provincial, citv, municipal or barangav officer
applying the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: Where and
How to file.
Requests for authority to suspend an elective provincial, city, municipal
or barangay officer shall be submitted to the Law Department of the
Commission, supported by a copy of a formal complaint executed
under oath and containing the specific charges therefor.
SECTION 6. Procedure on the reauests for authority of the
Commission.
A. The Law Department shall submit all requests received by it,
together with its recommendation, to the Commission for approval
or disapproval.
B. The Regional Election Director shall approve or disapprove all
requests received by him and submit a report on the requests acted
upon by him to the Law Department, within seventy-two (72) hours
from his action thereon, by the fastest means of communication.
Provided that, all actions of the Regional Election Directors granting
the requests for exemptions from the coverage of the ban herein
involved are subject to review by the Commission and shall remain
valid and effective, unless otherwise rescinded or nullified by the
Commission.
SECTION 7. When reQuest for authoritv is not necessary.
Renewal of appointments of temporary, casual, substitute and
contractual personnel are not covered by this prohibition and will no
longer need prior authority of the Commission.
However, the appointing authority shall furnish the Commission,
through its Regional Offices for field positions, and through the Law
Department for main office positions, a complete list of employees
whose appointments were renewed, indicating their position, item
number, salary grade and station.
SECTION 8. Urgent need to appoint new employees
Where there is urgent need to appoint or hire new employees and such
employee has already been appointed or hired without prior authority
of the Commission, the requesting office/agency shall notify the
Commission in writing, within three (3) days from the date of the
appointment or hiring, stating therein the (1) exact date when the
position sought to be filled became vacant, (2) the cause of vacancy,
(3) the reason/s for said appointment or hiring and (4) all the
necessary data or information regarding the same.
Notification shall be made through the respective offices of the
Regional Election Directors in case of field positions, or through the
Law Department in case of central or main office positions.
The appointment or hiring of new employees shall be valid, unless the
same is found by the Commission: (1) to have been made to influence
in any manner the results of the election; (2) to have been issued
without the required notice; or (3) that there is no urgent need for the
appointment.
The need to fill up a vacant position by a new employee may be
considered "urgent" if the position to be filled is essential to the proper
functioning of the office or agency concerned and that the same has
been vacated either by death, retirement, resignation, promotion or
transfer of the regular incumbent; provided, that the appointment is
issued within sixty (60) days from occurrence of the vacancy, and that
the same cannot be filled by promotion or transfer of insiders within
the same period; and provided further, that the position shall not be
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
10
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
filled in any manner that may influence the election.
in two (2) daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
Appointment to a position which has been vacant for more than sixty
(60) days shall not be considered urgent and must, therefore, require
prior written authority from the Commission or the Regional Election
Directors concerned.
SECTION 13. Dissemination.
The Education and Information Department shall cause the immediate
publication of this resolution in two (2) daily newspaper of general
circulation, give widest dissemination as possible, and furnish copies
thereof to all concerned.
SECTION 9.Total ban on promotion, salarv increases. grant of
privileges.
Promotion or increase of salary, giving of remuneration or privilege to
any government official or employee including those in governmentowned and controlled corporations, shall be strictly prohibited.
"Promotion" as used in this provision shall mean the advancement of
an employee from one position to another with an increase in duties
and responsibilities as authorized by law, and usually accompanied by
increase in salary. Promotion may be from one department or agency
to another or from one organizational unit to another within the same
department agency.
SECTION 10. Iniunction.
The Civil Service Commission (CSC), including all its field offices is
hereby enjoined not to approve the appointment of new employees
where no prior written approval of the Commission or its regional
offices is presented by the appointing authority concerned or proof that
the required notice within the 3-day reglementary period as provided
in Section 3 hereof has been complied with.
The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the
Commission on Audit (COA), including al their filed offices, shall not
release or authorize the release of any appropriation, or pass in audit,
payments or expenditures of public funds that may be directly used in
violation of the foregoing prohibitions.
All field offices of the CSC are directed to submit immediately to the
Commission a written report on any violation of said provisions of the
Omnibus Election Code.
SECTION 11. Penaltv.
Any violation of the provisions of this Resolution shall constitute an
election offense and shall be punishable by imprisonment of not less
than one (1) year but not more than six (6) years, among other
penalties provided by law.
This resolution shall take effect on the seventh day after its publication
COMELEC Resolution No. 8734
In the matter of placing some areas in the country under
control in connection with the May 10, 2010 National and Local
Elections
The Commission on Elections, by virtue of the powers conferred upon it
by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Republic Act No.
7166, and other election laws, RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to
promulgate the following guidelines in placing any political division,
subdivision, unit or area under COMELEC CONTROL:
Section I . Grounds for Comelec Control. - The Commission may
place under its immediate and direct control and supervision, any
political division, subdivision, unit or area affected by 'serious armed
threats".
The term 'serious armed threats" shall refer to the presence of
paramilitary forces, private armies or identifiable armed bands widely
perceived to have committed terrorism, fraud or other election
irregularities and threaten or tend to disrupt the holding of free,
peaceful, honest, orderly and credible elections in any political division,
subdivision, unit or area.
Sec. 2. Powers and functions of the Commission. - The authority
shall be exercised by the Commission En banc as thecircumstances so
warrant. In furtherance thereof, the Commission shall:
a. Take immediate and direct control and supervision over all national
and local officials and employees required by law to perform duties
and/or comply with certain prohibitions relative to the conduct of the
elections in the political division, subdivision, area or unit concerned;
and
b. Exercise full control and supervision over all national and local law
enforcement agencies as well as military officers and men assigned or
deployed in the political division, subdivision, unit or area concerned.
For immediate and effective control of the political division,
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
11
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
subdivision, unit or area concerned, the Commission shall exercise
such authority where COMELEC control has been imposed.
Sec. 3.Special Task Force. - To ensure the conduct of free, peaceful,
orderly, honest and credible elections in each political subdivision, unit
or area placed under COMELEC control, a Special Task Force shall be
created. It shall be composed of a Commissioner designated by the
Commission as Task Force Head, and as members, the Regional
Election Director concerned, the highest-ranking official of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) and the highest-ranking officer of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) assigned in the area.
