Golden-Notes-Political-law-admelec-pdf

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Administrative Law

It is a branch of public law fixing the organization and determines the competence of administrative authorities, and indicates the individual remedies for the violation of the rights. (Sec. 2(3) of the Admin Code)

Scope of administrative law

1.

Fixes the administrative operation and structure of the government

2.

Executes or enforces that which is entrusted to administrative authorities (all those public officers and organs of the government charged with the amplification, application and execution of the law)

3.

Governs public officers

4.

Creates administrative officers

5.

Provides the remedies to those aggrieved by these agencies

6.

Governs Judicial Review

7.

Includes rules, regulation, orders and decisions made by administrative authorities

8.

Includes the body of judicial/doctrines on any of the above

Classifications of Administrative Law

As to Source

Law that controls administrative authorities

Law made by the administrative authorities

Constitution, statutes, judicial decisions,

Executive Orders,

Administrative

Orders,etc.

General regulations and particular determinations; constitute under delegations of power embodied in statutory administrative law, and imposing and constantly expanding body of law.

As to Purpose

Adjective or Procedural Substantive

Administrative Law

Establishes the procedure which an agency must or may

Administrative Law

Derived from same sources but contents are different in that the follow in the pursuit of its legal purpose. law establishes primary rights and duties.

As to Applicability

General Administrative

Law

Special/ particular administrative law

A DMINISTRATIVE L AW

Part that is of general nature and common to all, or most, admin agencies; chiefly but

Part that pertains to particular services; proceeds from the particular statute not exclusively procedural aw.

Kinds of administrative law creating the individual agency

1.

Statutes setting up administrative authorities.

2.

Body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation, operation, and effect of determinations and regulations of such administrative authorities.

3.

Rules, regulations, or orders of such administrative authorities in pursuance of the purposes, for which administrative authorities were created or endowed.

Ex: Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, circulars of Central Monetary Authority

4.

Determinations, decisions, and orders of such administrative authorities in the settlement of controversies arising in their particular field.

Ex: Awards of NLRC with respect to money claims of employees

ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES AND AGENCIES

Administrative Agency

It is an organ of government, other than a court and the legislature, which affects the rights of private parties either through adjudication or rule making.

Interpretation of the powers of the administrative agencies

Administrative agencies have powers and functions which may be administrative, investigatory, regulatory, quasi legislative, or quasi -judicial or mix of the five, as may be conferred by the constitution or by the statute. They have in fine only such powers or authority as are granted or delegated, expressly or impliedly, by law. And in determining whether an agency has certain powers, the inquiry should be from the law itself. But once ascertained as existing, the authority given should be liberally construed. (Soriano v. MTRCB, G.R. No. 165785, April 29, 2009)

Instrumentality

It refers “to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds and enjoying operational

175

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S

F A C U L T Y O F C I V I L L A W

Political and International Law autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations.”

( United Residents of Dominican Hills v. Commission on

The Settlement Of Land Problems, G.R. No. 135945,

March 7, 2001)

Agency

Any of the various units of the government, including a department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporations, or a local government or a distinct unit therein. ( Sec.2,

Introductory Provisions, E.O. No. 292 – Administrative

Code of 1987)

Department

It refers to an executive department created by law.

( Sec.2 (7), Introductory Provisions, E.O. No. 292 –

Administrative Code of 1987)

Bureau

Any principal subdivision or unit of any department.

( Sec.2 (8), Introductory Provisions, E.O. No. 292 –

Administrative Code of 1987)

Office

It refers, within the framework of governmental organization, to any major functional unit of a department or bureau including regional offices. It may also refer to any position held or occupied by individual persons, whose functions are defined by law or regulation. ( Sec.2 (9), Introductory Provisions, E.O.

No. 292 – Administrative Code of 1987)

MANNER OF CREATION

Manner of creation

By:

1.

Constitutional provision

2.

Authority of law

3.

Legislative enactment

Reasons for the creation of administrative agencies

To:

1.

Help unclog court dockets

2.

Meet the growing complexities of modern society

3.

Help in the regulation of ramified activities of a developing country

KINDS

Kinds of administrative bodies or agencies

The common kinds of administrative agencies have been classified according to their purpose

1.

Those created to function in situations wherein the government is offering some gratuity, grant, or special privilege

Ex: GSIS, SSS, PAO

2.

Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking to carry on certain functions of government

Ex: BIR, BOC, BOI

3.

Those set up in situations wherein the government is performing some business service for the public

Ex: PNR, MWSS, NFA, NHA

4.

Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking to regulate businesses affected with public interest

Ex: Insurance Commission, LTFRB, NTC

5.

Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking under the police power to regulate private businesses and individuals

Ex : SEC, MTRCB

6.

Those agencies set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking to adjust individual controversies because of some strong social policy involved

Ex : NLRC, ECC, SEC

POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

Administrative power or function

Those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for; their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence. ( In re: Rodolfo U.

Manzano,A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTC, Oct. 5, 1988)

Powers of administrative agencies

1.

Discretionary – the law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed.

2.

Ministerial – is one which is as clear and specific as to leave no room for the exercise of discretion in its performance.

Basic powers of administrative agencies

1.

Quasi -legislative power or rule-making power


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

176


2.

Quasi -judicial or adjudicatory power

3.

Determinative power

Quasi -legislative v.

Quasi -judicial power

QUASI -LEGISLATIVE QUASI -JUDICIAL

Operates on the future Operates based on past facts

Has general application Has particular application (applies only to the parties involved in a dispute)

Issuance pursuant to Issuance pursuant to the exercise of quasi legislative power may be assailed in court without subscribing to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

(DEAR). the exercise of in court with prior exhaustion of administrative remedies. quasi judicial power may, as a rule, only be challenged

A valid exercise of quasi legislative power does not require prior notice and hearing (except when the law requires it).

An issuance pursuant to

A valid exercise of quasi -judicial power requires prior notice and hearing (except when the law requires it).

An issuance pursuant to the exercise of quasi legislative power may be assailed in court through the exercise of quasi judicial function is appealed to the Court an ordinary action. of Appeals via petition for review ( Rule 43 ).

Non-similarity of functions and powers of administrative agencies

Not all administrative agencies perform the same functions or exercise the types of powers. While some act merely as investigative or advisory bodies, most administrative agencies have investigative, rulemaking, and determinative functions, or at least two of such functions.

QUASI -LEGISLATIVE (RULE-MAKING) POWER

Quasi -legislative power/Rule-Making

The exercise of delegated legislative power, involving no discretion as to what the law shall be, but merely the authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of a policy set out in the law itself.

Legislative v.

Quasi -legislative power

LEGISLATIVE QUASI -LEGISLATIVE involves the discretion to determine what the law shall be

Cannot be delegated

Involves the discretion to determine how the law shall be enforced

Can be delegated

Limitations to the exercise of quasi -legislative power

1.

It must be within the limits of the powers granted to administrative agencies.

2.

Cannot make rules or regulations which are inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution or statute.

3.

Cannot defeat the purpose of the statute.

4.

May not amend, alter, modify, supplant, enlarge, or limit the terms of the statute.

5.

A rule or regulation must be uniform in operation, reasonable and not unfair or discriminatory.

Administrative rule

Any agency statement of general applicability, which implements or interprets a law fixes and describes procedures in, or practice requirements of, an agency, including its regulations. The term includes memoranda or statements concerning the internal administration or management of an agency not affecting the rights of, or procedure available to the public. (Administrative Code of 1987)

Source of the power to promulgate administrative rules and regulations

The power to promulgate regulations is derived from the legislature, by virtue of a valid delegation, either expressed or implied.

Non-applicability of notice and hearing in the issuance of an administrative rule or regulation

As a general rule, in the performance of its executive or legislative functions, such as issuing rules and regulations, an administrative body need not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing. ( Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines,

G.R. No. 111963, December 12, 1997)

The exception being where the legislature itself requires it and mandates that the regulation shall be based on certain facts as determined at an appropriate investigation ( Administrative Code of 1987 )

Also, when, upon the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that

177



Political and International Law can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially adds to or increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. CA, G.R. No. 11976, August 26, 1996)

Filing of copies of administrative rules and regulations before the UPLC

The Administrative Code of 1987, particularly Sec. 3 thereof, expressly requires each agency to file with the

Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) of the University of the Philippines Law Center three certified copies of every rule adopted by it.

Administrative issuances which are not published or filed with the ONAR are ineffective and may not be enforced. (GMA v. MTRCB, G.R. No. 148579, February

5, 2007)

Publication requirement

Publication is required as a condition precedent to the effectivity of a law to inform the public of the contents of the law or rules and regulations before their rights and interests are affected by the same. ( Philippine

International Trading Corporation v. Commission on

Audit, G.R. No. 132593, June 25, 1999)

Exceptions to the requirement of publication

1.

Interpretative regulations

2.

Internal regulations

3.

Letters of instructions (Tañada v. Tuvera G.R. No.

L-63915, December 29, 1986 )

Effectivity of administrative rules

GR: Administrative rules take effect depending on the date provided by it.

XPN: 15 days after publication if the administrative rule is silent.

Penal sanctions in administrative rules and regulations

Administrative agencies may promulgate rules with pernal sanctions provided the following requisites are complied with:

1.

The law must declare the act punishable;

2.

The law must define the penalty;

3.

The rules must be published in the Official

Gazette. (The Hon. Secretary Vincent S. Perez v.

LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines, G.R.

No. 159149, June 26, 2006)

Authority of administrative officers to interpret the law

Administrative officers tasked to implement the law are also authorized to interpret it because they have the expertise to do so.

Effect of administrative interpretations to courts

Constructions of administrative officers are not binding upon the Courts. Such interpretations of administrative officers, however, are given great weight unless such construction is clearly shown to be in sharp contrast with the governing law of the state.

(Nestle Philippines Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 86738,

November 13, 1991)

Doctrine of Subordinate Legislation

Power of administrative agency to promulgate rules and regulations on matters within their own specialization.

Reason behind the delegation

It is well established in this jurisdiction that, while the making of laws is a non-delegable activity that corresponds exclusively to Congress, nevertheless the latter may constitutionally delegate authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies, for the reason that the legislature often finds it impracticable (if not impossible) to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect. All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; that the regulation be not in contradiction with it, but conform to the standards that the law prescribes.

Contemporaneous construction

The construction placed upon the statute by an executive or administrative officer called upon to execute or administer such statute.

These interpretative regulations are usually in the form of circulars, directives, opinions, and rulings.

NOTE: Contemporaneous construction, while in no case binding upon the courts, is nevertheless entitled to great weight and respect in the interpretation of ambiguous provisions of the law, unless it is shown to be clearly erroneous.


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

178


KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND

REGULATIONS

Kinds of administrative rules and regulations

1.

Supplementary or detailed legislation

2.

Interpretative legislation

3.

Contingent legislation

4.

Procedural

5.

Interpretative

6.

Internal

7.

Penal

REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY

Requisites for a valid delegation of quasi -legislative or rule-making power

1.

The statute is complete in itself, setting forth the policy to be executed by the agency

(Completeness test); and

2.

Said statute fixes a standard, mapping out the boundaries of the agency’s authority to which it must conform (Sufficient standard test)

QUASI -JUDICIAL (ADJUDICATORY) POWER

Quasi -judicial power

Power of administrative authorities to make determinations of facts in the performance of their official duties and to apply the law as they construe it to the facts so found. It partakes the nature of judicial power, but is exercised by a person other than a judge.

Limited jurisdiction of quasi -judicial agencies

An administrative body to which quasi -judicial power has been delegated is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and as such it could wield only such powers as are specifically granted to it by its enabling statute. Its jurisdiction is interpreted strictissimi juris.

Conditions for the proper exercise of quasi -judicial power

1.

Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the administrative body;

2.

Due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings.

Classifications of adjudicatory powers

1.

Enabling powers – characterized by the grant or denial of permit or authorization

Ex: Issuance of licenses to engage in a particular business.

2.

Directing powers – those that involve the corrective powers of public utility commissions, powers of assessment under the revenue laws, reparations under public utility laws, and awards under workmen’s compensation laws, and powers of abstract determination such as definition-valuation, classification and fact finding

3.

Dispensing powers – Exemplified by the authority to exempt from or relax a general prohibition, or authority to relieve from an affirmative duty. Its difference from licensing power is that dispensing power sanctions a deviation from a standard

4.

Summary powers – Those that apply compulsion or force against person or property to effectuate a legal purpose without a judicial warrant to authorize such action.

Ex: Abatement of nuisance, summary restraint, levy of property of delinquent tax payers

5.

Equitable powers – Pertain to the power to determine the law upon a particular state of facts has the right to, and must, consider and make proper application of the rules of equity.

Ex : Power to appoint a receiver, power to issue injunctions

ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS

Nature of administrative proceedings

It is summary in nature.

Inapplicability of technical rules of procedure and evidence in administrative proceedings

The technical rules of procedure and of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity are not controlling in administrative proceedings to free administrative boards or agencies from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate an administrative order.

NOTE: The rules of procedure of quasi -judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

179



Political and International Law

Cardinal requirements of due process in administrative proceedings

1.

Right to a hearing which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in support

2.

The tribunal must consider the evidence presented

3.

The decision must be supported by evidence

4.

Such evidence must be substantial

5.

The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record, and disclosed to the parties affected

6.

The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy in arriving at a decision;

7.

The board or body should render decision that parties know the various issues involved and reason for such decision

8.

Officer or tribunal must be vested with competent jurisdiction and must be impartial and honest.

( Ang Tibay v. CIR, G.R. No. L-46496, February 27,

1940 )

NOTE: The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one’s side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met. What is offensive to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard. (Flores v.

Montemayor, G.R. No. 170146, June 6, 2011)

Effect of non-observance of notice and hearing

As a rule, it will invalidate the administrative proceedings. A failure to comply with the requirements may result in a failure to acquire jurisdiction.

NOTE: Right to notice may be waived.

Q: Does administrative due process always entail notice and hearing prior to the deprivation of a right?

A: No . A hearing may occur after the deprivation.

What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard.

NOTE: There has been no denial of due process if any irregularity in the premature issuance of the assailed decision has been remedied by an order giving the petitions the right to participate in the hearing of the MR. The opportunity granted by, technically, allowing petitioners to finally be able to file their comment in the case, resolves the procedural irregularity previously inflicted upon petitioners.

( Nasecore v. ERC, G.R. No. 190795, July 6, 2011)


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

180

Exceptions to the Requirement of notice and hearing

1.

Urgency of immediate action

2.

Tentativeness of administrative action

3.

Grant or revocation of licenses or permits to operate certain businesses affecting public order or morals

4.

Summary abatement of nuisance per se which affects safety of persons or property

5.

Preventive suspension of public officer or employee facing administrative charges

6.

Cancellation of a passport of a person sought for criminal prosecution

7.

Summary proceedings of distraint and levy upon property of a delinquent taxpayer

8.

Replacement of a temporary or acting appointee

9.

Right was previously offered but not claimed

Inapplicability of the right to counsel in administrative inquiries

The right to counsel which may not be waived, unless in writing and in the presence of counsel, as recognized by the Constitution, is a right of a suspect in a custodial investigation. It is not an absolute right and may, thus, be invoked or rejected in criminal proceeding and, with more reason, in an administrative inquiry. ( Lumiqued v. Exevea, G.R No..

117565, Nov. 18, 1997)

Quantum of proof required in administrative proceedings

Only substantial evidence – that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

NOTE: The right against self-incrimination may be invoked in administrative proceedings. (Cabal v. Kapunan, G.R. No. L-

19052, December 29, 1962)

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL AND REVIEW

Administrative appeal

Review by a higher agency of decisions rendered by an administrative agency, commenced by petition of an interested party.