At the discretion of the Head of the Task Force or whenever required
by the exigency, additional members who must be. lawyers of the
Commission may be appointed to the Special Task Force.
Sec. 4. Powers and Duties of the Special Task Force. - The
Special Task Force shall have the following powers and duties:
a. To supervise and control the administrative activities and
transactions of local government units in the localities under the
Comelec control and enforce therein strict compliance with the election
bans and prohibitions under Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code,
particularly on, but not limited to, the disbursement of public funds,
the construction of public works, movements of government personnel
and non-intervention of civil service officials and employees as well as
police and military officers and personnel;
b. To oversee the effective and necessary distribution, assignment and
deployment of officers and personnel of the PNP as well as officers and
men of the AFP in the locality concerned, and place under its control
their activities relative to the strict enforcement of the law on the
firearms ban, security personnel of candidates and private citizens, the
appointment or use of special policemen for election purposes and
similar prohibitions under the pertinent provisions of Sec. 261 of the
Omnibus Election Code and Sec, 32, Sec. 33 and Sec. 34 of Republic
Act No. 7166;
c. To augment the police force and assign additional military troops
whenever necessary to quell any possible outbreak of violence and
maintain peace and order in the locality concerned;
d. When necessary, to substitute a whole unit of the police force
assigned in the locality concerned with another police unit or with an
adequate unit of the Armed Forces of the Philippines;
e. To relieve any police or military officer or personnel who may be
found unsuitable for continuance in his present assignment in the
locality concerned, reassign or confine to quarters any such member of
the police of military unit;
f. To revoke all exemptions heretofore issued under the firearms ban
to candidates and their bodyguards, and cancel all permits to carry
firearms outside residence granted to residents of the political division,
subdivision, unit or area concerned, as peace and order conditions in
the locality demand;
g. To act as law enforcement arm of the Commission in effecting and
implementing its specific orders, rulings, resolutions and decisions;
h.To adopt appropriate measures to safeguard and ensure the holding
of free, peaceful, orderly, honest and credible elections in the political
division, subdivision, unit or area under Comelec control; and
i. To submit periodic situation reports to the Commission through the
most expeditious means.
Except when prior approval or authority of the Commission En banc is
required, the Special Task Force decisions and orders in connection
herewith, shall be final and immediately executory, unless modified,
reversed or revoked by the Commission En banc.
Sec. 5. Support of the PNP and AFP Chiefs. - The PNP and the AFP
are hereby directed to immediately provide personnel, equipment,
vehicles and other transportation facilities as the Special Task Force
may require. J
Sec. 6. Duration of Comelec Control. - When a political division,
subdivision, unit or area is placed under COMELEC control, such shall
continue to be in full force and in effect until the end of the election
period, unless sooner lifted by the Commission.
Sec. 7 . Effectivity. - This Resolution shall take effect on the seventh
day after its publication in two (2) daily newspapers of general
circulation in the Philippines.
Sec. 8. Dissemination. - The Education and Information Department
shall cause the publication of this Resolution in two (2) daily
newspapers of general circulation, and give this widest dissemination.
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
12
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
CASES
1. ANTONIO v COMELEC
FACTS
In the 1969 National Elections, Rufino Antonio was proclaimed as
Congressman for Batanes. Jorge Abad and Renee Agudo, his
contenders, filed independent petitions with COMELEC, contesting such
proclamation on the ground that terrorism was practiced by armed
men brought to Batanes by Antonio, who destroyed all communication
facilities and blocked airport landings. These armed men allegedly
attacked the precincts, driven away the voters, filled the unused
ballots with Antonio’s name, prepared the election returns without
counting the votes, and intimidated the boards of inspectors of the
precincts to sign these at gunpoint.
Antonio, on the other hand, answered these petitions and pleaded
regularity and freedom of the election held and challenged COMELEC’s
jurisdiction to determine questions involving election returns regarding
members of the House of Representatives and its power to annul the
proclamation or suspend its effects and to annul the election or declare
a failure to elect.
ISSUE
Whether COMELEC has jurisdiction to determine questions involving
election returns regarding members of the House of Representatives
and its power to annul the proclamation or suspend its effects and to
annul the election or declare a failure to elect.
HELD
YES. If the COMELEC, in the exercise of its duties under Sec. 3 of the
Revised Election Code, can require the Board of Canvassers to consider
only genuine and authentic, not falsified, returns, then it can logically
require such boards to exclude from the canvass any returns that were
actually the product of coercion, even if they be clean in their face.
The power of the COMELEC to set aside returns that are falsified or are
not authentic and genuine and to order the same excluded from a
canvass is distinct and separate from the authority inherent in the
Electoral Tribunals of the Senate or the House of Representatives, in
the course of an electoral protest, to set aside such returns whenever
the statements of votes cast contained herein do not tally with the
valid votes enclosed within the ballot boxes themselves. No conflict of
jurisdiction can arise since the powers of the COMELEC and the
Electoral Tribunals are exercised on different occasions and for
different purposes. COMELEC is not concerned with the veracity of the
returns, but with the genuineness and regularity. It is self-evident that
a return accomplished by the election inspectors under threats and
coercion by armed men is in law no return at all. As a corollary,
COMELEC can set aside an improper canvass, as well as the resulting
proclamation.
Moreover, failure of the Board of Canvassers to investigate and to
disregard patent irregularities authorizes the COMELEC to annul the
canvass and resulting proclamation.
2. BILIWANG v COMELEC
FACTS
In the local elections in San Fernando Pampanga, there were 2
candidates battling for the position of Municipal Mayor: Sanchez of the
Nacionalista Party and Biliwang of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan Party.
The latter was proclaimed as the winner.
Subsequently, Sanchez filed with the COMELEC a Petition to declare
null and void the local elections due to alleged large scale terrorism.
COMELEC initially denied said Petition; however upon Motion for
Reconsideration, the COMELEC reversed itself and required Biliwang to
Answer. COMELEC then declared the election null and void due to its
findings that there is strong and sufficient evidence to support the
charge that in the preparation of election returns, the teacher
members of the Citizens Election Committees (CEC's) were threatened
and coerced into making spurious election returns without regard to
the genuine ballots in the ballot boxes by the police, armed goons and
other persons. COMELEC found that there was failure of election not
due to terrorism BEFORE OR DURING elections, but AFTER elections
where in the genuine ballots were replaced with pre-prepared ballots
favouring Biliwang.
This prompted Biliwang to file a Petition for Certiorari in the SC.
ISSUE
1. Whether COMELEC has the power to annul an entire municipal
election on the ground of post-election terrorism.
2. Whether COMELEC has authority to call for a special election.
HELD
1. YES. There is no specific provision vesting the COMELEC with
authority to annul an election. However, there is no doubt as to
COMELEC's extensive powers. The 1978 Election Code (PD No. 1296)
accords it exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
13
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
laws relative to the conduct of elections for the purpose of insuring
free, orderly and honest elections (Sec. 185). There were no election
returns worthy of faith and credit and from which could be gauged a
fair and true expression of the popular will. Its action of rejecting all
election returns and annulling the local elections consistent with its
constitutionally ordained power of administration and enforcement of
election laws and its main objective to insure free, orderly and honest
elections.
2. NO. Section 5, Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 states that the Commission
is empowered to call for the "holding or continuation of the election as
soon as practicable" where: (1) 'the holding of a free, orderly and
honest election should become impossible; (2) 'the election for a local
office fails to take place on the date fixed by law; (3) 'the erection for
a local office ... on the date fixed by law is suspended; and (4) 'such
election results in a failure to elect ...’ . The voters in San Fernando
cast their votes voluntarily before the acts of terrorism. There was a
failure to gauge the genuine will of the electorate, rather than a failure
of election. Ballots were duly cast, but because of the above massive
and systematic operations to frustrate the electorate's will, their true
and authentic vote could not be ascertained.
3. RAMAS v COMELEC
FACTS
Petitioners and private respondents were competing candidates for the
Municipal positions in Guimpos Zamboanga del Sur. Petitioners were
declared winners for Mayor, Vice Mayor, and the 5th to 8th Members of
the Sangguniang Bayan (SB). Private respondents Famor and Cajeta
(the losing candidates for Mayor and Vice Mayor), along with their
running mates who placed 9th-12th in the SB positions filed election
protests. TC found declared some of the private respondents as
winners in the positions they ran for. They moved for execution
pending which prompted petitioners to oppose said motion, however,
the TC granted the same.
Petitioners assailed the TC decision to grant execution pending appeal
to the COMELEC. COMELEC found for private respondents and declared
them as presumptive winners during the pendency of an appeal,
ratiocinating that it already cost the respondents and the people of
Guimpos one year for the court to resolve the case. Depriving them
further will only resurrect the evils that the courts seek to contain. In
effect COMELEC, in granting execution pending appeal, considered as
good reasons the following: (1) the term of office was near expiration,
and (2) that the protest was already pending for a year.
This prompted petitioners to file a Petition in the SC.
ISSUE
Whether COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
granted execution of judgement pending appeal.
HELD
NO. Omnibus Election Code empowers the COMELEC to promulgate
rules and regulations implementing the provisions of the Code or other
laws which it is required to enforce and administer. Accordingly, the
COMELEC promulgated the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Section 1 of
Rule 41 thereof expressly provides that "[i]n the absence of any
applicable provision in [said] Rules, the pertinent provisions of the
Rules of Court in the Philippines shall be applicable by analogy or in a
suppletory character and effect."
This Court has explicitly recognized and given approval to execution of
judgments pending appeal in election cases 26 filed under existing
election laws. In those cases, the immediate execution was made in
accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which states
that the “..Court may, in its discretion, order execution to issue even
before the expiration of the time to appeal, upon good reasons to be
stated in a special order...”
In the instant case, the trial court relied on the following as "good
reasons" for its grant of execution pending appeal: (1) public interest,
(2) near expiration of the term of the office involved, and (3) pendency
of the election protest for one year. The trial court cannot, therefore,
be said to have acted with grave abuse of discretion. Hence, the
COMELEC acted correctly when it denied petitioners’ appeal.
4. PIMENTEL v COMELEC
5. MATIBAG v BENIPAYO
6. ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW v COMELEC
FACTS
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party and Bayan Muna both filed
separately before the Comelec to disqualify certain party-list from
running in the 2001 elections. Comelec ignored their petitions, which
forced the petitioners to proceed to the SC via certiorari as against the
Comelec. The SC consolidated the cases before it.
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
14
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
ISSUES
1. Whether or not Rule 65 is the proper remedy
2. Whether political parties may run in the party-list system
3. Whether party-list system is exclusive to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors
4. Whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in
promulgating Omnibus Resolution 3785
HELD
1. YES, since it was the Comelec who considered that these parties are
qualified to be run for party-list under the upcoming election, this can
be questioned via certiorari. The Comelec also has its rules of
procedure that removes the remedy of a motion for reconsideration to
petitioners.
2. As long as it is open to the system. They are considered to be the
minority in their districts, and this gives them a chance to have a voice
in the congress, even if they are just part of the minority in their
sector.
3. YES, the party-list system gives way for marginalized and
underrepresented sectors and organization to have become lawmakers
since they need a voice in the congress in order to address their needs.
It cannot be used as a tool by non-marginalized groups in order to
have more seats in congress. Therefore, it is exclusive for marginalized
and underrepresented groups.
in a minute resolution affirmed the recommendation. Petitioners
moved to reconsider which the Comelec en banc denied.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in
recommending the prosecution for double registration.
2. Whether recommendation may be done en banc without going
through a division
HELD
1. NO, during a preliminary investigation, all that is required is
probable cause to determine whether there is sufficient ground to file
an information against the accused. The facts show that the petitioners
had registered twice and that they registered using different
addresses. There are also inconsistencies with their testimonies about
the said registrations. The Comelec has the power to recommend the
prosecution of the petitioners upon probable cause
2. YES, the constitutional requirement under Article IX-C of the 1987
Constitution says that it must first go through a division, before
reviewing en banc in the exercise of judicial functions. Since a
preliminary investigation is in the exercise of their administrative
functions, there is no need to follow the constitution provision.