NOTE: Under the 1987 Administrative Code, administrative appeals from a decision of an agency are taken to the

Department Head, unless such appeal is governed by a special law.


Administrative review

Administrative appeals are not the only way by which a decision of an administrative agency may be reviewed. A superior officer or department head may upon his or her own volition review a subordinate’s decision pursuant to the power of control.

Administrative reviews by a superior officer are, however, subject to the caveat that a final and executory decision is not included within the power of control, and hence can no longer be altered by administrative review.

Different kinds of administrative appeal and review

That:

1.

Which inheres in the relation of administrative superior to administrative subordinate

2.

Embraced in statutes which provide for determination to be made by a particular officer or body subject to appeal, review or redetermination by another officer or body in the same agency or in the same administrative system.

3.

In which the statute makes or attempts to make a court a part of the administrative scheme by providing in terms or effect that the court, on review of the action of an administrative agency.

4.

In which the statute provides that an order made by a division of a commission or board has the same force and effect as if made by the subject to a rehearing by the commission.

5.

In which the statute provides for an appeal to an officer on an appeal to the head of the department or agency.

6.

Embraced in statutes which provide for appeal at the highest level namely, the president. (De Leon, page 311)

Enforcement of administrative decisions

1.

As provided for by law

2.

Through the court’s intervention

ADMINISTRATIVE RES JUDICATA

Non-applicability of the doctrine of res judicata

The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi -judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of purely administrative functions. Administrative proceedings are non-litigious and summary in nature; hence, res judicata does not apply. (Nasipit Lumber vs

NLRC, 1989)

Exceptions to the non-applicability of res judicata in administrative proceedings

1.

Naturalization proceedings or those involving citizenship and immigration;

2.

Labor relations

3.

Family relations, personal status or condition, and capacity of persons

NOTE: It is well settled that findings of fact of quasi -judicial agencies, such as the COA, are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if supported by substantial evidence, in recognition of their expertise on the specific matters under their jurisdiction. (Reyna v. Commission on

Audit, G.R. No. 167219, February 8, 2011)

DETERMINATIVE POWER

Power of administrative agencies to better enable them to exercise their quasi -judicial authority. It consists of the following:

1.

Enabling – Permits the doing of an act which the law undertakes to regulate and which would be unlawful without governmental orders.

2.

Directing – Orders the doing or performing of particular acts to ensure the compliance with the law and are often exercised for corrective purposes.

3.

Dispensing – To relax the general operation of a law or to exempt from general prohibition, or to relieve an individual or a corporation from an affirmative duty.

4.

Examining – This is also called as investigatory power. It requires production of books, papers, etc., the attendance of witnesses and compelling the testimony.

5.

Summary – Power to apply compulsion of force against persons or property to effectuate a legal purpose without judicial warrants to authorize such actions.

FACT-FINDING, INVESTIGATIVE, LICENSING AND

RATE-FIXING POWERS

Exceptions to the rule that findings of facts of administrative agencies are binding on the courts

1.

Findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition, or collusion

2.

Procedure which led to factual findings is irregular

3.

Palpable errors are committed

4.

Factual findings not supported by evidence

5.

Grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or capriciousness is manifest

6.

When expressly allowed by statute; and

181




7.

Error in appreciation of the pleadings and in the interpretation of the documentary evidence presented by the parties

Investigatory power

Power to inspect, secure, or require the disclosure of information by means of accounts, records, reports, statements and testimony of witnesses. This power is implied and not inherent in administrative agencies.

Q: Is the power to issue subpoena inherent in administrative bodies?

A: No.

It is settled that these bodies may summon witnesses and require the production of evidence only when duly allowed by law, and always only in connection with the matter they are authorized to investigate.

Q: Do administrative agencies have the inherent power to declare persons in contempt?

A: No. The power to punish for contempt is not an inherent right by the administrative body. It must be expressly conferred upon by the body, and additionally, must be used only in connection with its quasi -judicial as distinguished from its purely administrative or routinary functions.

NOTE : If there is no express grant, the agency must invoke the aid of the RTC.

Q: May administrative agencies issue warrants of arrest or administrative searches?

A: GR: Administrative agencies cannot issue warrants of arrest. Under the 1987 Constitution, only a judge may issue warrants.

XPN: In cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the President or the Commissioner of

Bureau of Immigration and Deportation may order arrested following a final order of deportation.

(Salazar v. Achacoso, G.R. No. 81510, March 14, 1990)

Licensing power

The action of an administrative agency in granting or denying, or in suspending or revoking, a license, permit, franchise, or certificate of public convenience and necessity.

License

Includes the whole or any part of any agency’s permit, certificate, passport, clearance, approval, registration,


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

182 charter, membership, statutory exemption or other form of permission, or regulation of the exercise of a right or privilege. (Sec. 2(10), 1987 Administrative

Code)

Licensing

Includes agency process involving the grant, renewal, denial, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, limitation, amendment, modification or conditioning of a license. (Sec. 2(11), 1987

Administrative Code)

NOTE: Except in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws, rules and regulations or when public security, health, or safety requires otherwise, no license may be withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled without notice and hearing.

(Sec. 17, 1987 Administrative Code)

Nature of an administrative agency’s act if it is empowered by a statute to revoke a license for noncompliance or violation of agency regulations

For procedural purposes, an administrative action is not a purely administrative act if it is dependent upon the ascertainment of facts by the administrative agency. Where a statute empowers an agency to revoke a license for non-compliance with or violation of agency regulations, the administrative act is of a judicial nature, since it depends upon the ascertainment of the existence of certain past or present facts upon which a decision is to be made and rights and liabilities determined.

Rate-fixing power

Power usually delegated by the legislature to administrative agencies for the latter to fix the rates which public utility companies may charge the public.

Rate

It means any charge to the public for a service open to all and upon the same terms, including individual or joint rates, tolls, classification or schedules thereof, as well as communication, mileage, kilometrage and other special rates which shall be imposed by law or regulation to be observed and followed by a person.

Sec. 2(3), 1987 Administrative Code

NOTE: Fixing rates is essentially legislative but may be delegated. (Philippine Inter-Island v. CA, G.R. No. 100481,

January 22, 1997)


Rate-fixing procedure

The administrative agencies perform this function either by issuing rules and regulations in the exercise of their quasi -legislative power or by issuing orders affecting a specified person in the exercise of its quasi judicial power.

NOTE: In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 2 weeks before the first hearing thereon. (Sec. 9, 1987 Administrative Code)

Fixing of rates may either be a legislative or adjudicative function

Q: If the power to fix rates is exercised as a legislative function, are notice and hearing required?

A: Where the rules and/or rates laid down are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the country, they may partake of a legislative character. If the fixing of rates were a legislative function, the giving of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a requirement of due process, except where the legislature itself requires it .

Q: What if it is exercised as a quasi -judicial function?

A: Where the rules and the rate imposed apply exclusively to a particular party, based upon a finding of fact, then its function is quasi -judicial in character.

As regards rates prescribed by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi -judicial function, prior notice and hearing are essential to the validity of such rates. But an administrative agency may be empowered by law to approve provisionally, when demanded by urgent public need, rates of public utilities without a hearing.

Q: In case of a delegation of rate-fixing power, what is the only standard which the legislature is required to prescribe for the guidance of administrative authority?

A: That the rate be reasonable and just . (American

Tobacco Co. v Director of Patents, 67 SCRA 287, 1975)

Q: In the absence of an express requirement as to reasonableness, may the standard be implied?

A: Yes . In any case, the rates must both be nonconfiscatory and must have been established in the manner prescribed by the legislature. Even in the absence of an express requirement as to reasonableness, this standard may be implied. A ratefixing order, temporary or provisional though it may be, is not exempt from the procedural requirements of notice and hearing when prescribed by statute, as well as the requirement of reasonableness.

Q: May the delegated power to fix rates be redelegated?

A: The power delegated to an administrative agency to fix rates cannot, in the absence of a law authorizing it, be delegated to another. This is expressed in the maxim, potestas delagata non delegari potest .

(Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr., 39

SCRA386, 1994)

Requirements for the delegation of the power to ascertain facts to be valid

The law delegating the power to determine some facts or state of things upon which the law may take effect or its operation suspended must provide the standard, fix the limits within which the discretion may be exercised, and define the conditions therefor. Absent these requirements, the law and the rules issued thereunder are void, the former being an undue delegation of legislative power and the latter being the exercise of rule-making without legal basis. (U.S. v. Ang

Tang Ho, 43 Phil. 1, 1992)

Q: Does a fact-finding quasi -judicial body have the power to take into consideration the result of its own observation and investigation of the matter submitted to it for decision?

A: Yes. A fact-finding quasi -judicial body ( e.g

., Land

Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board) whose decisions (on questions regarding certificate of public convenience) are influenced not only by the facts as disclosed by the evidence in the case before it but also by the reports of its field agents and inspectors that are periodically submitted to it, has the power to take into consideration the result of its own observation and investigation of the matter submitted to it for decision, in connection with other evidence presented at the hearing of the case (Pantranco South

Express, Inc. v Board of Transportation, G.R. No. L-

49664, November 22, 1990)

JUDICIAL RECOURSE AND REVIEW

Judicial review

Re-examination or determination by the courts in the exercise of their judicial power in an appropriate case instituted by a party aggrieved thereby as to whether the questioned act, rule, or decision has been validly

183



or invalidly issued or whether the same should be nullified, affirmed or modified.

NOTE: The mere silence of the law does not necessarily imply that judicial review is unavailable.

Requisites of judicial review of administrative action

1.

Administrative action must have been completed

( principle of finality of administrative action ); and

2.

Administrative remedies must have been exhausted ( principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies .)

Limitations on judicial review

1.

Final and executory decisions cannot be made the subject of judicial review.

2.

Administrative acts involving a political question are beyond judicial review, except when there is an allegation that there has been grave abuse of discretion.

3.

Courts are generally bound by the findings of fact of an administrative agency.

NOTE: Courts will not render a decree in advance of administrative action. Such action would be rendered nugatory.

It is not for the court to stop an administrative officer from performing his statutory duty for fear that he will perform it wrongly.

Doctrine of Ripeness for Review

It is similar to that of exhaustion of administrative remedies except that it applies to the rule making and to administrative action which is embodied neither in rules and regulations nor in adjudication or final order.

Application of the doctrine of ripeness of review

1.

When the interest of the plaintiff is subjected to or imminently threatened with substantial injury.

2.

If the statute is self-executing.

3.

When a party is immediately confronted with the problem of complying or violating a statute and there is a risk of criminal penalties.

4.

When plaintiff is harmed by the vagueness of the statute.

Questions reviewable by the courts

1.

Questions of fact

GR: Courts will not disturb the findings of administrative agencies acting within the parameters of their own competence, special

Political and International Law knowledge, expertise, and experience. The courts ordinarily accord respect if not finality to factual findings of administrative tribunals.

XPN: If findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

2.

Questions of Law – administrative decisions may be appealed to the courts independently of legislative permission. It may be appealed even against legislative prohibition because the judiciary cannot be deprived of its inherent power to review all decisions on questions of law.

3.

Mixed (law and fact) – when there is a mixed question of law and fact and the court cannot separate the elements to see clearly what and where the mistake of law is, such question is treated as question of fact for purposes of review and the courts will not ordinarily review the decision of the administrative tribunal.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE

JURISDICTION

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Doctrine of Prior

Resort

Under the principle of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving question within the jurisdiction of an administrative body prior to the decision of that question by the administrative tribunal where the:

1.

Question demands administrative determination requiring special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal;

2.

Question requires determination of technical and intricate issues of a fact;

3.

Uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with purposes of the regulatory statute administered

NOTE: In such instances, relief must first be obtained in administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. The judicial process is accordingly suspended pending referral of the claim to the administrative agency for its view.

Rationale for the doctrine:

To:

1.

Take full advantage of administrative expertness; and

2.

Attain uniformity of application of regulatory laws which can be secured only if determination of the issue is left to the administrative body


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

184


Instances where the doctrine finds no application

1.

By the court's determination, the legislature did not intend that the issues be left solely to the initial determination of the administrative body.

2.

The issues involve purely questions of law.

3.

Courts and administrative bodies have concurrent jurisdiction.

Q: Can the court motu proprio raise the issue of primary jurisdiction?

A: Yes. The court may motu proprio raise the issue of primary jurisdiction and its invocation cannot be waived by the failure of the parties to argue it, as the doctrine exists for the proper distribution of power between judicial and administrative bodies and not for the convenience of the parties. In such case the court may:

1.

Suspend the judicial process pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its review, or

2.

If the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice. (Euro-Med laboratories Phil. v. Province of Batangas, G.R No.

148706, July 17, 2006)

DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE

REMEDIES

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

It calls for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction and must first be appealed to the administrative superiors up to the highest level before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review.

The premature invocation of court intervention is fatal to one’s cause of action. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite for judicial review; it is a condition precedent which must be complied with.

Reasons for the doctrine

1.

To enable the administrative superiors to correct the errors committed by their subordinates.

2.

Courts should refrain from disturbing the findings of administrative bodies in deference to the doctrine of separation of powers.

3.

Courts should not be saddled with the review of administrative cases.

4.

Judicial review of administrative cases is usually effected through special civil actions which are available only if there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

5.

To avail of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies.

Exceptions to the application of the doctrine

1.

Violation of due process

2.

When there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned

3.

When the issue involved is a purely legal question

4.

When there is irreparable injury

5.

When the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

6.

When the respondent is a Department Secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter

7.

When the subject matter is a private land case proceedings

8.

When it would be unreasonable

9.

When no administrative review is provided by law

10.

When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy

11.

When the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot

12.

When there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention

13.

When it would amount to a nullification of a claim; and

14.

Where the rule of qualified political agency applies. (Laguna CATV Network v. Maraan, G.R.

No. 139492, November 19, 2002)

Effect of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies

It will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion of dismiss .

Q: Is non-compliance with the doctrines of primary jurisdiction or exhaustion of administrative remedies a jurisdictional defect?

A: No.

Non-compliance with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional for the defect may be waived by a failure to assert the same at the earliest opportune time.

185




Doctrine of primary jurisdiction v.

Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

DOCTRINE OF

DOCTRINE OF

PRIMARY

JURISDICTION

EXHAUSTION OF

ADMINISTRATIVE

REMEDIES

Both deal with the proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies.

Applies where a case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the court and an administrative agency but the determination of the case requires the technical expertise of the administrative agency

Applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone

Although the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court, it must yield to the jurisdiction of the administrative case

Judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has been completed

DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Doctrine of Finality of Administrative Action

It provides that no resort to courts will be allowed unless administrative action has been completed and there is nothing left to be done in the administrative structure.

Instances where the doctrine finds no application

1.

To grant relief to preserve the status quo pending further action by the administrative agency

2.

When it is essential to the protection of the rights asserted from the injuries threatened

3.

Where an administrative officer assumes to act in violation of the Constitution and other laws

4.

Where such order is not reviewable in any other way and the complainant will suffer great and obvious damage if the order is carried out

5.

Interlocutory order affecting the merits of a controversy

6.

Order made in excess of power, contrary to specific prohibition in the statute governing the agency and thus operating as a deprivation of a right assured by the statute

7.

When review is allowed by statutory provisions.

NOTE: Appeal to the CA is allowed because a quasi -judicial agency is equivalent in rank with the RTC. (Rule 43, RoC)


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

186

E LECTION L AW

ELECTION LAW

SUFFRAGE

Right of Suffrage

It is the right to vote in the election of officers chosen by the people and in the determination of questions submitted to the people. It includes:

1.

Election

2.

Plebiscite

3.

Initiative and

4.

Referendum

NOTE: The right to suffrage is not an absolute right. Needless to say, the exercise of the right of suffrage, as in the enjoyment of all other rights, is subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements embodied in our

Constitution, statute books and other repositories of law.

(AKBAYAN-YOUTH v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066, March 26,

2001)

Election

It is the selection of candidates to public office by popular vote of the people.

Purpose of an election

To enable the electorate to choose the men and women who would run their government, whether national, provincial, city, municipal or barangay. (Teves v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-5150, November 8, 1951)

Components of an election

1.

Choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote

2.

Holding of electoral campaign

3.

Conduct of the polls

4.

Listing of votes

5.

Act of casting and receiving the ballots from the voters

6.

Counting the ballots

7.

Making the election returns

8.

Proclaiming the winning candidates

Types of elections

A.

Regular election – refers to an election participated in by those who possess the right of suffrage, are not otherwise disqualified by law, and who are registered voters. a.

National Election — i.

for President and VP ii.

for Senators iii.

for Party – List Representatives b.

Local Elections — i.

For Members of HOR ii.

Provincial Officials iii.

City Officials iv.

Municipal Officials c.

Barangay Elections d.

ARRM Elections — i.

For Regional Governor ii.

Regional Vice Governor iii.

Regional Assemblymen e.

Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Elections

B.

Special election – one held to fill a vacancy in office before the expiration of the term for which the incumbent was elected.

It is when there is failure of election on the scheduled date of regular election in a particular place or which is conducted to fill up certain vacancies, as provided by law a.

Plebiscite —electoral process by which an initiative on the Constitution is approved or rejected by the people. b.

Initiative —power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through election called for the purpose i.

Initiative on the Constitution ii.

Initiative on Statutes iii.

Initiative on Local Legislation c.

Referendum —power of the electorate to approve or reject a piece of legislation through an election called for the purpose. i.

Referendum on Statutes ii.

Referendum on Local Laws d.

Recall —mode of removal of an elective public officer by the people before the end of his term of office.

Rules on construction of election laws

CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTION LAW

Laws for conduct of elections

Before the election:

M andatory

After the election:

Directory

Laws for

Candidates

Procedural rules

Mandatory and strictly construed

Liberally construed in favor of ascertaining the will of the elections

187




Commencement of election period

90 days before the day of the election and shall end 30 days thereafter. (Sec. 3, BP 881 OEC)

QUALIFICATION AND

DISQUALIFICATION OF VOTERS

Qualifications for the exercise of suffrage

1.

Filipino citizenship

2.

At least 18 years of age

3.

Resident of the Philippines for at least one year

4.

Resident of the place where he proposes to vote for at least 6 months; and

5.

Not otherwise disqualified by law (Sec. 1, Art. V,

1987 Constitution )

NOTE: These qualifications are continuing requirements.

Congress may not add qualifications but can provide for procedural requirements and disqualifications. However, the disqualifications must not amount to qualifications.

Procedural qualifications

As to the procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo: among others, the process of registration. Specifically, a citizen in order to be qualified to exercise his right to vote, in addition to the minimum requirements set by the fundamental charter, is obliged by law to register, at present, under the provisions of RA 8189, otherwise known as the “Voter’s Registration Act of 1996.”

(Akbayan-Youth v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066, March

26, 2001)

Persons disqualified to vote

1.

Persons sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than one year, unless pardoned or granted amnesty; but right is reacquired upon expiration of 5 years after service of sentence

2.

Conviction by final judgment of any of the following: a.

Crime involving disloyalty to the government b.

Violation against national security c.

Firearms laws

But right is reacquired upon expiration of 5 years after service of sentence.

3.

Insanity or incompetence declared by competent authority (Sec. 118, BP 881 OEC)


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

188

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS

Registration requirement

Registration does not confer the right to vote. “It is but a condition precedent to the exercise of the right to vote. Registration is a regulation, not a qualification.”

(Yra v. Abano, G.R. No. L-30187, November 15, 1928)

Domicile

A place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent. (Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

119976, September 18, 1995)

Residence for election purposes

It implies the factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a given area, community or country. For election purposes the concepts of residence and domicile are dictated by the peculiar criteria of political laws. As these concepts have evolved in our election law, what has clearly and unequivocally emerged is the fact that residence for election purposes is used synonymously with domicile. (Ibid.)

Effect of transfer of residence

Any person, who transfers residence solely by reason of his occupation, profession or employment in private or public service, education, etc., shall not be deemed to have lost his original residence. (Asistio v. Aguirre,

G.R. No. 191124, April 27, 2010)

Double-registrant

Any person who, being a registered voter, registers anew without filing an application for cancellation of his previous registration. (Sec. 26 (y)(6), OEC)

Q: Eisel registered as a voter in Marawi on 26 July

2003. Three days after, Eisel again registered as a voter in Marantao, without first cancelling her registration in Marawi; and on 28 March 2007, Eisel filed her COC declaring that she was a registered voter in Marantao and eligible to run as a candidate for the position of mayor of said municipality . Is she qualified to run for such position in Marantao?

A: No.

Her prior registration makes her subsequent registration null and void. She cannot be considered a registered voter in Marantao and thus she made a

E LECTION L AW false representation in her CoC when she claimed to be one. If a candidate states a material representation in the COC that is false, the COMELEC is empowered to deny due course to or cancel the CoC. The person whose COC is denied due course or cancelled under

Sec. 78 of the OEC is not treated as a candidate at all, as if such person never filed a COC. However, although

Eisel’s registration in Marantao is void, her registration in Marawi still subsists. She may be barred from voting or running for mayor in the former, but she may still exercise her right to vote, or even run for an elective post, in the latter. (Maruhom v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

179430, July 27, 2009)

Q: Are double registrants still qualified to vote?

A: Yes . Double registrants are still qualified to vote provided that COMELEC has to make a determination on which registration is valid, and which is void.

COMELEC could not consider both registrations valid because it would then give rise to the anomalous situation where a voter could vote in two precincts at the same time. COMELEC laid down the rule in Minute

Resolution No. 00-1513 that while the first registration of any voter subsists, any subsequent registration thereto is void ab initio . (Maruhom v. COMELEC, G.R.

No. 179430, July 27, 2009)

Q: Wil filed a petition for the cancellation of the COC of Allen. Essentially, Wil sought the disqualification of

Allen for Mayor of South Upi alleging that Allen was not a registered voter in the Municipality of South

Upi since he failed to sign his application for registration, and that the unsigned application for registration has no legal effect. In refutation, Allen asseverated that his failure to sign his application for registration did not affect the validity of his registration since he possesses the qualifications of a voter set forth in the OEC as amended by Sec. 9 of RA

8189. Wil insists that the signature in the application for registration is indispensable for its validity as it is an authentication and affirmation of the data appearing therein. Should Allen be disqualified?

A: Yes . RA 8189 (The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996) specifically provides that an application for registration shall contain specimen signatures of the applicant as well as his/her thumbprints, among others. The evidence shows that Allen failed to sign very important parts of the application, which refer to the oath which Allen should have taken to validate and swear to the veracity of the contents appearing in the application for registration. Plainly, from the foregoing, the irregularities surrounding Allen’s application for registration eloquently proclaims that he did not comply with the minimum requirements of

RA 8189. This leads to only one conclusion: that Allen, not having demonstrated that he duly accomplished an application for registration, is not a registered voter. Hence, he must be disqualified to run for Mayor.

(Gunsi Sr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 168792, February 23,

2009)

Q: Sheldon, while of legal age and of sound mind, is illiterate. He has asked your advice on how he can vote in the coming election for his brother is running for mayor. This will be the first time Sheldon will vote and he has never registered as a voter before. What advice will you give him on the procedure he needs to follow in order to be able to vote?

A: The Constitution provides that until Congress shall have provided otherwise, illiterate and disabled voters shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and regulations. (Art, V, Sec. 2) It is necessary for any qualified voter to register in order to vot e. (OEC, Sec.

115) In the case of illiterate and disabled voters, their voter's affidavit may be prepared by any relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity or by any member of the board of election inspectors who shall prepare the affidavit in accordance with the data supplied by the applicant.

(Sec. 14, RA 8189)

System of continuing registration

GR: It is a system where the application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily in the office hours of the election officer during regular office hours.

XPN: No registration shall be conducted during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and

90 days before a special election. (Sec. 8, RA 8189)

Q: On Nov. 12, 2008, COMELEC issued Resolution

8514 setting Dec. 2, 2008 to Dec.15, 2009 as the period of continuing voter registration using the biometrics process in all areas except ARMM.

Subsequently, COMELEC issued Resolution 8585 on

February 12, 2009 adjusting the deadline of voter registration for the May 10, 2010 national and local elections to Oct. 31, 2009 instead of Dec. 15, 2009 as previously fixed by Resolution 8514. Petitioners challenged the validity of COMELEC Resolution 8585 and seek the declaration of its nullity. Petitioners further contend that COMELEC Resolution 8585 is an encroachment on the legislative power of Congress as it amends the system of continuing voter registration under Sec. 8 of RA 8189. Is COMELEC

Resolution 8585 valid? Differentiate from the case of

Akbayan-Youth v. COMELEC.

189




A: In the present case, the Court finds no ground to hold that the mandate of continuing voter registration cannot be reasonably held within the period provided by RA 8189 (Absentee Voting), Sec.8, which is daily during the office hours, except during the period starting 120 days before the May 10,2010 regular elections. There is thus no occasion for the COMELEC to exercise its power to fix other dates or deadlines thereof.

The present case differs significantly from the

Akbayan-Youth v.

COMELEC. In the said case, the Court held that the COMELEC did not abuse its discretion in denying the request of the therein petitioners for an extension of the Dec. 27, 2000 deadline of voter registration for the May 14, 2001 elections. For the therein petitioners filed their petition with the court within the 120-day period for the conduct of voter registration under Sec. 8, RA 8189, and sought the conduct of a two-day registration of February 17, and

18, 2001, clearly within the 120-day prohibited period.

The clear import of the Court’s pronouncement in

Akbayan-Youth is that had therein petitioners filed their petition – and sought an extension date that was

– before the 120-day prohibitive period, their prayer would have been granted pursuant to the mandate of

RA 8189 (Absentee Voting). In the present case, as reflected earlier, both the dates of filing of the petition

(October 30, 2009) and the extension sought (until

January 9, 2010) are prior to the 120 day prohibitive period. The Court therefore, finds no legal impediment to the extension prayed for. (Kabataan Partylist v.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 189868, December 15, 2009)

Absentee voting

It is a process by which qualified citizens of the

Philippines abroad exercise their right to vote pursuant to the constitutional mandate that Congress shall provide a system for absentee voting by qualified

Filipinos abroad. (Sec. 2, Art. V, 1987 Constitution)

Absentee voting is an exception to the six month/one year residency requirement. (Macalintal v. Romulo,

G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003)

NOTE: The constitutionality of Sec. 18.5 of RA 9189

(Absentee Voting) is upheld with respect only to the authority given to the COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for the Senators and party-list representatives but not as to the power to canvass votes and proclaim the winning candidates for President and Vice-president. (Ibid.)

Persons qualified to vote under the absentee voting law

All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not otherwise disqualified by law, at least eighteen (18) years of age on the day of the elections, may vote for president, vice-president, senators and party-list representatives. (Sec. 4, RA 9189)

Q: May “duals” or dual citizens be allowed to vote under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003?

A: Yes.

There is no provision in the dual citizenship law

- RA 9225 - requiring "duals" to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote. On the contrary, RA 9225, in implicit acknowledgment that

“duals” are most likely non-residents, grants under its

Sec. 5(1) the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under RA 9189. It cannot be overemphasized that RA 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos who, save for the residency requirements exacted of an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote. (Lewis v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 162759,

August 4, 2006)

Persons disqualified from voting under the absentee voting law

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 Art. 137 of the Revised Penal Code, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty;

NOTE: However, 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


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

190

E LECTION L AW

NOTE: An immigrant or permanent resident may vote if 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

NOTE: Unless such competent authority subsequently certifies that such person is no longer insane or incompetent. (Sec. 5, Absentee Voting Law)

Q: May an immigrant or permanent resident (green card holder) abroad be qualified to run for an elective position in the Philippines?

A : No.

Acquisition of a lawful permanent resident status abroad amounts to an abandonment and renunciation of one’s status as a resident of the

Philippines; it constituted a change from one’s domicile of origin to a new domicile of choice .

(Ugdoracion v . COMELEC, G.R. No. 179851, April 18,

2008)

Manner of registration for absentee voters

It shall be done in person. (Sec. 6, RA 9189, Absentee

Voting Law)

Process of absentee voting

1.

The overseas absentee voter shall personally accomplish his/her ballot at the embassy, consulate or other foreign service establishment that has jurisdiction over the country where he/she temporarily resides or at any polling place designated and accredited by the Commission.

(Sec. 16, RA 9189 Absentee Voting Law)

2.

The overseas absentee voter may also vote by mail. (RA 9189 Absentee Voting Law)

Voting by mail

Voting by mail may be allowed in countries that satisfy the following conditions:

1.

Where the mailing system is fairly well-developed and secure to prevent the occasion of fraud

2.

Where there exists a technically established identification system that would preclude multiply or proxy voting; and

3.

Where the system of reception and custody of mailed ballots in the embassies, consulates and other foreign service establishments concerned are adequate and well-secured.

Thereafter, voting by mail in any country shall be allowed only upon review and approval of the Joint

Congressional Oversight Committee. (Sec. 17.1, RA

9189 Absentee Voting Law)

Q: Can the canvass of the overseas absentee votes delay the proclamation of winners?

A: No , if the outcome of the election will not be affected by the results thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the COMELEC is empowered to order the proclamation of winning candidates despite the fact that the scheduled election has not yet taken place in a particular country or countries, if the holding of elections therein has been rendered impossible by events, factors, and circumstances peculiar to such country or countries, and which events, factors and circumstances are beyond the control or influence of the COMELEC. (Sec. 18, RA 9189 Absentee Voting Law)

Local absentee voting

It refers to a system of voting whereby government officials and employees, including members of the

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the

Philippine National Police (PNP) as well as members of the media, media practitioners including their technical and support staff (media voters) pursuant to the aforementioned Comelec En Banc Resolution who are duly registered voters, are allowed to vote for the , national positions, i.e. President, Vice-

President, Senators and Party-List Representatives in places where they are not registered voters but where they are temporarily assigned to perform election duties on election day as provided for under Executive Order No. 157 and Republic Act No.

7166 (Sec. 1(a), COMELEC Resolution 9637, 13

February 2013)

Persons qualified to register/vote in local absentee voting

1.

Government officials and employees

2.

Members of the PNP

3.

Members of the AFP

4.

Members of the media, media practitioners, and including their technical and support staff who are actively angaged in the pursuit of

191



Political and International Law information gathering and reporting or distribution, in any manner or form, including, but not limited to the following: i.

Print Journalists; ii.

Television Journalists; iii.

Photo Journalists; iv.

Online Journalists; v.

Radio Journalists; vi.

Documentary makers; vii.

Television/Radio Production

Requisites

1.

Duly registered voters

2.

On election day, in case of government officials, members of the PNP and AFP, they are assigned temporarily to perform election duties in places where they are not registered voters;

3.

In case of media voters, they will not be able to vote due to the performance of their functions in covering and reporting the conduct of elections.

(Sec. 2, COMELEC Resolution 9637, 13 February

2013)

Kinds of registration system

1.

Continuing

2.

Computerized

3.

Permanent

Book of voters

Classified as permanent whereby each precinct shall have a permanent list of all registered voters residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the precinct.

Grounds for the alteration of Book of voters

1.

Deactivation/Reactivation

2.

Exclusion/ Inclusion

3.

Cancellation of Registration in case of death

4.

Annulment of Book of Voters

5.

New Voters

6.