III. KINDS OF ELECTIONS
A. General and Special Elections
4. YES, the Comelec allowed 154 parties who are not really thoroughly
screened by them. It had considered 6 major political parties (LAKAS,
LP, NP, etc.) to run under the party-list system, and even also
included a government agency (MAD) as well as religious groups in the
list of qualified sectors. The constitution and law cannot be ignored,
and Comelec must follow what is prescribed by it.
1. REGULAR: one provided by law for the election of officers either
nation-wide or in certain subdivisions thereof, after the expiration of
the full term of the former officers
2. SPECIAL: one held to fill a vacancy in office before the expiration
of the full term for which the incumbent was elected
7. BAYTAN v COMELEC
B. National and Local Elections
FACTS
Petitioners were on their way to register for the elections when the
Barangay Captain Ignacio led them to register at Barangay 18. After
registration, they wondered why the registrants in that Barangay were
unfamiliar. They then realized that their residence was under the
jurisdiction of Barangay 28, and registered there. They sent a petition
to the Comelec to cancel their previous registration. However,
Provincial Election Supervisor Ravanzo recommended that the Comelec
should file a double registration case against petitioners. The Comelec
C. Initiative and Referendum
1. INITIATIVE: the power of the people to propose amendments to
the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an
election called for the purpose
2. REFERENDUM: the power of the electorate to approve or reject a
legislation through an election called for the purpose
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
15
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
D. Recall: a procedure by which voters can remove an elected
official from office through a direct vote (plebiscite), initiated
when sufficient voters sign a petition.
(f) "Petition" is the written instrument containing the proposition
and the required number of signatories. It shall be in a form to
be determined by and submitted to the Commission on
Elections, hereinafter referred to as the Commission.
E. Plebiscite: the electoral process by which an initiative on the
Constitution is approved or rejected by the people.
(g) "Local government units"
municipalities and barangays.
The Initiative and Referendum Act
RA 6735
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. — For purposes of this Act, the following
terms shall mean:
(a) "Initiative" is the power of the people to propose
amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact
legislations through an election called for the purpose.
There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:

Initiative on the Constitution, which refers to a petition
proposing amendments to the Constitution;

Initiative on statutes, which refers to a petition proposing to
enact a national legislation; and

Initiative on local legislation, which refers to a petition
proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or
barangay law, resolution or ordinance.
(b) "Indirect initiative" is exercise of initiative by the people
through a proposition sent to Congress or the local legislative
body for action.
(c) "Referendum" is the power of the electorate to approve or
reject a legislation through an election called for the purpose.
It may be of two classes, namely:

Referendum on statutes, which refers to a petition to
approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof,
passed by Congress; and

Referendum on local law, which refers to a petition to
approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance
enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative
bodies.
(d) "Proposition" is the measure proposed by the voters.
(e) "Plebiscite" is the electoral process by which an initiative on
the Constitution is approved or rejected by the people.
refers
to
provinces,
cities,
(h) "Local legislative bodies" refers to the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, Sangguniang Bayan,
and Sangguniang Nayon.
(i) "Local executives" refers to the Provincial Governors, City or
Municipal Mayors and Punong Barangay, as the case may be.
The Local Government Code of 1991
RA 7160
CHAPTER V
Recall
Section 70. Initiation of the Recall Process. (a) Recall may be initiated by a preparatory recall assembly or by the
registered voters of the local government unit to which the local
elective official subject to such recall belongs.
(b) There shall be a preparatory recall assembly in every province,
city, district, and municipality which shall be composed of the
following:
1. Provincial level. - All mayors, vice-mayors, and sanggunian
members of the municipalities and component cities;
2. City level. - All punong barangay and sanggunian barangay
members in the city;
3. Legislative District level. - In case where sangguniang
panlalawigan members are elected by district, all elective
municipal officials in the district; and in cases where
sangguniang panlungsod members are elected by district, all
elective barangay officials in the district; and
4. Municipal level. - All punong barangay and sangguniang
barangay members in the municipality.
(c) A majority of all the preparatory recall assembly members may
convene in session in a public place and initiate a recall proceedings
against any elective official in the local government unit concerned.
Recall of provincial, city, or municipal officials shall be validly initiated
through a resolution adopted by a majority of all the members of the
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
16
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
preparatory recall assembly concerned during its session called for the
purpose.
(d) Recall of any elective provincial, city, municipal, or barangay
official may also be validly initiated upon petition of at least twentyfive percent (25%) of the total number of registered voters in the local
government unit concerned during the election in which the local
official sought to be recalled was elected.
1. A written petition for recall duly signed before the election
registrar or his representative, and in the presence of a
representative of the petitioner and a representative of the
official sought to be recalled and, and in a public place in the
province, city, municipality, or barangay, as the case may be,
shall be filed with the COMELEC through its office in the local
government unit concerned. The COMELEC or its duly
authorized representative shall cause the publication of the
petition in a public and conspicuous place for a period of not
less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty (20) days, for
the purpose of verifying the authenticity and genuineness of
the petition and the required percentage of voters.
2. Upon the lapse of the aforesaid period, the COMELEC or its
duly authorized representative shall announce the acceptance
of candidates to the position and thereafter prepare the list of
candidates which shall include the name of the official sought
to be recalled.
Section 71. Election on Recall. - Upon the filing of a valid resolution or
petition for recall with the appropriate local office of the COMELEC, the
Commission or its duly authorized representative shall set the date of
the election on recall, which shall not be later than thirty (30) days
after the filing of the resolution or petition for recall in the case of the
barangay, city, or municipal officials. and forty-five (45) days in the
case of provincial officials. The official or officials sought to be recalled
shall automatically be considered as duly registered candidate or
candidates to the pertinent positions and, like other candidates, shall
be entitled to be voted upon.
CHAPTER II
Local Initiative and Referendum
Section 120. Local Initiative Defined. - Local initiative is the legal
process whereby the registered voters of a local government unit may
directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance.
Section 122. Procedure in Local Initiative. (a) Not less than one thousand (1,000) registered voters in case of
provinces and cities, one hundred (100) in case of municipalities, and
fifty (50) in case of barangays, may file a petition with the sanggunian
concerned proposing the adoption, enactment, repeal, or amendment
of an ordinance.