Transfer of residence

Deactivation

Removal from the registration records from the precinct books of voters and places the same, properly marked and dated in indelible ink, in the inactive file after entering the cause of deactivation.

Grounds for deactivation

1.

Those which would disqualify you as a voter: a.

Convicted by final judgment to suffer imprisonment not less than 1 year b.

Disloyalty c.

Insanity

2.

Others: a.

Loss of citizenship b.

Failed to vote for 2 successive preceding regular elections c.

Registration was ordered excluded by the court.

Grounds for the annulment of Book of voters

1.

Fraud

2.

Forgery

3.

Force

4.

Intimidation

5.

Impersonation

6.

Bribery

7.

Similar Irregularity

8.

Contains data that are statistically improbable

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS

Courts which have jurisdiction over inclusion and exclusion proceedings

1.

MTC - original and exclusive

2.

RTC - appellate jurisdiction

3.

SC - appellate jurisdiction over RTC on question of law

Persons who may file a petition for inclusion or exclusion

INCLUSION

1.

Any private person whose application was disapproved by the Election Registration Board

2.

Those whose names were stricken out from the list of voters

3.

COMELEC

EXCLUSION

1.

Any registered voter in the city or municipality

2.

Representative of political party

3.

Election officer

4.

COMELEC (BP 881 OEC)

Period for filing a petition in an inclusion or exclusion proceeding

INCLUSION: Any day except 105 days before regular election or 75 days before a special election.

(COMELEC Reso. No. 8820)


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

192

E LECTION L AW

EXCLUSION: Anytime except 100 days before a regular election or 65 days before a special election.

(COMELEC Reso. No. 9021)

Grounds for Inclusion and Exclusion Proceedings

INCLUSION

1.

Application for registration has been disapproved by the board

2.

Name has been stricken out

EXCLUSION

1.

Not Qualified for possessing disqualification

2.

Flying voters

3.

Ghost voters

Inapplicability of the doctrine of res judicata in inclusion or exclusion proceedings

The proceedings for the exclusion or inclusion of voters in the list of voters are summary in character.

Except for the right to remain in the list of voters or for being excluded therefrom for the particular election in relation to which the proceedings had been held, a decision in an exclusion or inclusion proceeding, even if final and unappealable, does not acquire the nature of res judicata. In this sense, it does not operate as a bar to any further action that a party may take concerning the subject passed upon in the proceeding.

Thus, a decision in an exclusion proceeding would neither be conclusive on the voter’s political status, nor bar subsequent proceedings on his right to be registered as a voter in any other election. (Domino v.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999)

Q: Can a voter be excluded for stating a fake address?

A: No.

The right to vote is a most precious political right, as well as a bounden duty of every citizen, enabling and requiring him to participate in the process of government to ensure that it can truly be said to derive its power solely from the consent of its constituents.

A citizen cannot be disenfranchised for the flimsiest of reasons. Only on the most serious grounds, and upon clear and convincing proof, may a citizen be deemed to have forfeited this precious heritage of freedom.

(Asistio v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 191124, April 27, 2010)

POLITICAL PARTIES

Political party

Any organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidate in public office.

NOTE : To acquire juridical personality and to entitle it to rights and privileges granted to political parties, it must be registered with COMELEC. (Sec. 3 (c), RA 7941)

Sectoral party

Organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Sec. 5, RA 7941 whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. (Sec. 3 (d), RA 7941)

Sectoral organization

A group of citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens who share similar physical attributes or characteristics, employment, interests or concerns.

(Sec. 3 (e), RA 7941)

Jurisdiction of COMELEC over political parties

Sec. 2(5), Art. IX-C of the Constitution grants the

Commission the power to register political parties. It also has the power to require candidates to specify in their certificates of candidacy their political affiliation, allow political parties to appoint watchers, limit their expenditures, and determine whether their registrations should be cancelled in appropriate proceedings. These powers necessarily include the jurisdiction to resolve issues of political leadership in a political party, and to ascertain the identity of political party and its legitimate officers. (Palmares v.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 86177, August 11, 1989)

Grounds for the refusal and/or cancellation of registration of national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition

1.

It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association, organized for religious purposes

2.

It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal

3.

It is a foreign party or organization

4.

It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes

5.

It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections

6.

It declares untruthful statements in its petition

7.

It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or

193




8.

It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum

(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. (Sec. 6, RA

7941)

CANDIDACY

QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES

Qualifications for President and Vice President of the

Philippines

1.

Natural-born citizen of the Philippines

2.

Registered voter

3.

Able to read and write

4.

At least 40 years of age at the day of election

5.

And a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election. (Sec. 2 and 3, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)

Qualifications of elective local officials

1.

Must be a citizen of the Philippines

2.

A registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sanggunian bayan, the district where he intends to be elected

3.

A resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election

4.

And able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect. (Sec. 39, RA 7160 Local

Government Code of the Philippines)

NOTE: Congress may not add to qualifications for elective officials provided in the constitution. However they may do so for elective officials not provided in the Constitution.

Grounds for disqualification of a candidate

1.

Declared as incompetent or insane by competent authority

2.

Convicted by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of 18 months imprisonment

3.

Convicted by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude

4.

Election offenses under Sec. 68 of the OEC

5.

Committing acts of terrorism to enhance candidacy

6.

Spending in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed

7.

Soliciting, receiving, making prohibited contributions


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

194

8.

Not possessing qualifications and possessing disqualifications under the Local Government

Code

9.

Sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one year or more of imprisonment within two years after serving sentence

10.

Removed from office as a result of an administrative case

11.

Convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic

12.

Dual citizenship (more specifically, dual allegiance)

13.

Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad

14.

Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right

15.

Insane or feeble- minded

16.

Nuisance candidate

17.

Violation of Sec. 73 OEC with regard to COC

18.

Violation of Sec. 78: material misrepresentation in the COC

NOTE: When a candidate has not yet been disqualified by final judgment during the election day and was voted for, the votes cast in his favor cannot be declared stray. (Codilla v. De

Venecia, G.R. No. 150605, December 10, 2002)

Effect of an unsworn renunciation of foreign citizenship

Failure to renounce foreign citizenship in accordance with the exact tenor of Sec. 5(2) of RA 9225 renders a dual citizen ineligible to run for and thus hold any elective public office. (Condon v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

198742, August 10, 2012)

FILING OF CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY

EFFECT OF FILING

Certificate of Candidacy (Coc)

It is in the nature of a formal manifestation to the whole world of the candidate’s political creed or lack of political creed. (Sinaca v. Mula, 373 Phil. 896)

NOTE: A CoC may be amended before the elections, even after the date of its filing.

Provisions of the election law on certificates of candidacy are mandatory in terms. However, after the elections, they are regarded as directory so as to give effect to the will of the electorate. (Saya-Ang Sr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 155087,

November 28, 2003 )

E LECTION L AW

Purposes of the law in requiring the filing of certificate of candidacy and in fixing the time limit therefor

To:

1.

Enable the voters to know, at least 60 days before the regular election, the candidates among whom they have to choose, and

2.

Avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cast. ( Miranda v. Abaya,

G.R. No. 136351, July 28, 1999)

Effect of filing a CoC on the tenure of incumbent government officials

1.

Appointive official – Sec. 66 of the OEC provides that any person holding an appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed

Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in GOCCs, shall be considered ipso facto RESIGNED from his office upon the filing of his CoC. Such resignation is irrevocable.

2.

Elective official – No effect. The candidate shall continue to hold office, whether he is running for the same or a different position. (Sec. 14, Fair

Elections Act expressly repealed Sec. 67 of BP 881)

Candidate

It refers to any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a CoC by himself or through an accredited political party, aggroupment or coalition of parties (Sec. 79.(a), OEC)

Q: When can a person be considered a candidate?

A : Any person who files his CoC within the filing period shall only be considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his CoC.

Any person may thus file a CoC on any day within the prescribed period for filing a CoC yet that person shall be considered a candidate, for purposes of determining one’s possible violations of election laws, only during the campaign period.

(Penera v. COMELEC,

G.R. No. 181613, November 25, 2009)

Q: Do the deemed-resigned provisions which are applicable to appointive officials and not to elective officials violate the equal protection clause of the constitution?

A: No . The legal dichotomy created by the Legislature is a reasonable classification, as there are material and significant distinctions between the two classes of officials. This is because elected public officials, by the very nature of their office, engage in partisan political activities almost all year round, even outside of the campaign period. Political partisanship is the inevitable essence of a political office, elective positions included. The equal protection of the law clause in the Constitution is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials and appointive officials. The former occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to an office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom only upon stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto by an appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their office in a permanent capacity and are entitled to security of tenure while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. (Quinto v. COMELEC, G.R.

189698, February 22, 2010)

SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATES

Substitution

If after the last day for the filing of Certificates of

Candidacy, an official candidate of a duly registered political party or coalition of political parties dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, he may be substituted by a candidate belonging to, and nominated by, the same political party. No substitute shall be allowed for any independent candidate.

(Sec.

15, COMELEC Resolution 9518, 11 September 2013)

Requisites for valid substitution

GR:

1.

The substitute must belong to the same party

2.

The deceased, disqualified or withdrawn candidate must have duly file a valid CoC. (Ibid.)

XPN: This does not include those cases where the CoC of the person to be substituted had been denied due course and canceled under Sec. 78 of the OEC.

Sec. 78 provides that a verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a CoC may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under

Sec. 74 hereof is false.

While the law enumerated the occasion where a candidate may be validly substituted, there is no mention of the case where a candidate is excluded not only by disqualification but also by denial and

195



Political and International Law cancellation of his CoC. (Ong v. Alegre, G.R. No.

163295, January 23, 2006)

Q: Henry Tamayo and Dexter Suyat filed their CoCs for the position of Mayor of Lucena City. Dexter filed a petition to disqualify Henry, alleging that Henry still filed his CoC despite knowing that he had exceeded the 3-term limit as Mayor of Lucena City. COMELEC

1st Division disqualified Henry. Camille Tamayo, the wife of Henry, filed her own CoC in substitution of her husband, Henry. Can Camille validly substitute her husband?

A: No. A disqualified candidate may only be substituted if he had a valid CoC in the first place because, if the disqualified candidate did not have a valid and seasonably filed CoC, he is and was not a candidate at all. If a person was not a candidate, he cannot be substituted under Sec. 77 of the OEC. If we were to allow the so-called "substitute" to file a "new" and "original" CoC beyond the period for the filing thereof, it would be a crystalline case of unequal protection of the law. Thus, there was no valid candidate for Camille to substitute due to Henry’s ineligibility. The existence of a valid CoC is therefore a condition sine qua non for a disqualified candidate to be validly substituted. (Talaga v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

196804, October 9, 2012)

Q: Pedro Mahilig died while campaigning. His son substituted him. Voters on the day of the election wrote Pedro Mahilig instead of casting the same in the name of his son, Garry Mahilig. Should the votes be counted in favor of Garry?

A: Yes . As a general rule, the same will be considered as stray votes but will not invalidate the whole ballot.

Exception is when the substitute carries the same family name. (Sec. 12, RA 9006)

Q: In the 1998 election, Mayor Aida already served 8 consecutive terms, yet she still filed a CoC. As a result,

Guifaya filed a disqualification case. COMELEC then disqualified Aida and cancelled her CoC. The daughter of Aida, Sachi, upon nomination of their political party, filed a certificate of substitution. Sachi won.

Was the substitution valid?

A: No. COMELEC did not only disqualify Aida but also cancelled her CoC. Therefore, she cannot be validly substituted. A disqualified candidate may only be substituted if he had a valid CoC because if the disqualified candidate did not have a valid and seasonably filed CoC, he is and was not a candidate at all. (Miranda v. Abaya, G.R. No. 136351, July 28, 1999)

Q: Al Espaldon filed his CoC, signifying his intent to run for congressional office in the fourth district of

Leyte. Dexter Suyat filed a petition for denial of due course and/or cancellation of Al’s CoC. The COMELEC

First Division disqualified Al without any qualification for failure to comply with the one year residency requirement. He was substituted by his wife, appellee Camille Gonzales as the COMELEC En Banc ruled that resolution of the First Division refers only to disqualification and not to cancellation of CoC.

Camille won the congressional elections in 2010.

Again, Dexter filed a motion to reconsider which remained unacted. CA Mindaro, appellant, filed a petition for quo warranto before the House of

Representatives Electoral Tribunal. The HRET ruled in favor of Camille. Does Al’s disqualification without any qualification permit substitution of candidates?

A: No.

Since there would be no candidate to speak of under a denial of due course to and/or cancellation of a CoC case, then there would be no candidate to be substituted.

As explained in the case of Miranda v. Abaya, a candidate who is disqualified under Sec. 68 can be validly substituted pursuant to Sec. 77 because he remains· a candidate until disqualified; but a person whose CoC has been denied due course to and/or cancelled under Sec. 78 cannot be substituted because he is not considered a candidate. Stated differently, since there would be no candidate to speak of under a denial of due course to and/or cancellation of a CoC case, then there would be no candidate to be substituted; the same does not obtain, however, in a disqualification case since there remains to be a candidate to be substituted, although his or her candidacy is discontinued.

Case law dictates that if a petition prays for the denial of due course to and/or cancellation of CoC and the same is granted by the COMELEC without any qualification, the cancellation of the candidate's CoC is in order. This is precisely the crux of the Miranda ruling wherein the Court, in upholding the COMELEC En

Banc's nullification of the substitution in that case, decreed that the COMELEC Division's unqualified grant of the petition necessarily included the denial of due course to and/or cancellation of the candidate's CoC, notwithstanding the use of the term "disqualified" in the COMELEC Division's resolution, as the foregoing was prayed for in the said petition. (Silverio R. Tagolino v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Lucy

Marie Torres-Gomez, G.R. No. 202202, March 19,

2013)


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

196

E LECTION L AW

Q: Rueben Soriano, a winning but ineligible candidate in a local election (for mayor or vice mayor), was disqualified with finality after his proclamation due to his citizenship. Rueben was alleged to have been using his US passport even after he had executed an

Affidavit of Renunciation of his US citizenship. Can

Dexter Suyat, a candidate for the same position who garnered the next highest vote be proclaimed as the eligible winner?

A: Yes . The old doctrine was that the vice mayor shall succeed the disqualified winning candidate, not the candidate for the same position who had received the next highest vote. In recent cases, SC ruled that a void

CoC cannot produce any legal effect. Thus, the votes cast in favor of the ineligible candidate are not considered at all in determining the winner of an election. Knowledge by the electorate of a candidate’s disqualification is not necessary before a qualified candidate who placed second to a disqualified one can be proclaimed as the winner. The second-placer in the vote count is actually the first-placer among the qualified candidates. Furthermore, that the disqualified candidate has already been proclaimed and has assumed office is of no moment. The subsequent disqualification based on a substantive ground that existed prior to the filing of the CoC voids not only the CoC but also the proclamation. (Maquiling v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013)

Effect of reacquisition of Philippine citizenship as to the domicile/residence requirement for running as a mayoralty candidate

Under RA 9225, it has no automatic impact or effect on a candidate’s residence/domicile. He merely has an option to again establish his domicile in the municipality, which place shall become his new domicile of choice. The length of his residence therein shall be determined from the time he made it his domicile of choice and it shall not retroact to the time of his birth . (Japson v. COMELEC, G.R .No. 180088,

January 19, 2009)

Effect of filing two certificates of candidacy

It disqualifies the person to run for both elective positions. (Sec. 73, BP 881, OEC)

MINISTERIAL DUTY OF COMELEC TO RECEIVE

CERTIFICATES

Duty of the COMELEC in receiving CoCs

GR: When a candidate files his CoC, the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge its receipt pursuant to Sec. 76, of the Election Code. The

COMELEC may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a CoC filed in due form. (Luna v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 165983, April

24, 2007)

XPNs:

1.

Nuisance candidates; (Sec. 69 of the OEC)

2.

Petition to deny due course or to cancel a CoC;

(Sec. 78 of the OEC)

3.

Filing of a disqualification case on any of the grounds enumerated in Sec. 68, OEC.

Q: Ka Dikko went to Laguna to file his CoC. The election officer refused to receive Ka Dikko’s CoC because he seeks to achieve his goals through violence. Is the refusal valid?

A: No . It is the ministerial duty on the part of the election officer to receive and acknowledge receipt of the CoC. The question of whether or not a person is disqualified belongs to another tribunal in an appropriate disqualification case.

NUISANCE CANDIDATES

Nuisance candidates

Candidates who have no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the CoC has been filed and would thus prevent a faithful election. And upon showing that:

1.

Said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute

2.

To cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates; or

3.

By other circumstances or acts which demonstrate that a candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which his CoC has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate .

(Tajanan v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 104443, April 13,

1992)

The COMELEC may, motu proprio or upon verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a CoC upon showing of the abovestated circumstances. (Sec. 69, BP 881 OEC)

Q: Jean and Joyette were the only candidates for mayor of Bigaa, Bulacan in the May 1995 local elections. Jean obtained 10,000 votes as against

3,000 votes for Joyette. In the same elections, Gem got the highest number of votes among the

197



Political and International Law candidates for the Sangguniang Bayan of the same town. Jean died the day before her proclamation.

1.

Who should the Board of Canvassers proclaim as elected mayor, Jean, Joyette or Gem? Explain.

2.

Who is entitled to discharge the functions of the office of the mayor, Joyette or Gem? Explain.

A:

1.

It is Jean who should be proclaimed as winner, because she was the one who obtained the highest number of votes for the position of mayor, but a notation should be made that she died for the purpose of applying the rule on succession to office. Joyette cannot be proclaimed, because the death of the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes does not entitle the candidate who obtained the next highest number of votes to be proclaimed the winner, since he was not the choice of the electorate. Gem is not entitled to be proclaimed elected as mayor, because she ran for the Sangguniang Bayan.

2.

Neither Joyette nor Gem is entitled to discharge the functions of the office of mayor. Joyette is not entitled to discharge the office of mayor, since she was defeated in the election. Gem is not entitled to discharge the office of mayor. Under Sec. 44 of the Local Government Code, it is the vice mayor who should succeed in case of permanent vacancy in the office of the mayor. It is only when the position of the vice mayor is also vacant that the member of the Sangguniang Bayan who obtained the highest number of votes will succeed to the office of mayor. ( Benito v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

106053, August 17, 1994)

Q: Renato and Enrique, both sharing the same surname Dela Cruz, run for Vice Mayor. Renato had

Enrique declared to be a nuisance candidate and asked the COMELEC to strike out his name from the ballot. But the ballot still retained Enrique’s name despite his declaration as a nuisance candidate.

During Renato’s campaign, he stressed that his designated number was 2 and that Enrique was declared by the COMELEC to be a nuisance candidate.

Bruno, the other candidate, won as Vice Mayor by a difference of 39 votes against Renato. COMELEC regarded the votes cast for Enrique as stray votes.

Renato contends that he should have won had the votes cast for Enrique been counted in his favor.

Should the stray votes for Enrique be counted in favor of Renato?

A: Yes .

As we pronounced in Bautista, the voters’ constructive knowledge of such cancelled candidacy made their will more determinable, as it is then more logical to conclude that the votes cast for Enrique could have been intended only for the legitimate candidate, Renato. The possibility of confusion in names of candidates if the names of nuisance candidates remained on the ballots on election day, cannot be discounted or eliminated, even under the automated voting system especially considering that voters who mistakenly shaded the oval beside the name of the nuisance candidate instead of the bona fide candidate they intended to vote for could no longer ask for replacement ballots to correct the same.

( Dela Cruz v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 192221, November

13,2012)

PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE OR CANCEL A

CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY

Period to file a petition to deny due course to or cancel a CoC

A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a CoC may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Sec. 74 of the OEC is false.

The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five (25) days from the time of the filing of the

CoC and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.

Requisites for the grant of a petition to deny due course to or cancel a CoC

1.

Material misrepresentation in the qualifications for elective office, which includes age, residency, citizenship, and any other legal qualifications necessary to run for an elective office;

2.

Deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.

NOTE: These two requirements must concur to warrant the cancellation of the CoC.

Material misrepresentation

Material misrepresentation in a CoC refers to the qualification for elective office, which includes false statement as to age, residency, citizenship, being a registered voter and any other legal qualifications necessary to run for an elective office.

NOTE: A misrepresentation which does not affect one’s qualification to run or hold public office will not suffice for the cancellation of a CoC.


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

198

EFFECT OF DISQUALIFICATION

Effects of disqualification

Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for. The votes cast in his favor shall not be counted.

If the candidate is not disqualified by final judgment before the election and receives the highest number of votes in the election, the court or COMELEC will continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest. Upon motion of the complainant or intervenor, the court or COMELEC may order the suspension of the proclamation of the candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is strong.

Remedy of a petitioner if the petition for disqualification is unresolved on the day of the election

The petitioner may file a motion with the Division or

Commission En Banc where the case is pending, to suspend the proclamation of the candidate concerned, provided that the evidence for the grounds to disqualify is strong. For this purpose, at least three (3) days prior to any election, the Clerk of the Commission shall prepare a list of pending cases and furnish all

Commissioners copies of the said list.

In the event that a candidate with an existing and pending Petition to disqualify is proclaimed winner, the Commission shall continue to resolve the said petition. (Sec. 5, Rule 25, COMELEC Res. 9523, 25

September 2012)

WITHDRAWAL OF CANDIDATES

Rule on withdrawal of candidates

To be effective, the withdrawal should be under oath or in the form of a sworn declaration that he is withdrawing his CoC, such being the requirement of the law. A withdrawal of candidacy which is not a valid withdrawal generally produces no legal effect, and for all legal intents and purposes there is no withdrawal and he remains a candidate. The exception to this rule is when the withdrawal which is not under oath, is actually made and accepted by the election registrar, as a result of which a substitute candidate files his CoC in his place and receives the winning number of votes.

NOTE: Any person who has filed a CoC may withdraw the same (Sec. 15, COMELEC Res. 9518, 11 September 2012)

It must be noted that withdrawal of a CoC cannot be made by someone else. “It must be filed personally subject to the

E LECTION L AW rule on substitution of candidates. No Statement of

Withdrawal shall be accepted if filed by a person other than the candidate himself or if filed by mail, electronic mail, telegram or facsimile.” (Sec. 15, COMELEC Res. 9518, 11

September 2012)

Period to withdraw Certificate of Candidacy

At any time before Election Day. (Sec. 15, COMELEC

Res. 9518, 11 September 2012)

Effect of withdrawal on the liabilities of the candidate

The filing of a withdrawal of a CoC shall not affect whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities a candidate may have incurred. (Sec. 15, COMELEC Res.

9518, 11 September 2012)

Q: May a person who has withdrawn his CoC be eligible to run for another position or become a substitute candidate?

A: A person who has withdrawn his CoC for a position shall not be eligible, whether as a substitute candidate or not, for any other position. (Sec. 15, COMELEC

Resolution 9518, 11 September 2012)

Q: On the last day of filing a CoC, March 31, Kristine

Rossellini withdrew her CoC. On April 1, campaign period started. On April 2, she wanted to run again so she filed a written declaration withdrawing her withdrawal. Is her act of withdrawing the withdrawal valid?

A: No . The withdrawal of the withdrawal of the CoC made after the last day of filing is considered as filing of a new CoC. Hence, it was not allowed since it was filed out of time . (Monsale v. Nico, G.R. No. L-2539,

May 28, 1949)

CAMPAIGN

PREMATURE CAMPAIGNING

Election campaign

An act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office which shall include:

1.

Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate

2.

Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking

199



Political and International Law any campaign or propaganda for or against a candidate

3.

Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public office

4.

Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support or oppose the election of any candidate; or

5.

Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against a candidate. (Sec. 79, BP

881 OEC)

NOTE: The foregoing enumerated acts if performed for the purpose of enhancing the chances of aspirants for nomination for candidacy to a public office by a political party, aggroupment, or coalition of parties shall not be considered as election campaign or partisan election activity.

Public expressions or opinions or discussions of probable issues in a forthcoming election or on attributes of or criticisms against probable candidates proposed to be nominated in a forthcoming political party convention shall not be construed as part of any election campaign or partisan political activity contemplated under the OEC. (Sec.

79, BP 881 OEC)

Period to campaign

1.

Presidential and Vice presidential election – 90 days;

2.

Election of members of the Congress and local election – 45 days;

3.

Barangay Election – 15 days

4.

Special election under Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2) of the

Constitution – 45 days

NOTE: The campaign periods shall not include the day before and the day of the election. (Sec. 3, BP 881 OEC)

Premature campaign

It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period.

Provided, that political parties may hold political conventions or meetings to nominate their official candidates within thirty days before the commencement of the campaign period and forty-five days for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election.

(Sec. 80, BP 881 OEC)

NOTE: The use of lawful election propaganda under the Fair

Elections Act is subject to the supervision and regulation by the COMELEC in order to prevent premature campaigning and to equalize, as much as practicable, the situation of all candidates by preventing popular and rich candidates from


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

200 gaining undue advantage in exposure and publicity on account of their resources and popularity.

(Chavez v.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 162777, August 31, 2004)

Q: Petitioner Diana De Castro and respondent Marj

Perez ran for mayor of Sta. Monica, Surigao Del Norte during the May 14, 2007 elections. Diana’s political party held a motorcade preceding the filing of her

CoC announcing her candidacy for mayor. Because of this, Marj filed a petition to disqualify Diana for engaging in premature campaigning in violation of

Sec.80 and 68 of the OEC. Did Diana violate the prohibition against premature campaigning?

A: The campaign period for local officials began on 30

March 2007 and ended on 12 May 2007. Diana filed her CoC on 29 March 2007. Diana was thus a candidate on 29 March 2009 only for purposes of printing the ballots under Sec. 11 of RA 8436. On 29 March 2007, the law still did not consider Diana a candidate for purposes other than the printing of ballots. Acts committed by Diana prior to 30 March 2007, the date when she became a "candidate," even if constituting election campaigning or partisan political activities, are not punishable under Sec. 80 of the OEC. Such acts are within the realm of a citizen’s protected freedom of expression. Acts committed by Diana within the campaign period are not covered by Sec. 80 as Sec. 80 punishes only acts outside the campaign period.

In layman’s language, this means that a candidate is liable for an election offense only for acts done during the campaign period, not before. The law is clear as daylight — any election offense that may be committed by a candidate under any election law cannot be committed before the start of the campaign period. (Penera v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181613,


Candidate

Any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a CoC by himself or through an accredited political party, aggroupment or coalition of parties. However, it is no longer enough to merely file a CoC for a person to be considered a candidate because "any person who files his CoC within the filing period shall only be considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his CoC." Any person may thus file a CoC on any day within the prescribed period for filing a CoC yet that person shall be considered a candidate, for purposes of determining one’s possible violations of election laws, only during the campaign period.

(Ibid.)

E LECTION L AW

PROHIBITED CONTRIBUTIONS

Electoral contributions and expenditures

1.

Gift

2.

Donation

3.

Subscription

4.

Loan

5.

Advance or deposit of money or anything of value

6.

A contract, promise or agreement of contribution, whether or not legally enforceable

7.

Use of facilities voluntarily donated by other persons, the money value of which can be assessed based on the rates prevailing in the area

8.

Those made for the purpose of influencing the results of the elections

NOTE: Does not include services rendered without compensation by individuals volunteering a portion or all of their time in behalf of a candidate or political party. (Sec. 94,

BP 881 OEC)

Prohibited contributions

Those made for purposes of partisan political activity, directly or indirectly by any of the following:

1.

Public or private financial institutions (except loans made by such institutions in the business of lending money to a candidate or political party, made in accordance with laws and in the ordinary course of business)

2.

Persons operating public utilities or those exploiting natural resources of the nation

3.

Persons with contracts to supply the government with goods or services or to perform construction or other works

4.

Grantees of franchises, incentives, exemptions, allocations, or similar privileges or concessions by the government

5.

Persons who, within one year prior to the date of the election, have been granted by the government loans or other accommodations in excess of P100,000

6.

Educational institutions which have received grants of public funds not less than P100,000

7.

Officials or employees in the Civil Service or members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; and

8.

Foreigners and foreign corporations. (Sec. 95, BP

881 OEC)

Prohibited means of raising funds

1.

Holding any of the following activities: a.

Dances b.

Lotteries c.

Cockfights d.

Games e.

Boxing bouts f.

Bingo g.

Beauty contests h.

Entertainments i.

Cinematographic, theatrical, or other performances for the purpose of raising funds for an election campaign or for the support of any candidate from the commencement of the election period up to and including election day.

2.

It shall also be unlawful for any person or organization, whether civic or religious, directly or indirectly, to solicit and/or accept from any candidate for public office or his representative any gift, food, transportation, contribution or donation in cash or in kind from the commencement of the election period up to and including election day, except normal and customary religious stipends, tithes, or collections. (Sec. 97, BP 881 OEC)

LAWFUL AND PROHIBITED PROPAGANDA

Lawful election propaganda

1.

Written printed materials (does not exceed 8 ½ in. width by 14 in. length)

2.

Handwritten/printed letters

3.

Posters (not exceeding 2 x 3 ft. or 3 x 8 ft. on the occasion of a public meeting or rally, or in announcing the holding of such). Provided, that said streamers may be displayed five (5) days before the date of rally but shall be removed within 24 hours after said rally;

4.

Print ads – ¼ page in broadsheets and ½ page in tabloids thrice a week per newspaper, magazine or other publication during the campaign period;

5.

Broadcast media ( i.e. TV and radio)

6.

All other forms of election propaganda not prohibited by the OEC or this Act. (Sec. 3,RA 9006,

The Fair Elections Act)

7.

Streamers not exceeding three feet (3’) by eight feet (8’) in size displayed at the site and on the occasion of a public meeting or rally. Said streamers may be displayed five (5) days before the date of the meeting or rally and shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours after said meeting or rally

8.

Mobile units, vehicles motorcades of all types, whether engine or manpower driven or animal drawn, with or without sound systems or loud speakers and with or without lights;

201




9.

Paid advertisements in print or broadcast media subject to the requirements set forth in Sec.

9 hereof and RA 9006; (Sec. 6, COMELEC Res.

9615, 15 January 2013)

Prohibited forms of election propaganda a) To print, publish, post or distribute any newspaper, newsletter, newsweekly, gazette or magazine advertising, pamphlet, leaflet, card, decal, bumper sticker, poster, comic book, circular, handbill, streamer, sample list of candidates or any published or printed political matter and to air or broadcast any election propaganda or political advertisement by television or radio or on the internet for or against a candidate or group of candidates to any public office, unless they bear and be identified by the reasonably legible, or audible words “political advertisement paid for,” followed by the true and correct name and address of the candidate or party for whose benefit the election propaganda was printed or aired. It shall likewise be unlawful to publish, print or distribute said campaign materials unless they bear, and are identified by, the reasonably legible, or audible words “political advertisements paid by,” followed by the true and correct name and address of the payor. b) To print, publish, broadcast or exhibit any such election propaganda donated or given free of charge by any person or publishing firm or broadcast entity to a candidate or party without the written acceptance by the said candidate or party and unless they bear and be identified by the words "printed free of charge,” or “airtime for this broadcast was provided free of charge by”, respectively, followed by the true and correct name and address of the said publishing firm or broadcast entity; c) To show, display or exhibit publicly in a theater, television station, or any public forum any movie, cinematography or documentary portraying the life or biography of a candidate, or in which a character is portrayed by an actor or media personality who is himself a candidate; d) For any newspaper or publication, radio, television or cable television station, or other mass media, or any person making use of the mass media to sell or to give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or election propaganda purposes to any candidate or party in excess of the size, duration or frequency authorized by law or these rules; e) For any radio, television, cable television station, announcer or broadcaster to allow the scheduling of any program, or permit any sponsor to manifestly favor or oppose any candidate or party by unduly or repeatedly referring to, or unnecessarily mentioning his name, or including therein said candidate or party; and f) To post, display or exhibit any election campaign or propaganda material outside of authorized common poster areas, in public places, or in private properties without the consent of the owner thereof. g) Public places referred to in the previous subsection (f) include any of the following: a.