(b) If no favorable action thereon is taken by the sanggunian
concerned within thirty (30) days from its presentation, the
proponents,
through
their
duly
authorized
and
registered
representatives, may invoke their power of initiative, giving notice
thereof to the sanggunian concerned.
(c) The proposition shall be numbered serially starting from Roman
numeral I. The COMELEC or its designated representative shall extend
assistance in the formulation of the proposition.
(d) Two (2) or more propositions may be submitted in an initiative.
(e) Proponents shall have ninety (90) days in case of provinces and
cities, sixty (60) days in case of municipalities, and thirty (30) days in
case of barangays, from notice mentioned in subsection (b) hereof to
collect the required number of signatures.
(f) The petition shall be signed before the election registrar. or his
designated representatives, in the presence of a representative of the
proponent, and a representative of the sanggunian concerned in a
public place in the local government unit, as the case may be. Stations
for collecting signatures may be established in as many places as may
be warranted.
(g) Upon the lapse of the period herein provided, the COMELEC,
through its office in the local government unit concerned, shall certify
as to whether or not the required number of signatures has been
obtained. Failure to obtain the required number defeats the
proposition.
(h) If the required number of signatures is obtained, the COMELEC
shall then set a date for the initiative during which the proposition shall
be submitted to the registered voters in the local government unit
concerned for their approval within sixty (60) days from the date of
certification by the COMELEC, as provided in subsection (g) hereof, in
case of provinces and cities, forty-five (45) days in case of
municipalities, and thirty (30) days in case of barangays. The initiative
shall then be held on the date set, after which the results thereof shall
be certified and proclaimed by the COMELEC.
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
17
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
CASES
contested position was the office of the mayor and not of the barangay
posts.
1. ANGOBUNG v COMELEC
2. SOCRATES v COMELEC
FACTS
Petitioner Angobung won as the duly elected mayor of Tumauini
Isabela in the 1995 local elections. Sometime in 1996, private
respondent, the losing candidate, filed with the Local Election Registrar
a Petition for Recall which was given due course. The petition
contained only the lone signature of private respondent. The Comelec
en banc issued resolution 96-2591 approving said petition and setting
the date for the further signing of said petition by other registered
voters of at least 25% of the registered voters of Tumauini Isabela. In
case the 25% will be attained a recall election will be held.
Petitioner assailed the resolution.
ISSUES
1. Whether the resolution approving the petition is valid although
only one person signed it which is contrary to the 25%
minimum requirement as to the number of signature which
should support the petition.
2. Whether the resolution scheduling the recall election (1996)
within a year preceding from 1997 Barangay election is time
barred.
HELD
1. NO. The resolution is invalid for lack of the 25% minimum
requirement. Section 69 (d) of the Local Government Code of 1991
expressly provides that “recall of any elective xxx municipal xxx official
may also be validly initiated upon petition of at least 25% of the total
number of registered voters in the local government unit concerned
during the election in which the local official sought to be recalled was
elected”. The phrase requiring at least 25% points out hat the petition
must be filed not just by one person but at least 25% of the registered
voters. The initiatory recall petition may not yet contain all of the
signatures but must at least contain the names of at least 25% of the
registered voters. In this case, the petition contains only one name
and that of the private respondent.
2. NO. In Paras v. Comelec, it was held that for the provision of sec 74
of the local government code of 1991 to apply, which provides that “no
recall election shall take place within one year immediately preceding a
regular election, the regular local election must pertain to the one
actually contested and filed by the electorate. In this case, the
FACTS
The case is a consolidation of petitions stemming from the same set of
facts.
Socrates, petitioner, was the duly elected mayor of Puerto Princesa
Palawan in the 2001 local elections. Sometime in 2002, 312 out of the
528 members of the incumbent barangay officials of Puerto Princesa
convened into a Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) with Hagedorn as
the interin chairman. PRA passed a resolution (recall resolution) which
declared its loss of confidence with Mayor Socrates and requested the
COMELEC to schedule a recall election for mayor within 30 days from
receipt of the resolution. The COMELEC gave due course to the recall
resolution and scheduled the recall election on September 7, 2002.
Subsequently, Hagedorn filed his candidacy for mayor in the recall
election. This was met by a number of opposition and the filing of
several petition to disqualify Hagedorn to run. The petition alleged that
Hagedorn is disqualified from running in the mayoralty election
because this would serve as his fourth consecutive term which is
barred by the constitutional and statutory prohibitions. The COMELEC,
however, denied the petitions. Hence the instant recourse to the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in upholding
the recall resolution. (minor issue)
2. Whether Hagedorn can still run in the recall election.
HELD
1. NO, the contentions of Socrates were the absence of notice to 130
PRA members and defective service of notice to the PRA members
which should nullify the resolution. COMELEC, however, found out that
notices were actually sent and there were proof of notices. The notices
were also posted in conspicuous places and broadcasted in media.
Likewise the City election officer certified that majority of all PRA
members signed the resolution. The Court will not disturb the findings
of COMELEC which is within its competence absent any patent errors.
2. YES. Hagedorn is qualified to run as mayor in the recall election.
Said election is not the one contemplated in law as the fourth
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
18
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
consecutive term which is prohibited by law. The 3 term limit rule is
found in Sec 8 Art. X of the constitution which provides that no elective
official shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms and voluntary
renunciation is not considered as an interruption of the service for the
full term. It is likewise reiterated in Section 43 (b) of RA 7160.
A careful scrutiny of the law provides 2 parts. First, the prohibition of
serving in the same office for more than 3 consecutive terms. Second,
Voluntary renunciation is not considered as an interruption of the
service of the full term.
Thus, what is prohibited is serving continuously for more than 3 terms
or stated differently what is prohibited is the immediate reelection.
Moreover, it is only voluntary renunciation which does not interrupt but
not involuntary ones regardless of any length.
In the case at bar, the recall election is not an immediate reelection
after his third consecutive term. The immediate election which is
prohibited is the 2001 election and HAgedorn did not seek election in
2001. In the interim of 2001 election and 2002 recall election,
Hagedorn was simply a private citizen. This period clearly is an
interruption in the contitnuity of HAgedorn’s service as mayor. This is
considered as the involuntary nterruption which broke the continuity or
consecutive character of HAgedorn’s service as mayor.
In the case of Adormeo vs Comelec and Talaga, it was held that the
recall term does not retroact from the date of his predecessor hence
there is still no continuity.
Convention, and appropriating funds therefore," as well as setting the
plebiscite for said ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution
on January 15, 1973. At this instance, Charito Planas (a staunch critic
and later vice-mayor of Quezon City) filed a case (known as the
Plebiscite Cases, Planas v. COMELEC (1973)) before with the Supreme
Court calling the stop the proposed ratification upon the grounds,
among others, that the Presidential Decree "has no force and effect as
law because the calling... of such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines
for the conduct of the same, the prescription of the ballots to be used
and the question to be answered by the voters, and the appropriation
of public funds for the purpose, are, by the Constitution, lodged
exclusively in Congress..." and "there is no proper submission to the
people there being no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and
there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents
thereof."
On January 15, 1973, while the Plebiscite Cases were being heard in
the Supreme Court, Proclamation 1102, was signed by the President
which states that the 1973 Constitution was supposedly “ratified by an
overwhelming majority of all the votes cast by the members of all the
Barangays throughout the Philippines.
By virtue of the said decree, the Supreme Court dismissed the case for
being moot and academic, without prejudice to the filing of a case
questioning the validity of Proclamation 1102. Thus, the Ratification
cases came into being for the purpose of questioning such
Proclamation.
FACTS
Marcos declared the Philippines under martial law on September 21,
1972. Upon its declaration, Congress was padlocked, and full
legislative authority was vested upon Marcos via rule of decree. Many
prominent members of the opposition, notably Benigno Aquino, Jr. and
José W. Diokno, among others, was arrested and placed in military
stockades.
ISSUES
1. Is the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 a
justiciable or political and therefore a non-justiciable question?
2. Has the Constitution proposed by the 1071 Constitutional
Convention been ratified validly conformably to the applicable
constitutional and statutory provisions?
3. Has
the
aforementioned
proposed
Constitution
been
acquiesced in by the people?
4. Are the petitioners entitled to relief?
5. Is the aforementioned proposed Constitution in force?
The proceedings of the 1971 Constitutional Convention were still
continuing despite the declaration of martial law. Eventually, on
November 29, 1972, the Convention approved the new constitution.
The next day, Marcos issued Presidential Decree 73, "submitting to the
Filipino people for ratification or rejection the Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines proposed by the 1971 Constitutional
HELD
1. Six members of the court hold that the issue of the validity of
Proclamation No 1102 presents a justicicable and non political
question. Justices Makalintal and Castro did not vote squarely on this
question, but, only inferentially, in their discussion of the second
question. Justice Barredo qualified his vote, stating that “inasmuch as
3. JAVELLANA v EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
19
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
it is claimed that there has been approval by the people, and, in the
affirmative, the Court may determine from both factual and legal
angles whether or not Article XV of the 1935 Constitution has been
complied with.” Justices Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, or three
members of the court hold that the issue is political and “beyond the
ambit of judicial inquiry”.
2. Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, etc or
six members of the court also hold that the Constitution proposed by
the 1971 Constitutional Convention was not validly ratified in
accordance with Article XV, section 1 of the 1935 Constitution which
provides only one way for ratification that is, :in an election or
plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only by
qualified and duly registered voters.” Justice Barredo qualified his
vote, stating that “ as to whether or not the 1973 Constitution, has
been validly ratified pursuant to Article XV, I still maintain that in the
light of traditional concepts regarding the meaning and intent of said
Article, the referendum in the Citizens Assemblies, specially in the
manner the votes are casts, reported and canvassed, falls short of the
requirements thereof. In view, however, of the fact that I have no
means of refusing to recognize as a judge that factually there was
voting and that a majority of the votes were for considering as
approved the 1973 Constitution without the necessity of the usual form
of plebiscite followed in past ratifications, I am constrained to hold
that, in the political sense, if not in the orthodox legal sense, the
people may be deemed to have cast their favorable votes in the belief
that in doing so they did the part required of them by Article XV,
hence, it may be said that in its political aspect, which is what counts
most, after all, said Article has been substantially complied with, and in
effect, the 1973 Constitutionally ratified”.
Justices MAkasiar, Antonio, Esguerra or three members of the court
hold that under their view there has been in effect substantial
compliance with the constitutional requirements for valid ratification.
3. No majority vote has been reached by the court. Four members of
the court, Barredo, MAkasiar, Antonio, Esguerra hold that the people
have already accepted the 1973 Constitution. Two members of the
court, hold that there can be no free expression, and there has been
no expression by the people qualified to vote all over the Philippines, of
their acceptance or repudiation of the proposed Constitution under
Martial Law. Three members expressed their lack of knowledge or
competence to rule on the question. Justices Makalintal and Castro
joined by Teehankee in their statement that under a regime of martial
law with the free expression of opinions through the usual media
restricted they have no means of knowing to the point of judicial
certainty whether the people have accepted the Constitution.”
4. Six members of the court voted on the strength of the view that the
“ effectivity of the said Constitution in the final analysis is the basic
and ultimate question posed by these cases to resolve which
considerations other than judicial and therefore beyond the
competence of this court, are relevant and unavoidable.”
Four
members of the court voted to deny respondent’s motion to dismiss
and give due course to the petitions.
5. Four members of the court hold that it is in force by virtue of the
people’s acceptance thereof; Four members of the court cast no vote
thereon on the premise stated in their votes on the third question that
they could not state with judicial certainty whether the people have
accepted the Constitutional Convention is not in force.
As a result, there are not enough votes to declare the new Constitution
is not in force. All the aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed.
There is no further obstacle to the new Constitution being considered
in force and effect.
4. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO v COMELEC
5. LAMBINO v COMELEC
FACTS
On 15 February 2006, the group of Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado
(“Lambino Group”) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative
petition to change the 1987 Constitution.
On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the
COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition
under Section 5(b) and (c) and Section 7 of RA 6735 (The Initiative
and Referendum Act). The proposed changes under the petition will
shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a UnicameralParliamentary form of government.