Electronic announcement boards, such as

LED display boards located along highways and streets, LCD TV displays posted on walls of public buildings, and other similar devices which are owned by local government units, government-owned and controlled corporations, or any agency or instrumentality of the Government; b.

Motor vehicles used as patrol cars, ambulances, and other similar purposes that are owned by local government units, government-owned and controlled corporations, and other agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, particularly those bearing red license plates; c.

Waiting sheds, sidewalks, street and lamp posts, electric posts and wires, traffic signages and other signboards erected on public property, pedestrian overpasses and underpasses, flyovers and underpasses, bridges, main thoroughfares, center islands of roads and highways d.

Schools, shrines, barangay halls, health centers, public structures and buildings or any edifice thereof; e.

Public utility vehicles such as buses, jeepneys, trains, taxi cabs, ferries, pedicabs and tricycles, whether motorized or not; f.

Within the premises of public transport terminals, such as bus terminals, airports, seaports, docks, piers, train stations, and the like.

The violation of letters d and e under subsection (g) shall be a cause for the revocation of the public utility franchise and will make the owner and/or operator of the transportation service and/or terminal liable for an election offense under Sec. 9 of RA 9006 as implemented by Sec. 18 (n) of these Rules.

The printing press, printer, or publisher who prints, reproduces or publishes said campaign materials, and the broadcaster, station manager, owner of the radio or television station, or owner or administrator of any website who airs or shows the political advertisements, without the required data or in


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

202

E LECTION L AW violation of these rules shall be criminally liable with the candidate and, if applicable, further suffer the penalties of suspension or revocation of franchise or permit in accordance with law. (Sec. 6, COMELEC Res.

9615, 15 January 2013)

ALLOWABLE COMELEC AIR TIME FOR

CANDIDATES (Fair Elections Act)

NATIONAL POSITIONS

120 minutes for TV

LOCAL POSITIONS

60 minutes for TV

180 minutes for radio 90 minutes for radio

NOTE: The COMELEC cannot compel newspapers of general circulation to donate free print space as COMELEC space without payment of just compensation. Such compulsion amounts to taking; hence, it is an exercise of eminent domain and not of police power. ( Philippine Press Institute v.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 119694, May 22, 1995) The payment of just compensation is now expressly provided under Sec. 7 of the Fair Elections Act.

However, all broadcasting stations, whether by radio or television stations, which are licensed by the government, do not own the airways and frequencies; they are merely given the temporary privilege of using them. A franchise is a privilege subject to amendment, and the provision of BP 881 granting free airtime to the COMELEC is an amendment of the franchise of radio and television stations.

(Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the

Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 132922, April 21, 1998)

Payment of just compensation is not necessary since it is a valid exercise of police power.

Q: A COMELEC resolution provides that political parties supporting a common set of candidates shall be allowed to purchase jointly air time and the aggregate amount of advertising space purchased for campaign purposes shall not exceed that allotted to other political parties or groups that nominated only one set of candidates. The resolution is challenged as a violation of the freedom of speech and of the press.

Is the resolution constitutionally defensible? Explain.

A: Yes . The resolution is constitutionally defensible.

Under Sec. 4, Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, during the election period the COMELEC may supervise or regulate the media of communication or information to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space among candidates with the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. To allow candidates who are supported by more than one political party to purchase more air time and advertising space than candidates supported by one political party only will deprive the latter of equal time and space in the media.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No . Although the expenditure limitation applies only to the purchase of air time, thus leaving political parties free to spend for other forms of campaign, the limitation nonetheless results in a direct and substantial reduction of the quantity of political speech by restricting the number of issues that can be discussed, the depth of their discussion and the size of the audience that can be reached, through the broadcast media.

Since the purpose of the Free Speech Clause is to promote the widest possible dissemination of information, and the reality is that to do this requires the expenditure of money, a limitation on expenditure for this purpose cannot be justified, not even for the purpose of equalizing the opportunity of political candidates. (Gonzalez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28783,

April 18, 1969)

Rules on election propaganda

1.

All registered parties and bona fide candidates shall have a right to reply to charges published against them.

2.

No movie, cinematographic, documentary portraying the life or biography of a candidate shall be publicly exhibited in theatre, TV station, or any public forum during the campaign period.

3.

No movie ,cinematograph, documentary portrayed by an actor or media personality who is himself a candidate shall be publicly exhibited in a theatre, TV station or any public form during the campaign period.

4.

All mass media entities shall furnish the COMELEC with the copies of all contracts for advertising, promoting, or opposing any political party or the candidacy of any person for public office within 5 days after its signing.

5.

Any media personality who is a candidate or is campaign volunteer for or employed or retained in a capacity by any candidate or political party shall be deemed resigned, if so requires by their employer, shall take a LOA from his work as such during campaign period.

Q: COMELEC promulgated a resolution providing that decals and stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas provided for. Atty.

Espaldon, a senatorial candidate, assails the

COMELEC's Resolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and stickers in "mobile" places like cars and other moving vehicles. According to him, such prohibition is violative of Sec. 82 of the OEC and

Sec. 11(a) of RA 6646. Is the resolution valid?

203




A: No . The COMELEC's prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on "mobile" places whether public or private except in designated areas provided for by the

COMELEC itself is null and void on constitutional grounds. The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen's fundamental right of free speech enshrined in the Constitution. (Sec. 4, Art. III) Significantly, the freedom of expression curtailed by the questioned prohibition is not so much that of the candidate or the political party. The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and, by displaying it on his car, to convince others to agree with him.

Also, the questioned prohibition premised on the statute (RA 6646) and as couched in the resolution is void for overbreadth. The restriction as to where the decals and stickers should be posted is so broad that it encompasses even the citizen's private property, which in this case is a privately-owned vehicle. In consequence of this prohibition, another cardinal rule prescribed by the Constitution would be violated. Sec.

1, Art. III of the Bill of Rights provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. The right to property may be subject to a greater degree of regulation but when this right is joined by a "liberty" interest, the burden of justification on the part of the Government must be exceptionally convincing and irrefutable. The burden is not met in this case.

Additionally, the constitutional objective to give a rich candidate and a poor candidate equal opportunity to inform the electorate as regards their candidacies, mandated by Art. II, Sec. 26 and Art. XIII, Sec. 1 in relation to Art. IX (c) Sec. 4 of the Constitution, is not impaired by posting decals and stickers on cars and other private vehicles. It is to be reiterated that the posting of decals and stickers on cars, calesas , tricycles, pedicabs and other moving vehicles needs the consent of the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the preference of the citizen becomes crucial in this kind of election propaganda not the financial resources of the candidate. (Adiong v. Comelec, G.R. No. 103956,

March 31, 1992)

Q: Is the conduct of election survey prohibited?

A: No . The SC held that Sec. 5.4 of the Fair Elections

Act prohibiting publication of survey results 15 days immediately preceding a national election and 7 days before a local election violates the constitutional rights of speech, expression and the press because:

1.

It imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression

2.

It is a direct and total suppression of a category of expression and even though such suppression is only for a limited period; and

3.

The governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other than the suppression of freedom of expression. ( SWS v.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 147571, May 5, 2001)

Q: May the media be compelled to publish the results of the election survey?

A: No , but should they decide to publish the said survey for public consumption, they must likewise publish the following information: a.

The name of the person, candidate, party, or organization that commissioned or paid for the survey; b.

The name of the person, polling firm or survey organization who conducted the survey; c.

The period during which the survey was conducted, the methodology used, including the number of individual respondents and the areas from which they were selected, and the specific questions asked; d.

The margin of error of the survey; e.

For each question for which the margin of error is greater than that reported under par. (4), the margin of error for that question; and f.

A mailing address and telephone number, indicating it as an address or telephone number at which the sponsor can be contacted to obtain a written report regarding the survey in accordance with the next succeeding paragraph. g.

The survey together with raw data gathered to support its conclusions shall be available for inspection, copying and verification by the

Commission. Any violation of this SEC. shall constitute an election offense. (Sec. 26, COMELEC

Res. 9615 as amended by COMELEC Res. 9631, 1

February 2013)

Q: Does the conduct of exit polls transgress the sanctity and secrecy of the ballot?

A: No . In exit polls, the contents of the official ballot are not actually exposed. Furthermore, the revelation of whom an elector has voted for is not compulsory, but voluntary.

Voters may also choose not to reveal their identities.

Indeed, narrowly tailored countermeasures may be prescribed by the COMELEC, so as to minimize or suppress incidental problems in the conduct of exit polls, without transgressing the fundamental rights of our people. (ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 133486, January 28, 2000)


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

204

Requirements in the conduct of exit polls a.

Pollster shall not conduct their surveys within fifty

(50) meters from the polling place, whether said survey is taken in a home, dwelling place and other places; b.

Pollsters shall wear distinctive clothing and prominently wear their identification cards issued by the organization they represent; c.

Pollsters shall inform the voters that they may refuse to answer; and

The results of the exit polls may be announced after the closing of the polls on Election Day, and must identify the total number of respondents, and the places where they were taken. Said announcement shall state that the same is unofficial and does not represent a trend. (Sec. 27, COMELEC Res. 9615, 15

January 2013)

Allowance of right to reply

All registered political parties, party-list groups or coalitions and bona fide c andidates shall have the right to reply to charges published or aired against them.

The reply shall be given publicity by the newspaper, television, and/or radio station which first printed or aired the charges with the same prominence or in the same age or section or in the same time slot as the first statement. (Sec. 14, COMELEC Resolution 9615 as amended by COMELEC Res. 9631, 1 February 2013)

Persons who may invoke the right

Registered political parties, party-list groups or coalitions and bona fide candidates may invoke the right to reply. (Sec. 14, COMELEC Resolution 9615 as amended by COMELEC Res. 9631, 1 February 2013)

Time within which the candidate may invoke the right to reply

By submitting a formal verified claim within a nonextendible period of forty eight (48) hours from first broadcast or publication against the media outlet to the COMELEC, through the appropriate Regional

Election Director (RED) (Sec. 14, COMELEC Resolution

9615 as amended by COMELEC Resolution 9631, 1

February 2013)

NOTE: The formal verified claim shall include: a) A detailed enumeration of the circumstances and occurrences which warrant the invocation of the right of reply b) Must be accompanied by supporting evidence, such as a copy of the publication or recording of the television or radio broadcast, as the case may be.

E LECTION L AW c) If the supporting evidence is not yet available due to circumstances beyond the power of the claimant, the latter shall supplement his claim as soon as the supporting evidence becomes available, without delay on the part of the claimant. d) Claimant must furnish a copy of the verified claim and its attachments to the media outlet concerned prior to the filing of the claim with the COMELEC. (Sec. 14,

COMELEC Res. 9615 as amended by COMELEC Res.

9631, 1 February 2013)

Period of resolution

The COMELEC, through the RED, shall review the verified claim within forty-eight (48) hours from receipt thereof, including supporting evidence, and if circumstances warrant, give notice to the media outlet involved for appropriate action, which shall, within forty-eight (48) hours, submit its comment, answer or response to the RED, explaining the action it has taken to address the claim. The media outlet must likewise furnish a copy of the said comment, answer or response to the claimant invoking the right to reply.

(Sec. 14, COMELEC Res. 9615 as amended by COMELEC

Res. 9631, 1 February 2013)

Remedy of a candidate who feels that his right to reply was not addressed

File the appropriate petition and/or complaint before the Commission on Elections or its field offices, which shall be endorsed to the Clerk of the Commission. (Sec.

14, COMELEC Res. 9615 as amended by COMELEC Res.

9631, 1 February 2013)

LIMITATION AND EXPENSES

Limitations on expenses for the candidates and political parties a.

For candidates - Three pesos (P3.00) for every voter currently registered in the constituency where the candidate filed his CoC; b.

For other candidates without any political party and without support from any political party – Five pesos (P5.00) for every voter currently registered in the constituency where the candidate filed his

CoC. c.

For Political Parties and party-list groups – Five pesos (P5.00) for every voter currently registered in the constituency or constituencies where it has official candidates. (Sec. 5, COMELEC Res. 9615, 15

January 2013)

205




Lawful expenditures

1.

Traveling expenses

2.

Compensation of campaigners, clerks, stenographers, messengers and other persons actually employed in the campaign

3.

Telegraph and telephone tolls, postage, freight and express delivery charges

4.

Stationery, printing and distribution of printed matters relative to candidacy

5.

Employment of watchers at the polls

6.

Rent, maintenance and furnishing of campaign headquarters, office or place of meetings

7.

Political meetings or rallies

8.

Advertisements

9.

Employment of counsel, the cost of which shall not be taken into account in determining the amount of expenses which a candidate or political party may have incurred

10.

Copying and classifying list of voters, investigating and challenging the right to vote of persons registered in the lists, the cost of which shall not be taken into account in determining the amount of expenses which a candidate or political party may have incurred

11.

Printing sample ballots, the cost of which shall not be taken into account in determining the amount of expenses which a candidate or political party may have incurred. (Sec. 102, BP 88, OEC)

NOTE: The cost of numbers 9, 10, 11 shall not be taken into account in determining the amount of expenses which a candidate or political party may have incurred.

STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES

Statement of contribution and expenses

Every candidate and treasurer of the political party shall, within 30 days after the day of the election, file in duplicate with the offices of the COMELEC, the full, true and itemized statement of all contributions and expenditures in connection with the election. ( Sec. 14,

RA 7166)

Effects of failure to file the said statement

1.

No person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has filed the statement of contributions and expenditures herein required. The same prohibition shall apply if the political party which nominated the winning candidates, or winning party-list group, fails to file the statement required herein.

2.

Such failure will constitute an administrative offense for which the offenders shall be liable to pay an administrative fine. Provided, that this


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

206 does not apply to candidates for elective barangay office. (Sec. 14, RA 7166)

BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS AND BOARD OF

CANVASSERS

Composition of the Board of Canvassers (BoC)

1.

Provincial board of canvassers – The provincial board of canvassers shall be composed of the provincial election supervisor or a senior lawyer in the regional office of the Commission, as chairman, the provincial fiscal, as vice-chairman, and the provincial superintendent of schools, and one representative from each of the ruling party and the dominant opposition political party in the constituency concerned entitled to be represented, as members.

2.

City board of canvassers – The city board of canvassers shall be composed of the city election registrar or a lawyer of the Commission, as chairman, the city fiscal and the city superintendent of schools, and one representative from each of the ruling party and the dominant opposition political party entitled to be represented, as members.

3.

District board of canvassers of Metropolitan

Manila – The district board of canvassers shall be composed of a lawyer of the Commission, as chairman, and a ranking fiscal in the district and the most senior district school supervisor in the district to be appointed upon consultation with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of

Education, Culture and Sports, respectively, and one representative from each of the ruling party and the dominant opposition political party in the constituency concerned, as members.

4.

Municipal board of canvassers – The municipal board of canvassers shall be composed of the election registrar or a representative of the

Commission, as chairman, the municipal treasurer, and the district supervisor or in his absence any public school principal in the municipality and one representative from each of the ruling party and the dominant opposition political party entitled to be represented, as members.