The Lambino Group claims that: (a) their petition had the support of
6,327,952 individuals constituting at least 12% of all registered voters,
with each legislative district represented by at least 3% of its
registered voters; and (b) COMELEC election registrars had verified the
signatures of the 6.3 million individuals.
The COMELEC, however, denied due course to the petition for lack of
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
20
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the
Constitution, pursuant to the Supreme Cout’s ruling in Santiago vs.
COMELEC.
ISSUE
Whether the Lambino Group's initiative petition complies with Section
2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution
through a people's initiative
phrase, or sentence of text of the proposed changes in the signature
sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state that the text of the
proposed changes is attached to it. The signature sheet merely asks a
question whether the people approve a shift from the BicameralPresidential to the Unicameral- Parliamentary system of government.
The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the
proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature sheet.
This omission is fatal.
HELD
NO. Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing
provision that allows a people’s initiative to propose amendments to
the Constitution. While this provision does not expressly state that the
petition must set forth the full text of the proposed amendments, the
deliberations of the framers of our Constitution clearly show that: (a)
the framers intended to adopt the relevant American jurisprudence on
people’s initiative; and (b) in particular, the people must first see the
full text of the proposed amendments before they sign, and that the
people must sign on a petition containing such full text.
An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first
showing to the people the full text of the proposed amendments is
most likely a deception, and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the
people. That’s why the Constitution requires that an initiative must be
“directly proposed by the people…in a petition” – meaning that the
people must sign on a petition that contains the full text of the
proposed amendments. On so vital an issue as amending the nation’s
fundamental law, the writing of the text of the proposed amendments
cannot be hidden from the people under a general or special power of
attorney to unnamed, faceless, and unelected individuals.
The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition” is that the entire proposal on its face is a
petition by the people. This means two essential elements must be
present.
First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No
agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be
embodied in a petition.
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the
proposed amendments is first shown to the people who express their
assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. The full text of
the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the
petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition must state the
fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the
several millions of signatories to the petition had seen the full text of
the proposed amendments before – not after – signing.
Moreover, “an initiative signer must be informed at the time of signing
of the nature and effect of that which is proposed” and failure to do so
is “deceptive and misleading” which renders the initiative void.
In the case of the Lambino Group’s petition, there’s not a single word,
6. SANIDAD v COMELEC
FACTS
On 2 September 1976, President Marcos issued PD 991 calling for a
national referendum on 16 October 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies
("barangays") to resolve, among other things, the issues of martial
law, the interim assembly, its replacement, the powers of such
replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the period for
the exercise by the President of his present powers.
On 22 September 1976, the President issued another related decree,
PD 1031, amending the previous PD 991, by declaring the provisions of
PD 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in
"barangays" (Citizens Assemblies) applicable to the national
referendum-plebiscite of 16 October 1976. Quite relevantly, PD 1031
repealed inter alia, Section 4, of PD 991.
On the same date, the President issued PD 1033, stating the questions
he submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on 16 October
1976. The Decree recites in its "whereas" clauses that the people's
continued opposition to the convening of the interim National Assembly
evinces their desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru a
constitutional amendment, providing for a new interim legislative body,
which will be submitted directly to the people in the referendumplebiscite of October 16. The Commission on Elections was vested with
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
21
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
the exclusive supervision and control of the October 1976 National
Referendum-Plebiscite.
Pablo C. Sanidad and Pablito V. Sanidad, father and son, commenced a
petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin
the Commission on Elections from holding and conducting the
Referendum Plebiscite on October 16; to declare without force and
effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they propose
amendments to the Constitution, as well as Presidential Decree 1031,
insofar as it directs the Commission on Elections to supervise, control,
hold, and conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled on 16 October
1976. They contend that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions there
is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent
power to propose amendments to the new Constitution. As a
consequence, the Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no
constitutional or legal basis.
Another action for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction was instituted
by Vicente M. Guzman, a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional
Convention, asserting that the power to propose amendments to, or
revision of the Constitution during the transition period is expressly
conferred on the interim National Assembly under action 16, Article
XVII of the Constitution.
Still another petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction was
filed on 5 October 1976 by Raul M. Gonzales, his son Raul Jr., and
Alfredo Salapantan to restrain the implementation of PDs relative to
the forthcoming Referendum-Plebiscite of October 16.
ISSUE
Whether the President may call upon a referendum for the amendment
of the Constitution.
HELD
NO. Section 1 of Article XVI of the 1973 Constitution on Amendments
ordains that
1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
proposed by the National Assembly upon a vote of threefourths of all its Members, or by a constitutional
convention
2. The National Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its
Members, call a constitutional convention or, by a majority
vote of all its Members, submit the question of calling such a
convention to the electorate in an election.
Section 2 thereof provides that "Any amendment to, or revision of, this
Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not later than three months a
after the approval of such amendment or revision."
In the present period of transition, the interim National Assembly
instituted in the Transitory Provisions is conferred with that amending
power. Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions reads "The interim
National Assembly, upon special call by the interim Prime Minister,
may, by a majority vote of all its Members, propose amendments to
this Constitution. Such amendments shall take effect when ratified in
accordance with Article Sixteen hereof." There are, therefore, two
periods contemplated in the constitutional life of the nation, i.e., period
of normalcy and period of transition. In times of normalcy, the
amending process may be initiated by the proposals of the (1) regular
National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or
(2) by a Constitutional Convention called by a vote of two-thirds of all
the Members of the National Assembly. However the calling of a
Constitutional Convention may be submitted to the electorate in an
election voted upon by a majority vote of all the members of the
National Assembly. In times of transition, amendments may be
proposed by a majority vote of all the Members of the interim National
Assembly upon special call by the interim Prime Minister.
In sensu striciore, when the legislative arm of the state undertakes the
proposals of amendment to a Constitution, that body is not in the usual
function of lawmaking. It is not legislating when engaged in the
amending process. Rather, it is exercising a peculiar power bestowed
upon it by the fundamental charter itself. In the Philippines, that power
is provided for in Article XVI of the 1973 Constitution (for the regular
National Assembly) or in Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions (for
the interim National Assembly). While ordinarily it is the business of
the legislating body to legislate for the nation by virtue of
constitutional conferment, amending of the Constitution is not
legislative in character. In political science a distinction is made
between constitutional content of an organic character and that of a
legislative character. The distinction, however, is one of policy, not of
law. Such being the case, approval of the President of any proposed
amendment is a misnomer. The prerogative of the President to
approve or disapprove applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation.
The President has nothing to do with proposition or adoption of
amendments to the Constitution.
7. SBMA v COMELEC
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
22
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
8. CLAUDIO v COMELEC
FACTS
Jovito Claudio was the duly elected mayor of Pasay City in the May 11,
1998. On May 19, 1999, several barangay chairs formed an ad hoc
committee for the purpose of convening the PRA. Richard Advincula
was designated chair. The members of the PRA adopted Resolution No.
01, S-1999, initiating Claudio’s recall. The petition for recall was filed
on the Office of the City Mayor. The COMELEC also posted the petition
on the bulletin boards of certain public places.
Oppositions to the petition were filed by Jovito Claudio, Rev. Ronald
Langub, and Roberto L. Angeles, alleging procedural and substantive
defects in the petition, to wit: (1) the signatures affixed to the
resolution were actually meant to show attendance at the PRA
meeting; (2) most of the signatories were only representatives of the
parties concerned who were sent there merely to observe the
proceedings; (3) the convening of the PRA took place within the oneyear prohibited period; (4) the election case, filed by Wenceslao
Trinidad in this Court, seeking the annulment of the proclamation of
petitioner Claudio as mayor of Pasay City, should first be decided
before recall proceedings against petitioner could be filed; and (5) the
recall resolution failed to obtain the majority of all the members of the
PRA, considering that 10 were actually double entries, were not duly
accredited members of the barangays, 40 sangguniang kabataan
officials had withdrawn their support, and 60 barangay chairs executed
affidavits of retraction.
The COMELEC granted the petition and dismissed the opposition. It
ruled that the 1,073 members who attended the May 29, 1999 meeting
were more than necessary to constitute the PRA, considering that its
records showed the total membership of the PRA was 1,790, while the
statistics of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
showed that the total membership of the PRA was 1,876. In either
case, since only a majority is required to constitute the PRA, clearly, a
majority had been obtained in support of the recall resolution. Hence,
this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the word "Recall" in Paragraph (b) of §74 of the Local
Government Code includes the Convening of the Preparatory Recall
Assembly and the Filing by it of a Recall Resolution
HELD
YES. Recall is a process which begins with the convening of the
preparatory, recall assembly or the gathering of the signatures at least
25% of the registered voters of a local government unit, and then
proceeds to the filing of a recall resolution or petition with the
COMELEC, the verification of such resolution or petition, the fixing of
the date of the recall election, and the holding of the election on the
scheduled date. However, as used in paragraph (b) of § 74, "recall"
refers to the election itself by means of which voters decide whether
they should retain their local official or elect his replacement. Several
reasons can be cited in support of this conclusion.
First, § 74 deals with restrictions on the power of recall. It is in fact
entitled "Limitations on Recall." On the other hand, §69 provides that
"the power of recall ...shall be exercised by the registered voters of a
local government unit to which the local initiate recall proceedings but
the power to elect an official into office, the limitations in §74 cannot
be deemed to apply to the entire recall proceedings. In other words,
the term "recall" in paragraph (b) refers only to the recall election,
excluding the convening of the PRA and the filing of a petition for recall
with the COMELEC, or the gathering of the signatures of at least 25 %
of the voters for a petition for recall. Thus, there may be several PRAs
held or petitions for recall filed with the COMELEC - there is no legal
limit on the number of times such processes may be resorted to. These
are merely preliminary steps for the purpose of initiating a recall. The
limitations in §74 apply only to the exercise of the power of recall,
which is vested in the registered voters. It is this - and not merely, the
preliminary steps required to be taken to initiate a recall - which
paragraph (b) of §74 seeks to limit by providing that no recall shall
take place within one year from the date of assumption of office of an
elective local official.
The second reason why the term "recall" in paragraph (b) refers to
recall election is to be found in the purpose of the limitation itself.
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. The purpose of the first limitation is to provide a reasonable
basis for judging the performance of an "The only logical reason which
we can ascribe for requiring the electors to wait one year before
petitioning for a recall election is to prevent premature action on their
part in voting to remove a newly elected official before having had
sufficient time to evaluate the soundness of his policies and decisions."
The one-year limitation was reckoned as of the filing of a petition for
recall because the Municipal Code involved in that case expressly
provided that "no removal petition shall be filed against any officer or
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
23
BASED ON NACHURA’S OUTLINE REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
until he has actually held office for at least twelve months." 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.
Third, to construe the term "recall" in paragraph (b) as including the
convening of the PRA for the purpose of discussing the performance in
office of elective local officials would be to unduly restrict the
constitutional right of speech and of assembly of its members. The
people cannot just be asked on the day of the election to decide on the
performance of their officials. The crystallization and formation of an
informed public opinion takes time. To hold, therefore, that the first
limitation in paragraph (b) includes the holding of assemblies for the
exchange of ideas and opinions among citizens is to unduly curtail one
of the most cherished rights in a free society. Indeed, it is wrong to
assume that such assemblies will always eventuate in a recall election.
To the contrary, they may result in the expression of confidence in the
incumbent.
To sum up, the term "recall" in paragraph (b) refers to the recall
election and not to the preliminary proceedings to initiate recall -1.
Because §74 speaks of limitations on "recall" which, according to §69,
is a power which shall be exercised by the registered voters of a local
government unit. Since the voters do not exercise such right except in
an election, it is clear that the initiation of recall proceedings is not
prohibited within the one-year period provided in paragraph (b);2.
Because the purpose of the first limitation in paragraph (b) is to
provide voters a sufficient basis for judging an elective local official,
and final judging is not done until the day of the election; and 3.
Because to construe the limitation in paragraph (b) as including the
initiation of recall proceedings would unduly curtail freedom of speech
and of assembly guaranteed in the Constitution.
As the recall election in Pasay City is set on April 15, 2000, more than
one year after petitioner assumed office as mayor of that city, the
Court held that there is no bar to its holding on that date.
HIPOLITO | MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | ANTONIO | SIRON | SOLLER | CABRAL | FRAGANTE | CRUZ
24