5.

Board of canvassers for newly created political subdivisions – The Commission shall constitute a board of canvassers and appoint the members thereof for the first election in a newly created province, city or municipality in case the officials who shall act as members thereof have not yet assumed their duties and functions. (Sec. 221, BP

881 OEC)

E LECTION L AW

Supervision and control over the BOC

The Commission shall have direct control and supervision over the board of canvassers. Any member of the board of canvassers may, at any time, be relieved for cause and substituted motu proprio by the

Commission. (Sec. 227., BP 881, OEC)

BOC for President and Vice-President

Congress

Duties of Congress as BOC for President and Vice

President

Congress shall determine the authenticity and due execution of certificate of canvass.

1.

Each certificate of canvass was executed, signed, thumb marked by the Chair and transmitted to

Congress

2.

Each certificate contains the names of all candidates and votes and words and figures.

3.

No discrepancy in authentic copies

BOC for Senators

COMELEC en banc.

Manner of delivery and transmittal of election returns

CITY AND MUNICIPAL

BOARD OF CANVASSERS

PROVINCIAL AND

DISTRICT BOARDS OF

CANVASSERS IN

METROPOLITAN

MANILA

The copy of the election returns shall be personally delivered

The copy of the election returns, duly placed inside a sealed envelope signed and affixed with the imprint of the thumb of the right hand of all the members of the board of election inspectors, shall be personally delivered by the members of the board of election by the members of the board of inspectors canvassers election to under proper receipt to be signed by all the members thereof. the election registrar for transmittal to the proper board of inspectors to the city or municipal board of canvassers under proper receipt to be signed by all the members thereof.

The election registrar concerned shall place all the returns intended for the board of canvassers inside a ballot box provided with three padlocks whose keys shall be kept as follows: one by the election registrar, another by the representative of the ruling party and the third by the representative of the dominant political opposition party. (Sec. 229, BP881, OEC)

Process of safekeeping of transmitted election returns

The board of canvassers shall keep the ballot boxes containing the election returns in a safe and secure room before and after the canvass. The door to the room must be padlocked by three locks with the keys thereof kept as follows:

1.

One with the chairman,

2.

The other with the representative of the ruling party,

3.

And the other with the representative of the dominant opposition political party.

The watchers of candidates, political parties, coalition of political parties and organization collectively authorized by the Commission to appoint watchers shall have the right to guard the room. Violation of this right shall constitute an election offense. (Sec. 230, BP

881 OEC)

Process of canvassing by the board

1.

The BOC shall meet not later than six o'clock in the afternoon of Election Day at the place designated by the Commission to receive the election returns and to immediately canvass those that may have already been received.

2.

It shall meet continuously from day to day until the canvass is completed, and may adjourn but only for the purpose of awaiting the other election returns from other polling places within its jurisdiction.

3.

Each time the board adjourns, it shall make a total of all the votes canvassed so far for each candidate for each office, furnishing the

Commission in Manila by the fastest means of communication a certified copy thereof, and making available the data contained therein to the mass media and other interested parties.

4.

As soon as the other election returns are delivered, the board shall immediately resume canvassing until all the returns have been canvassed.

5.

The respective board of canvassers shall prepare a certificate of canvass duly signed and affixed with the imprint of the thumb of the right hand of each member, supported by a statement of the

207



Political and International Law votes received by each candidate in each polling place and, on the basis thereof, shall proclaim as elected the candidates who obtained the highest number of votes cast in the province, city, municipality or barangay. ( Sec. 231, BP 881 OEC )

NOTE: Failure to comply with this requirement shall constitute an election offense.

Persons not allowed inside the canvassing room

1.

Any officer or member of the Armed Forces of the

Philippines, including the Philippine Constabulary, or the Integrated National Police

2.

Any peace officer or any armed or unarmed persons belonging to an extra-police agency, special forces, reaction forces, strike forces, home defense forces, barangay self-defense units, barangay tanods

3.

Any member of the security or police organizations of government ministries, commissions, councils, bureaus, offices, instrumentalities, or government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries

4.

Any member of a privately owned or operated security, investigative, protective or intelligence agency performing identical or similar functions to enter the room where the canvassing of the election returns are held by the board of canvassers and within a radius of fifty meters from such room. (Sec. 232, BP 881, OEC)

NOTE: The board of canvassers by a majority vote, if it deems necessary, may make a call in writing for the detail of policemen or any peace officers for their protection or for the protection of the election documents and paraphernalia in the possession of the board, or for the maintenance of peace and order, in which case said policemen or peace officers, who shall be in proper uniform, shall stay outside the room within a radius of thirty meters near enough to be easily called by the board of canvassers at any time. (Ibid.)

Duty of the BoC in case the election returns are delayed, lost or destroyed

In case its copy of the election returns is missing, the board of canvassers shall:

1.

Obtain such missing election returns from the board of election inspectors concerned

2.

If said returns have been lost or destroyed, the board of canvassers, upon prior authority of the

Commission, may use any of the authentic copies of said election returns or a certified copy of said election returns issued by the Commission, and forthwith

3.

Direct its representative to investigate the case and immediately report the matter to the

Commission


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

208

NOTE: The BoC, notwithstanding the fact that not all the election returns have been received by it, may terminate the canvass and proclaim the candidates elected on the basis of the available election returns if the missing election returns will not affect the results of the election (Sec. 233, BP 881,

OEC)

Duty of the BoC when the integrity of ballots is violated

1.

In case of material defects in the election returns -

If it should clearly appear that some requisites in form or data had been omitted in the election returns, the board of canvassers shall call for all the members of the board of election inspectors concerned by the most expeditious means, for the same board to effect the correction. In case of the omission in the election returns of the name of any candidate and/or his corresponding votes, the board of canvassers shall require the board of election inspectors concerned to complete the necessary data in the election returns and affix therein their initials. (Sec. 234, BP 881, OEC)

NOTE: The right of a candidate to avail of this provision shall not be lost or affected by the fact that an election protest is subsequently filed by any of the candidates.

2.

In case the election returns appear to be tampered with or falsified - If the election returns submitted to the board of canvassers appear to be tampered with, altered or falsified after they have left the hands of the board of election inspectors, or otherwise not authentic, or were prepared by the board of election inspectors under duress, force, intimidation, or prepared by persons other than the member of the board of election inspectors, the board of canvassers shall use the other copies of said election returns and, if necessary, the copy inside the ballot box which upon previous authority given by the Commission may be retrieved in accordance with Sec. 220 hereof. (Sec.

235, BP 881 OEC)

3.

In case of discrepancies in the election return - if it appears to the board of canvassers that there exists discrepancies in the other authentic copies of the election returns from a polling place or discrepancies in the votes of any candidate in words and figures in the same return, and in either case the difference affects the results of the election, the Commission, upon motion of the board of canvassers or any candidate affected and after due notice to all candidates concerned, shall proceed summarily to determine whether the integrity of the ballot box had been preserved,

E LECTION L AW and once satisfied thereof shall order the opening of the ballot box to recount the votes cast in the polling place solely for the purpose of determining the true result of the count of votes of the candidates concerned. (Sec. 236, BP 881, OEC)

NOTE: When integrity of ballots is violated. - The

Commission shall not recount the ballots but shall forthwith seal the ballot box and order its safekeeping. (Sec. 237, BP

881, OEC)

Canvass of remaining or unquestioned returns to continue.

If, after the canvass of all the said returns, it should be determined that the returns which have been set aside will affect the result of the election, no proclamation shall be made except upon orders of the Commission after due notice and hearing. Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be null and void.

(Sec. 238, BP 881, OEC)

Tie in election result

Whenever it shall appear from the canvass that two or more candidates have received an equal and highest number of votes, or in cases where two or more candidates are to be elected for the same position and two or more candidates received the same number of votes for the last place in the number to be elected, the board of canvassers, after recording this fact in its minutes, shall by resolution upon five days notice to all the tied candidates, hold a special public meeting at which the board of canvassers shall proceed to the drawing of lots of the candidates who have tied and shall proclaim as elected the candidates who may be favored by luck, and the candidates so proclaimed shall have the right to assume office in the same manner as if he had been elected by plurality of vote.

The board of canvassers shall forthwith make a certificate stating the name of the candidate who had been favored by luck and his proclamation on the basis thereof. (Sec. 240, BP 881 OEC)

Instances when proceedings of the BoC are considered illegal proceedings

There is an illegal proceeding of the BoC when the canvassing is a sham or mere ceremony, the results of which are pre-determined and manipulated as when any of the following circumstances are present:

1.

Precipitate canvassing

2.

Terrorism

3.

Lack of sufficient notice to the members of the

BoC's

4.

Improper venue. (Sec. 2, Rule 4, COMELEC Res.

8804, March 22, 2010)

Characteristics of canvassing

1.

The BoC is a collegial body.

2.

The BoC exercises ministerial duty.

3.

The BoC exercises quasi – judicial functions

4.

Proceedings before BOC are summary

5.

Canvassing shall be in public

6.

Proceedings are continuous from day to day, without interruption except to adjourn.

7.

After Proclamation, BOC becomes functus officio

Idem Sonans

Under Rule 7 of the rules for the appreciation of ballots in Sec. 211 of the OEC, the idem sonans rule means that a name or surname incorrectly written which, when read, has a sound similar to the name or surname of a candidate when correctly written shall be counted in his favor.

REMEDIES AND JURISDICTION IN ELECTION LAW

PETITION NOT TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO

CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY

Requisites for the grant of a petition to deny due course to or cancel a CoC

1.

Material misrepresentation in the qualifications for elective office, which includes age, residency, citizenship, and any other legal qualifications necessary to run for an elective office; and

2.

Deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.

NOTE: These two requirements must concur to warrant the cancellation of the CoC.

A verified petition may be filed exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained in the certificate as required under Sec. 74 is false. The petition may be filed not later than 25 days from the time of filing of the CoC, and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than 15 days before the election. (Sec. 78, BP 881, OEC)

Jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a COC lies with the

COMELEC in division, not with the COMELEC en banc .

(Garvida v. Sales, G.R. o. 122872, September 10, 1997)

Q: Joy and Bel both ran as mayoralty candidates in the Municipality of Marantao, Lanao del Sur. Bel filed a Petition for Disqualification and to Deny Due Course under Sec. 78 of the OEC against Joy. Bel alleged that

Joy was a double registrant, being a registered voter in Marawi City and Marantao. There being double registration, Joy’s subsequent registration in

Marantao was null and void. Therefore, Joy was disqualified to run for the position of municipal

209



Political and International Law mayor of said municipality. Is Joy’s voter registration a material fact, the falsity of which would be a ground for a petition to deny due course to her CoC?

A: In Maruhom v. COMELEC , G.R. No. 179430, July 27,

2009, the Court declared that a material fact refers to a candidate’s eligibility for qualification for elective office like citizenship, residence or status as a registered voter. A person’s voter registration constitutes a material fact because it affects her eligibility to be elected as municipal mayor of

Marantao. Sec. 39(a) of the LGC requires that an elective official must be, among other things, a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city or province where she intends to be elected.

Petition for disqualification v.

Petition to deny due course

PETITION FOR

DISQUALIFICATION

PETITION TO DENY

DUE COURSE/ CANCEL

COC

Premised on Sec. 12 or

OEC, or Sec. 40 of the

LGC.

A person who is disqualified under Sec.

68 is merely prohibited to continue as a candidate.

Based on a statement of a material representation in the said certificate that is false.

The person whose certificate is cancelled or denied due course under Sec. 78 is not treated as a candidate at all, as if he never filed a CoC.

A person whose Coc Thus, a candidate who is disqualified under Sec.

68 can be validly substituted under Sec.

77 of the OEC because he remains a candidate until disqualified. has been denied due course or cancelled under Sec. 78 cannot be substituted because he is never considered as candidate.

PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION

Petition for disqualification

It is the remedy against any candidate who does not possess all the qualifications required by the

Constitution or law, or who commits any act declared by law to be grounds for disqualification.

Time of filing the petition for disqualification

It may be filed any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy, but not later than the date of proclamation. ( 2013 COMELEC Rules of Procedure,

Rule 25, Sec. 3 )

Manner of the proceedings

The petition is heard summarily. However, the

COMELEC cannot disqualify a candidate without hearing and affording him opportunity to adduce evidence to support his side and taking into account such evidence.

Final and executory judgment

A Decision or Resolution is deemed final and executory if, in case of a Division ruling, no motion for reconsideration is filed within the reglementary period, or in cases of rulings of the Commission En

Banc , no restraining order is issued by the Supreme

Court within five (5) days from receipt of the decision or resolution. ( 2013 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Rule

23, Sec. 8 )

Grounds for disqualification

Those declared by final decision of a competent court, guilty of, or found by the Commission to be suffering from any disqualification provided by law or the Constitution ( 2013 COMELEC Rules of Procedure,

Rule 25, Sec. 1 )

1.

Lacking qualification

2.

Filing of COC for more than 1 office

3.

False and Material representation in the CoC

4.

Disqualification under the LGC

5.

Nuisance Candidate

6.

Election offenses enumerated under Sec. 68 of the OEC

7.

Declaration of insanity or incompetency by competent authority

8.

Sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or an offense which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than 18 months or a crime involving moral turpitude, unless given plenary pardon/ amnesty.

PETITION TO DECLARE FAILURE OF ELECTIONS

Instances where a failure of election may be declared

1.

The election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure , violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes;

2.

The election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure,


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

210

E LECTION L AW violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; and

3.

After the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or canvass thereof such election results in failure to elect on account of force majeure , violence, fraud or analogous causes. (Banaga Jr. vs Comelec, G.R.

No. 134696, July 31, 2000)

NOTE: There is a failure to elect when nobody can be declared as winner because the will of the majority has been defiled and cannot be ascertained.

Power to declare a failure of election

The COMELEC has the power to declare a failure of election and this can be exercised motu proprio or upon verified petition. (Loong v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos.

107814-15, May 16, 1996)

NOTE: The hearing is summary in nature and the COMELEC may delegate to its lawyers the power to hear the case and to receive evidence. (Ibid.)

Q: Is low turn-out of voters enough basis to grant a petition to declare a failure of election?

A: No . All the law requires is that a winning candidate must be elected by a plurality of valid votes, regardless of the actual number of ballots cast. Thus, even if less than 25% of the electorate in the questioned precincts cast their votes, the same must still be respected.

(Mitmug v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 106270-73, February

10, 1994)

Q: Due to violence and terrorism attending the casting of votes in a municipality in Lanao del Sur, it became impossible to hold therein free, orderly and honest elections. Several candidates for municipal positions withdrew from the race. One candidate for

Mayor petitioned the COMELEC for the postponement of the elections and the holding of special elections after the causes of such postponement or failure of elections shall have ceased.

1.

How many votes of the COMELEC Commissioners may be cast to grant the petition? Explain.

2.

A person who was not a candidate at the time of the postponement of the elections decided to run for an elective position and filed a CoC prior to the special elections. May his CoC be accepted? Explain.

3.

Suppose he ran as a substitute for a candidate who previously withdrew his candidacy, will your answer be the same? Explain.

A:

1.

The COMELEC shall decide by a majority vote of all its members on any case or matter brought before it. (Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the 1987 Constitution ) In

Cua v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 80519-2, December 17,

1987 , the Supreme Court stated that a two-to-one decision rendered by a Division of the COMELEC and a three-to-two decision rendered by the

COMELEC en banc was valid where only five members took part in deciding the case.

2.

No , his CoC cannot be accepted. As a rule, in cases of postponement or failure of election no additional CoC shall be accepted. ( Sec. 75, OEC)

NOTE: This rule does not apply in cases of substitution of candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of another under Sec. 77.

3.

No , the answer will be different. An additional CoC may be accepted in cases of postponement or failure of election if there was a substitution of candidates; but the substitute must belong to and must be endorsed by the same party. (Sec.75 OEC)

Q: Is a petition to declare failure of election different from a petition to annul the election results?

A: No . A prayer to declare failure of elections and a prayer to annul the election results are actually of the same nature. Whether an action is for declaration of failure of elections or for annulment of election results, based on allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence or analogous, the OEC denominates them similarly. (Banaga, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134696,

July 31, 2000)

NOTE: There is failure of elections only when the will of the electorate has been muted and cannot be ascertained.

(Benito v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134913, January 19, 2001)

Postponement of elections v.

Failure of elections

POSTPONEMENT OF

ELECTIONS

FAILURE OF ELECTIONS

Any serious cause of: a.

Force Majeure b.

Violence c.

Terrorism d.

Loss or destruction of election paraphernalia e.

Other analogous cases

Serious impossibility to have free and orderly elections

Grounds must exist before voting

Failure to elect and affect results of elections

Grounds may occur any time before proclamation

211




1.

Verified petition by any interested person or motu proprio by

1.

Verified petition by any interested person

2.

Due Notice

3.

Hearing COMELEC en banc

2.

Due notice

3.

Hearing

1.

Election is postponed

2.

Conduct elections reasonably close to elections not held, but not later than

30 days from cessation of cause

1.

Declaration of

2.

Failure of elections

Holding of continuation of elections reasonably close to election not held, but not later than

30 days from cessation of cause.

NOTE: The COMELEC en banc by majority vote may grant the postponement of elections and failure of elections.

PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSIES

Pre-proclamation controversies

They refer to any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers, and the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of election returns which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly with the COMELEC in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of election returns. (Sec. 241, BP 881

OEC)

NOTE: The purpose of this kind of controversy is to ascertain winners in the elections on basis of election returns duly authenticated by board of inspectors and admitted by the board of canvassers. (Abella v. Larrazabal, G.R. No. 87721-

30, December 21, 1989)

Nature of pre-proclamation controversy

It shall be heard summarily by the COMELEC. Its decision shall be executory after 5 days from receipt by the losing party, unless contrary orders from the SC.

Q: Are there pre-proclamation cases in elections for

President, Vice-president and Members of the House of Representatives on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of the election returns or the certificates of canvass?

A:

GR: No . (Sec. 15, Synchronized Election Law)


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

212

XPNs:

1.

Correction of manifest errors

2.

Questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers and

3.

Determination of the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass as provided in

Sec. 30 of RA 7166, as amended by RA 9369.

NOTE:

GR: The COMELEC is restricted to a mere examination of returns on their face and not to go beyond and investigate irregularities. (Belac v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 145802, April 4,

2001)

XPN: If there is a prima facie showing that return is not genuine. (Ibid.)

No pre-proclamation cases are allowed in case of barangay election. (Sec. 9, RA 6679)

Termination of pre-proclamation cases

GR: At the beginning of term of the officers. (Sec. 16,

RA 7166)

XPNs:

1.

When based on evidence, COMELEC determines that petition is meritorious

2.

The SC in a petition for certiorari issues a contrary order; or

3.

The case is not a pre-proclamation case.

(Peñaflorida v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 125950,


Issues which may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy

1.

Illegal composition or proceedings of the BoC

2.

Canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified; or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sec. 233, 234, 235, and 236 of BP

881.

NOTE: An incomplete canvass is illegal and cannot be the basis of a valid proclamation. A proclamation made where the contested returns set aside will affect the result of the election and the board of canvassers proceeded to proclaim without the authority from the

COMELEC is null and void. (Sema v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

141249-50, December 13, 2000)

3.

Election returns were prepared under duress threat, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic.

4.

When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the

E LECTION L AW results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate/s. (Sec. 243, BP 881,

OEC)

5.

Irregularities in relation to preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of election returns and certificate of canvass.

Petition to annul or suspend the proclamation

It is a remedy where there is a manifest error on the face of the transmitted returns or variance of results from the election returns and CoC, and a winning candidate is about to be, or has already been proclaimed on the basis thereof.

The COMELEC is required to hear the petition immediately and the ballots may be ordered manually recounted to verify the manifest errors or alleged variance.

NOTE : The filing of a petition to annul or suspend the proclamation shall suspend the running of the period within which to file an election protest or quo warranto proceedings.

Pre-proclamation controversies allowed under the new Automated Elections Law

GR: For purpose of the elections for president, vice – president, senator, and member of the House of

Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of election returns or the certificates of canvass, as the case may be. (Sec. 38, RA 9369)

XPNs:

1.

Illegal composition of the BoC;

2.

Illegal proceedings of the BoC. (Sec. 1, Rule 3,

COMELEC Res. No. 8804, March 22, 2010)

NOTE: However, this does not preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu proprio or upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election before it. (Sec. 38, RA

9369)

Q: Is the COMELEC precluded from exercising powers over pre proclamation controversies, when the

Electoral Tribunal acquires jurisdiction?

A:

GR: Yes .

XPNs:

1.

BOC was improperly constituted

2.

Proclamation was null and void

3.

Quo warranto is not the proper remedy

4.

What was filed was a petition to annul a proclamation, and not a Quo warranto or Election

Protest

5.

Election Contest expressly made without prejudice to Pre Proclamation Controversy or it was made ad cautelam

ELECTION PROTESTS

Post-election disputes

They are disputes which arise or are instituted after proclamation of winning candidates and which issues pertain to the casting and counting of votes (Election

Protests), or to the eligibility or disloyalty of the winning candidates ( Quo warranto ).

Nature of an election contest

It is a special summary proceeding the object of which is to expedite the settlement of controversies between candidates as to who received the majority of legal votes.

NOTE : Statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections. An election contest, unlike an ordinary action, is imbued with public interest since it involves not only the adjudication of the private interests of rival candidates but also the paramount need of dispelling the uncertainty which beclouds the real choice of the electorate with respect to who shall discharge the prerogatives of the office within their gift. Moreover, it is neither fair nor just to keep in office for an uncertain period one who’s right to it is under suspicion. It is imperative that his claim be immediately cleared not only for the benefit of the winner but for the sake of public interest, which can only be achieved by brushing aside technicalities of procedure which protract and delay the trial of an ordinary action.

(Vialogo v.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 194143, October 4, 2011)

Where election protests can be filed

1.

COMELE C – sole judge of all contests relating to elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials. (reviewable by SC under Rule 64 using Rule 65.)

2.

Presidential Electoral Tribunal – President and

Vice President

3.

SET – Senator

4.

HRET – representative

5.

RTC – over contests for municipal officials which may be appealed to COMELEC

6.

MeTC or MTC – for barangay officials which may be appealed to COMELEC

213




Grounds for the filing of election protests

1.

Fraud

2.

Vote-buying

3.

Terrorism

4.

Presence of flying voters

5.

Misreading or misappreciation of ballots

6.

Disenfranchisement of voters

7.

Unqualified members of board of election inspector

8.

Other election irregularities.

NOTE: Pendency of election protest is not sufficient basis to enjoin the protestee from assuming office.

A protestant has the right to withdraw his protest or drop polling places from his protest. The protestee, in such cases, has no cause to complain because the withdrawal is the exclusive prerogative of the protestant.

Content of an election protest

It must be initiated by filing a protest that must contain the following allegations: a.

The protestant is a candidate who duly filed a

COC and was voted for in the election. b.

The protestee has been proclaimed c.

The date of the proclamation. (Miro v.

COMELEC, G.R.No. L-57574, April 20, 1983)

Q: On June 23, 2004, the National Board of

Canvassers (NBC) proclaimed Sitro as the duly elected

Vice-President of the Philippines. Karen was the person who obtained the second highest number of votes. Karen filed a protest with the PET praying for the annulment of Sitro's proclamation on the ground of fraud and manipulation of the results. While the protest was pending, Karen ran in the Senate, which term coincides with the term of the 2004-2010 Vice-

Presidency. She was elected and assumed the office of senator. Will the protest prosper?

A : No . In assuming the office of Senator, Karen has effectively abandoned or withdrawn this protest. Such abandonment or withdrawal operates to render moot the instant protest. Moreover, the dismissal of this protest would serve public interest as it would dissipate the aura of uncertainty as to the results of the election. ( Legarda v. De Castro, PET case no. 003,

January 18, 2008)

Requisites for an execution pending appeal in election protest cases

1.

It must be upon motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party

2.

There must be good reasons for the said execution

3.

The order granting the said execution must state the good reasons (Navarosa v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

157957, September 18, 2003)

“Good reasons”

A combination of two or more of the following:

1.

That public interest is involved or the will of the electorate

2.

The shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office

3.

The length of time that the election contest has been pending (Ramas v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

130831. February 10, 1998)

NOTE: If instead of issuing a preliminary injunction in place of a TRO, a court opts to decide the case on its merits with the result that it also enjoins the same acts covered by its

TRO, it stands to reason that the decision amounts to a grant of preliminary injunction. Such injunction should be deemed in force pending any appeal from the decision. The view that execution pending appeal should still continue notwithstanding a decision of the higher court enjoining such execution—does not make sense. It will render quite inutile the proceedings before such court . (Panlilio v.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 184286, February 26, 2010 )

Best pieces of evidence in an election contest

1.

Ballots are the best and most conclusive evidence in an election contest where the correctness of the number of votes of each candidate is involved.

(Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 170070, February 28, 2007)

2.

Election returns are the best evidence when the ballots are lost, destroyed, tampered or fake.

QUO WARRANTO

Quo warranto proceeding for an elective office

It is a proceeding to determine the right to the use or exercise of an office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not well-founded or if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege.

Unlike an election protest, which can only be filed by a candidate, any voter can file a petition for quo warranto .

NOTE: Election Protests and Quo warranto proceedings against a Congressman-elect, Senator-elect, President-elect and VP-elect are brought before the appropriate electoral tribunals created by the Constitution.


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

214

E LECTION L AW

Election protest v.

a Quo warranto case under the

OEC

BASIS ELECTION PROTEST QUO WARRANTO

By a losing By any voter who

Who may file candidate for the same office for which the winner filed his COC is a registered voter in the constituency where the winning candidate sought to be

Who received the majority or plurality disqualified ran for office

Whether the candidate who

Issue/s of the votes which were legally cast.

Whether there were irregularities in the conduct of the was and should proclaimed because ineligibility elected disqualified be disloyalty to the

Philippines. of or election which affected its results.

Function of Senate and House of Representatives

Electoral Tribunals

The Senate and the House of Representatives each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to elections, returns, and qualifications of their respective members. Such jurisdiction begins only after a candidate has become a member of the legislative body. The judicial review of the decisions of these electoral tribunals is possible only in the exercise of the SC’s extraordinary jurisdiction.

Q: In March 2013, COMELEC First Division issued a resolution cancelling Kat’s CoC on the ground that she is not a citizen of the Philippines because of her failure to comply with the requirements of the

Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003.

On April 8, 2013, Kat filed an MR claiming that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen, but it was denied by

COMELEC on May 14 for lack of merit and declared it final and executory. Kat, however, was proclaimed the winner of the May 2013 elections, and took her oath of office but is yet to assume office on June 30,

2013. Kat contends that COMELEC no longer has jurisdiction pursuant to Sec. 17, Art. 6 of the 1897

Constitution which states that HRET has the exclusive jurisdiction to be the “sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications” of the Members of the HOR. Is the contention of Kat correct?

A : No . The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the HOR, the

COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins. Here, Kat cannot be considered a Member of the HoR because, primarily, she has not yet assumed office. To repeat what has earlier been said, the term of office of a

Member of the HOR begins only “at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.”

Thus, until such time, the COMELEC retains jurisdiction. (Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, June

25, 2013)

Effect if the protestant accepts a permanent appointment

Acceptance of a permanent appointment to a regular office during the pendency of his protest is an abandonment of the electoral protest. The same is true if a protestant voluntarily sought election to an office whose term would extend beyond the expiry date of the term of the contested office, and after winning the said election, took her oath and assumed office and there after continuously serves it. The reason for this is that the dismissal of the protest would serve public interest as it would dissipate the aura of uncertainty as to the results of the presidential election, thereby enhancing the all-to crucial political stability of the nation during this period of national recovery. (Santiago v. Ramos, P.E.T. Case No. 001,

February 13, 1996)

PROSECUTION OF ELECTION OFFENSES

Authority to prosecute election offenses

COMELEC is vested with the power of a public prosecutor with the exclusive authority to conduct the preliminary investigation and prosecution of election offenses punishable under the OEC. (Sec. 265, BP 881

OEC)

Q: May the COMELEC delegate such authority?

A: Yes . The COMELEC en banc may delegate such authority to any public prosecutor but always subject to the control and supervision of the COMELEC.

(People v. Delgado, G.R. Nos. 93419-32, September 18,

1990)

Q: In cases where the prosecutor exercises delegated authority to conduct preliminary investigation of election offenses and such officer, after investigation,

215



already resolves the issue of probable cause, where should one appeal the resolution?

A: From such resolution, appeal to the COMELEC lies, and the latter’s ruling on the appeal would be immediately final and executory. However, if the preliminary investigation is conducted by the

COMELEC itself, appeal to the COMELEC is unavailing, but the respondent may file a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the COMELEC en banc finding probable cause. (Faelnar v.People, G.R.

Nos. 140850-51. May 4, 2000)

Election offenses

1.

Vote buying and vote selling

2.

Conspiracy to bribe voters

3.

Wagering upon result of election

4.

Coercion of subordinates

5.

Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent device or other forms of coercion

6.

Coercion of election officials and employees

7.

Appointment of new employees, creation of new position, promotion, giving of salary increases

8.

Intervention of public officers and employees

9.

Undue influence

10.

Unlawful electioneering

11.

Others. (Sec. 261, BP 881 OEC)

Prescriptive period of election offenses

5 years from the date of their commission. (Sec. 267,

BP 881, OEC)

Jurisdiction of courts to hear and decide election offenses

GR: The RTC has the exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of the OEC.

XPN: The MTC has jurisdiction over offenses relating to failure to register or failure to vote.

Q: President Gemma Tiama was accused of electoral fraud and sabotage. COMELEC issued a Resolution approving the creation of a COMELEC-DOJ Joint

Panel, which shall conduct preliminary investigation on the alleged offenses and anomalies committed during the elections. Gemma filed a petition before the SC arguing that the Joint Panel has no jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of the electoral sabotage cases. Is Gemma’s contention acceptable?

A: No.

DOJ and COMELEC exercise concurrent jurisdiction in conducting preliminary investigation of

Political and International Law election offenses. The grant of exclusive power to investigate and prosecute cases of election offenses to the COMELEC was not by virtue of the Constitution but by the OEC which was eventually amended by Sec. 43 of RA 9369. Thus, the DOJ now conducts preliminary investigation of election offenses concurrently with the COMELEC and no longer as mere deputies.

Clearly, COMELEC recognizes the need to delegate to the prosecutors the power to conduct preliminary investigation. Otherwise, the prompt resolution of alleged election offenses will not be attained. This delegation of power, otherwise known as deputation, has long been recognized and, in fact, been utilized as an effective means of disposing of various election offense cases. Apparently, as mere deputies, the prosecutors played a vital role in the conduct of preliminary investigation, in the resolution of complaints filed before them, and in the filing of the informations with the proper court. COMELEC, though it acts jointly with the DOJ, remains in control of the proceedings. In no way can we say that the COMELEC has thereby abdicated its independence to the executive department. (Jose Miguel T. Arroyo. DOJ, et al., G.R. No. 199082, September 18, 2012)


2 0 1 4 G

O L D E N

N

O T E S

216

Golden-Notes-Political-law-admelec-pdf

Related documents

Products

Support

Golden-Notes-Political-law-admelec-pdf

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib