Election Reviewer Finals

1 | P a g e
Jurisdictions
Pre-Proclamation Controversy refers to the proceedings of
the board of canvassers which may be raised by any
candidates or by any registered political party or coalition of
political parties, or by any accredited and participating party
list group, before the board or directly with the Commission
(Sec. 1, Rule 3, COMELEC Resolution No. 8804).
Resolution No. 8804, entitled COMELEC Rules of Procedure on
Disputes in an Automated Election System shall apply to
election disputes under the Automated Election System
(AES) using the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) and shall
cover pre-proclamation controversies and election protests.

Application of the Rules of Court and other related rules:
The COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the Rules of Court, and
the Rules on Electronic Evidence shall apply by analogy, or in
a suppletory character, and whenever necessary, practicable,
and convenient (Sec. 3, Rule 1).

In Pimentel III v. COMELEC, the Court discussed the
implications introduced by Secs. 37 and 38 of R.A. 9369 to
Secs. 15 and 30 of R.A. 7166. Accordingly, in elections for
President, Vice-President, Senators and Members of the
House of Representatives, the GENERAL RULE still is
that pre-proclamation cases on matters relating to the
preparation transmission, receipt, custody and
appreciation of election returns or certification of
canvass are still prohibited. As with other general rules,
there are recognized exceptions to the prohibition,
namely:
1. When it appears that any certificate of canvass or
supporting statement of votes by city/municipality
or by precinct bears erasures or alteration which
may cast doubt as to the veracity of the number of
votes stated herein and may affect the result of the
election, upon request of the presidential, vice -
presidential or senatorial candidate concerned or
his party, Congress or the Commission en banc, as
the case may be shall , for the sole purpose of
verifying the actual votes as they appear in the
copies of the election returns submitted to it
(Section 30 of RA 7166 as amended by Section 38 of
RA 9369);
2. Correction of manifest errors in the certificate of
canvass or election return; and
3. Matters relating to the composition or proceedings of
the board of canvassers.
Issues which may be raised: In Sec. 1, Rule 3, COMELEC
Resolution No. 8804, a pre-proclamation controversy
covers only two issues:
1. Illegal composition of the Board of Canvassers (BOC);
It exists when, among other similar circumstances,
any of the members do not possess legal
qualifications and appointments. The information
technology capable person required to assist the
BOC by Republic Act No. 9369 shall be included as
among those whose lack of qualifications may be
questioned (Sec. 1, Rule 4).
2. Illegal proceedings of the BOC.
It exists 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:
a. Precipitate canvassing;
b. Terrorism;
c. Lack of sufficient notice to the members of the
BOC's; or
d. Improper venue (Sec. 2, Rule 4)

The basis of the canvass shall be electronically
transmitted results.

Pre-Proclamation Case Action for Annulment of
Election Results or
Declaration of Failure of
Elections
COMELEC is restricted to
an examination of the
election returns and is
without jurisdiction to go
beyond or behind them
and investigate election
irregularities
COMELEC may conduct
technical examination of
election documents and
compare and analyze
voters signatures and
fingerprints in order to
determine whether or not
the elections had indeed
been free, honest and
clean (Abaya v. COMELEC).

Rights of Political Parties and Candidates Before the
Board of Canvassers in Pre-Proclamation Cases. (Section
3 Rule 3, Resolution no. 8804)-
a) All registered political parties, organizations, or
coalitions of political parties, and accredited citizens'
arms, and candidates, have the right to be present and to
be represented by counsel during the canvass of election
returns, or certificates of canvass.
2 | P a g e

b) Only one counsel may argue for each registered
political party, organization, or coalition of political
parties, accredited citizens' arm or candidate.
c) No dilatory action shall be allowed by the BOC. It may
impose time limits for oral arguments.
d) All registered political parties, organizations, or
coalitions of political parties, and candidates, are entitled
to obtain a copy of the Statement of Votes per precinct
and a copy of the certificate of canvass duly
authenticated by the BOC.

Procedure on Pre-Proclamation Controversies
(Under COMELEC Resolution 8804)
Who May Raise: Any candidate or any registered
political party, organization, or coalition of political
parties

Before Whom May be Raised: before the BOC, or
directly with the Commission.

How Initiated: by filing a verified petition before the
Board or directly with the Commission.
If filed directly with the Board- appealable to
the Commission within three (3) days from
issuance thereof.

When to File: Immediately when the BOC begins to
act as such is objected to, if it comes after the
canvassing of the Board, or immediately when the
proceedings become illegal.
A. For Petition Filed Before the BOC:
1. Upon receipt thereof, BOC shall immediately
announce the fact of the filing and the ground/s
raised therein.
2. BOC shall immediately deliberate and within
twenty-four (24) hours, make a prompt
resolution in writing.
3. Decision in favor of petition- BOC shall
immediately inform the Commission. Thereafter,
the Commission shall make the appropriate
action thereon.
4. Filing of petition shall in no case suspend the
receipt by the BOC of the electronically
transmitted precinct, municipal, city, or
provincial results.
5. Petitioner may appeal an adverse resolution by
the BOC to the COMELEC
Notice of Appeal shall not suspend the formal
proclamation of the official results of the
election, until the final resolution of the
appeal
Within 48 hours from such notice, the
petitioner shall submit before the Board a
Memorandum on Appeal stating the reasons
thereof
6. The Board shall then forward the entire records
of the petition at the expense of the petitioner.
7. The petition shall be docketed by the Clerk of
Commission and submitted to the COMELEC en
banc for consideration and decision.
8. Within 5 days therefrom the COMELEC en banc
shall render its decision on the appeal.

B. If Filed Directly with the Commission
1. Upon receipt of the petition, the Clerk of the
Commission shall docket the same, and send
summons to the BOC concerned to answer
within 48 hours.
2. The COMELEC en banc shall resolve the petition
within 5 days from the filing of the answer, or
upon the expiration of the period to file the
same.

Illegal Proceedings Discovered after Proclamation A
verified petition to annul the proclamation may be filed
before COMELEC within ten (10) days after the day of
proclamation.

COMELEC Jurisdiction The COMELEC has exclusive
jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies arising
from national, regional or local elections.
COMELEC is with authority to annul any canvass and
proclamation illegally made. The fact that a candidate
illegally proclaimed has assumed office is not a bar to the
exercise of such power. It is also true that as a general
rule, the proper remedy after the proclamation of the
winning candidate for the position contested would be
to file a regular election protest or quo warranto. This
rule, however, admits of exceptions and one of those is
where the proclamation was null and void. In such a
case, i.e., where the proclamation is null and void, the
proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot
deprive the COMELEC of the power to declare such
proclamation a nullity (Raymond P. Espidol v. COMELEC,
et. al).

3 | P a g e

Election Contests
Any matter involving title or claim of title to an elective
office, made before or after the proclamation of the winner,
whether or not contestant is claiming office in dispute.
Jurisdiction over Election Contests:
Original and Exclusive
1. President and Vice-President: Supreme Court en banc
2. Senator: Senate Electoral Tribunal
3. Representative: House of Representative Electoral
Tribunal
4. Regional/ Provincial/ City: COMELEC
5. Municipal: Regional Trial Court (RTC)
6. Barangay/ SK: Municipal Trial Court (MTC)

Appellate Jurisdiction
1. For decisions of Regional Trial Court and Municipal Trial
Court
Appeal exclusively to COMELEC
COMELEC decision shall be final and executory

2. For decisions of COMELEC
Petition for review on Certiorari with Supreme
Court within 30 days from receipt of decision on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction or violation of due
process

3. For decisions of Electoral Tribunal
Petition for review on certiorari with Supreme Court
on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or
violation of due process.

Kinds of Contest
A. Election Protest
1. May be filed by any candidate who has filed a
certificate of candidacy and has been voted upon for
the same office
2. Grounds:
a. Fraud;
b. Terrorism;
c. Irregularities; or
d. Illegal acts committed before, during, or after
the casting and counting of votes
3. Time to file: within 10 days from proclamation of
results of election.
Election Protest refers to an election contest relating
to the election and returns of elective officials,
grounded on frauds or irregularities in the conduct
of the elections, the casting and counting of the
ballots and the preparation and canvassing of
returns. The issue is who obtained the plurality of
valid votes cast. (Sec. 2(d), Rule 1, Rules of
procedure in election contests before the courts
involving elective Municipal and Barangay officials)
B. Quo warranto
1. Filed by any registered voter in the constituency.
2. Grounds:
a. Ineligibility
b. Disloyalty to the Republic
3. Time to file: within 10 days from proclamation of
results of election.

An election protest shall not include a petition for quo
warranto, nor shall a petition for quo warranto include an
election protest. (Section, Rule 2, Rules of procedure in
election contests before the courts involving elective
Municipal and Barangay officials)

Election Protest

Quo Warranto

Strictly a contest between
the defeated and winning
candidates, based on
grounds of election
frauds or irregularities, as
to who actually obtained
the majority of the legal
votes and therefore is
entitled to hold the office.
Refers to questions of
disloyalty or ineligibility
of the winning
candidate. It is a
proceeding to unseat the
ineligible person from
office, but not to install
the protestant in his
place.
Can only be filed by a
candidate who has duly
filed a certificate of
candidacy and has been
voted for.
Can be filed by any
voter. It is for this
reason that it is not
considered a contest
where the parties strive
for supremacy.
A protestee may be While the respondent
4 | P a g e

ousted and the protestant
seated in the office
vacated.
may be unseated, the
petitioner will not be
seated. (Luison v. Garcia)

Jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections - The
COMELEC, through any of its Divisions, shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction over all ELECTION PROTESTS involving
elective regional (the autonomous regions), provincial, and
city officials (Sec. 1, Rule 6).

Procedure on Election Protests
(Under COMELEC Resolution 8804)
Who May File Petition: by any candidate who was voted
for in the same office and who received the second or
third highest number of votes or, in a multi-slot position,
was among the next four candidates following the last
ranked winner duly proclaimed
Protestant - party filing the protest;
Protestee - the adverse party

How Initiated: An election protest or petition for quo
warranto shall be filed directly with the Commission
within a non-extendible period of 10 days following the
date of proclamation.
Each contest shall refer exclusively to one office but
contents for offices of the Sangguniang Pampook,
Sangguniang Panlalawigan or Sangguniang
Panglungsod may be consolidated in one case.
Pendency of pre-proclamation controversy involving
the validity of the proclamation suspends the running
of the period to file an election protest.

The Director of the Election Contest and Adjudication
Department (ECAD) shall immediately docket the Protest
and raffle the case to either the First or Second Division of
the Commission.

Summary Dismissal of Election Contest
Grounds:
1. Commission has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter;
2. Protest is insufficient in form and content;
3. Petition is filed beyond the period prescribed in these
rules;
4. Filing fee is not paid within the period for the filing;
and
5. In case of protest where a cash deposit is required,
the cash deposit is not paid within fifteen (15) days
from the filing of the protest.

Modes of service and filing.
Service and filing of pleadings, including the
initiatory petition and other papers, shall be done
personally.
Except with respect to papers emanating from the
Commission, a resort to other modes of service
must be accompanied by a written explanation
why the service or filing was not done personally.
(Section 4, Rule 6, Resolution no. 8804)
Petition must be verified and accompanied by a
certificate of non-forum shopping. (Section 5, Rule 6,
Resolution no. 8804)
A verification based on "information and belief" or
upon the "knowledge, information and belief" is
not a sufficient verification.
The protestant shall personally sign the certificate
of non-forum shopping which must be annexed to
the election protest.
An unverified petition or one with insufficient
verification or unaccompanied by a certificate of
non-forum shopping shall be dismissed outright
and shall not suspend the running of the
reglementary period to file an election protest.
Contents of the protest or petition (Section 7, Rule 6,
Resolution no. 8804).
a) The position involved
b) That the protestant was a candidate who has duly filed
a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same
office.
c) The date of proclamation; and
d) The number of votes credited to the parties per
proclamation.
An election protest shall also state:
e) The total number of precincts of the region, province or
city concerned;
f ) The protested precincts and votes of the parties in the
protested precincts per the Statement of Votes By Precinct
or, if the votes of the parties are not specified, an
explanation why the votes are not specified;
5 | P a g e

g) A detailed specification of the acts or omissions
complained of showing the electoral frauds, anomalies or
irregularities in the protested precincts.
Verified answer; counter-protest (Section 1, Rule 8,
Within five days from receipt of the summons and
a copy of the protest the protestee shall file an
answer in ten (10) legible copies, with proof of
service of a copy upon the protestant. The answer
shall be verified and may set forth admissions
and denials, special and affirmative defenses and
a compulsory counterclaim. The protestee may
incorporate a counter-protest in the answer.
The counter-protest shall specify the counter-
protested precincts and any votes of the parties
therein per the Statement of Votes, or if not so
specified, an explanation why the votes are not
specified, and a detailed specification of the acts
or omissions complained of showing the electoral
frauds, anomalies or irregularities in the counter-
protested precincts.
Answer to counterclaim or counter-protest (Section 2,
Rule 8, Resolution no. 8804)
The protestant shall answer the counterclaim or
counter-protest within a non-extendible period of
five days from notice.
Allegations in the answer (Section 3, Rule 8, Resolution
no. 8804). -
(a) Specific denial. --- A protestee must specify each
material allegation of fact the truth of which is not
admitted and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the
substance of the matters relied upon in support of the
denial. The protestee shall specify so much of the
averments that are true and material and shall deny the
remainder.
(b) Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. ---
Material averment in the protest other than the amount of
unliquidated damages and issues as to the recount or
appreciation of ballots, shall be deemed admitted when
not specifically denied.
Effect of failure to plead (Section 4, Rule 8, Resolution
no. 8804)
a) Defenses and objections not pleaded. --- Defenses and
objections not pleaded are deemed waived. However,
when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
record that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter, that there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause, or that the
action is barred by a prior judgment, or the statute of
limitations, the Commission shall dismiss the claim.
b) Compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim not set-up
barred. --- A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-claim not
set up shall be barred.
c) Effect of failure to answer. --- In an election protest that
does not involve ballot recount, if the protestee fails to file
an answer within the time allowed, the Commission shall,
upon motion of the protestant with notice to the protestee,
and upon proof of such failure, require the protestant to
submit evidence ex parte.
d) However, in the case of election protests involving
ballot recount or examination, or verification or re-
tabulation of the election returns, the Commission shall
order such recount of ballots or re-tabulation of election
returns. The Commission shall proceed to render
judgment based on the results of the recount or re-
tabulation of election returns. During the recount or re-
tabulation of election returns, only the protestant, or his
representative, may participate. The protestee or his duly
authorized representative has the right to be present and
observe the proceedings without the right to register his
comment on the ballots and election returns.
Motions must be in writing (Section 1, Rule 9, Resolution
no. 8804)
Except those made in open session during the
course of the proceedings, all motions shall be in
writing.
A motion shall state the order sought to be
obtained and the grounds upon which it is based.
Prohibited pleadings and motions (Section 1, Rule 10,
a) Motion to dismiss except on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter;
b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
c) Demurrer to evidence;
d) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
judgment, or for reopening of trial;
e) Petition for relief from judgment;
f) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits
or other papers;
6 | P a g e

g) Memoranda, except when required by the Commission
in an Order;
h) Motion to declare the protestee or respondent in
default;
i) Dilatory motion for postponement;
j) Motion to inhibit the Commissioner/s except on clearly
valid grounds;
k) Reply or rejoinder; and
l) Third-party complaint.

Summons: (Section 1, Rule 7, Resolution no. 8804)
Within 3 days from the filing, corresponding
summons to the protestee or respondent shall be
issued together with a copy of the protest,
requiring the filing of an answer within a non-
extendible period of 5 days from notice. (answer
may include counter-protest; answer to counter-
protest shall be made within a non-extendible
period of five days from notice.

Whenever the allegations in a protest or counter-
protest so warrant and when it finds the same
necessary, the Commision may order the
production and custody of ballot boxes, election
documents, data storage devices, and machines
used in the elections.

Filing fees (Section 1, Rule 11, Resolution no. 8804)
No protest, counter-protest shall be accepted for
filing without the payment of a filing fee in the
amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for
each interest.
Failure to make the cash deposits required within
the prescribed time limit shall result in the
automatic dismissal of the protest, or counter-
protest.
Issuance of precautionary protection order
The Commission shall order the municipal
treasurer and election officer, and the responsible
personnel and custodian to take immediate steps
or measures to safeguard the integrity of all the
ballot boxes, lists of voters with voting records,
books of voters and other documents or
paraphernalia used in the election, as well as data
storage devices containing electronic data
evidencing the conduct and the results of
elections in the contested precincts. (Section 1,
Rule 12, Resolution no. 8804)
When ballot boxes and election documents are
brought before the Commission
Within forty-eight hours from receipt of the
answer with counter-protest, the Commission
shall order the ballot boxes with their keys, lists of
voters with voting, records, books of voters, the
electronic data storage devices, and other
documents, paraphernalia, or equipments relative
to the precincts involved in the protest or
counter-protest, to be brought before it. (Section
2, Rule 12, Resolution no. 8804)
Preliminary conference (Section 1, Rule 13, Resolution
no. 8804)
Within three days after the filing of the last responsive
pleading allowed by these rules, or the expiration of the
same period without any responsive pleading having been
filed, the Commission shall conduct a mandatory
preliminary conference among the parties to consider:
a) The simplification of issues;
b) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the
pleadings;
c) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admission of
facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof;
d) The limitation of the number of witnesses;
e) The nature of the testimonies of the witnesses and
whether they relate to evidence aliunde, the ballots or
otherwise;
f) The withdrawal of certain protested or counter-
protested precincts (especially those where the ballot
boxes or ballots are unavailable or are missing and cannot
be located or destroyed due to natural disasters or
calamities);
g) The number of recount committees to be constituted;
h) The procedure to be followed in case the election
protest or counter-protest seeks, wholly or partially, the
examination, verification or re-tabulation of election
returns; and
i) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition
7 | P a g e

of the case.
Subpoena ad testificandum or subpoena duces
tecum may be issued by the Division motu
proprio, or upon request of the parties in any case.
Recount of Ballots: (Rule 15, Resolution no. 8804)
The recount of ballots shall commence on the date
specified in the preliminary conference order, unless
rescheduled by Order of the Division.
Continuous Recount Once commenced, the recount
shall continue from day to day as far as practicable
until terminated.
Prohibited Access During the recount, no person
other than the Commission, the clerk of the
Commission, the Recount Coordinators and the
members of the recount committees, the parties and
their duly authorized representatives, shall have
access to the recount area.
Conduct of the Recount shall be done manually and
visually and according to the procedures under
The committee shall prepare and submit to the
Commission a recount report per precinct.

Conduct of recount (Resolution no. 9164)
The Recount of votes on the ballots shall be done manually
and visually.
At least 5 days prior to the scheduled recount of
ballots, the protestant shall submit a list of his
designated pilot precincts constitution at most
20% of the total number of his protested
clustered precincts, but in no case exceeding 200
clustered precincts or be less than 20 clustered
precincts, that will best attest to the votes
recovered or will best exemplify the merits or
legitimacy of his protest.
The recount of the ballots in the remaining
contested precincts shall not commence until the
Division concerned shall have determined the
merit or legitimacy of the protest relative to the
pinpointed pilot precincts through the
appreciation of ballots and other documentary
exhibits which the protestant may submit within a
non-extendible period of ten days from the
completion of the recount of the pilot precincts.
Based on the results of such post-recount
determination, the Division may dismiss the
protest, without further proceedings, if no
reasonable recovery was established from the
pilot protested precincts, otherwise, the recount
of the ballots in the remaining protested clustered
precincts shall proceed, to be followed by the
recount of the counter-protested precincts, if any.
Stray Ballots refer to ballots with two or more shades or
without any shade in the contested position.
Marked ballots refer to those ballots containing marks
outside the ovals, which marks could either be identifying
marks or voting marks.
Voting marks are markings placed beside the oval that
may appear to show the intent of the voter to vote a party.
Ballots containing these are subject to claims
Identifying marks are those intentionally placed to
identify the ballot or the voter. Ballots containing these are
subject to objections.
The rejected ballots shall be physically counted.

Presentation and reception of evidence
The reception of evidence on all matters or issues
raised in the protest and counter-protests shall be
presented and offered in a hearing upon
completion of (a) the recount of ballots, or re-
tabulation of election documents, or (b) the
technical examination, if warranted. (Rule 18,
Decisions
The Commission shall decide the election contest
within 30 days from the date it is submitted for
decision. (Rule 15, Resolution no. 8804)

General Rule: The filing of an election protest or quo
warranto PRECLUDES the subsequent filing of a pre-
proclamation controversy or amounts to an abandonment of
one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the
authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the
protestee or the validity of his proclamation.
Exceptions:
1. The Board of Canvassers was improperly constituted;
2. Quo warranto is not the proper remedy;
8 | P a g e

3. What was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto
or an election protest but a petition to annul a
proclamation;
4. The filing of an election contest was expressly made
without prejudice to the pre-proclamation controversy,
or was made ad cautelam; or
5. The proclamation was null and void (Dumayas, Jr. v.
COMELEC).

Death of Protestant: The death of the protestant does not
necessarily extinguish an election protest.
An election protest is imbued with public interest which
raises it onto a plane over and above ordinary civil
actions, because it involves not only the adjudication of
the private interest of the rival candidates but also the
paramount need of dispelling once and for all the
uncertainty that beclouds the real choice of the
electorate with respect to who shall discharge the
prerogatives of the office within their gift (De Castro v.
COMELEC).

The widow of the protestant has no status of real party
in interest to substitute/intervene for the latter who
died during the pendency of the election protest. (Poe v.
Arroyo, P.E.T. Case No. 002).

Assumption of office by the protestant constitutes an
abandonment or withdrawal of protest or at the very
least, abandonment of the determination to protect and
pursue the public interest involved in the matter of who
is the real choice of the electorate (Defensor-Santiago v.
Ramos, P.E.T Case No. 003, January 18, 2008, reiterated in
Legarda v. De Castro, P.E.T. Case No. 001).
Jurisdiction over Election Offenses
1. COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and
prosecute cases INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF ELECTION
LAWS (Sec. 2 (6), Art IX-C, Constitution);
a. But COMELEC may delegate the power to the
Provincial Prosecutor (People v Judge Basilia,)

b. It is not the duty of the COMELEC, as investigator
and prosecutor to gather proof in support o a
complaint filed before it (Kilosbayan v Comelec)

2. The Regional Trial Court has exclusive original
jurisdiction to TRY AND DECIDE ANY CRIMINAL
ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS FOR VIOLATION OF
ELECTION LAWS

Summary of Jurisdiction
Parties Proceedings Jurisdiction

Elective Barangay
Officials
Election Protest
/ Quo Warranto

Metropolitan
Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities,
MTC, MCTC
Appeal/
Certiorari /
Mandamus/
Prohibition
COMELEC

Certiorari
(from COMELEC
decisions)
SC

Elective Municipal
Officials
Election Protest
/ Quo Warranto
RTC

Appeal/
Certiorari /
Mandamus/
Prohibition
COMELEC
Certiorari
(from COMELEC
decisions)
SC
Elective Regional,
Provincial, City
Officials
Election Protest
/ Quo Warranto
COMELEC

Certiorari SC
Members of the
House of
Representatives
Election Protest
/ Quo Warranto
HRET

Certiorari
(from HRET
decisions)
SC
Members of the
Senate
Election Protest
/ Quo Warranto
SET
9 | P a g e

Certiorari
(from SET
decisions)
SC

President and
Vice-President
Election
Contests/ Quo
Warranto
SC (Presidential
Electoral
Tribunal)

ELECTION OFFENSES

I. PROHIBITED ACTS & OTHER ELECTION
OFFENSES:
(Sec. 261-262, Omnibus Election Code)

1. Vote-buying and vote-selling

By whom: Any person association, corporation, group or
community

How committed:
i. by giving, offering or promising money or anything
of value (including employment etc.)
ii. by soliciting or receiving, any expenditure or
promise of any office or employment, public or private

Purpose: To induce anyone or the public to vote for or
against any candidate or withhold his vote in the election, or
to vote for or against any aspirant for the nomination or
choice of a candidate in a convention of a political party.

2. Conspiracy to bribe voters

Two or more persons, whether candidates or not,
who come to an agreement concerning the commission of
vote-buying and vote selling and decide to commit it.

3. Wagering upon result of election

Any person who bets or wagers upon the outcome
of, or any contingency connected with an election.
Any money or thing of value or deposit of money or
thing of value situated anywhere in the Philippines put as
such bet or wager shall be forfeited to the government.

4. Coercion of subordinates

By whom: Any public officer, officer of corporations, or any
head, superior, or administrator of any religious
organization, or any employer or land-owner

Against whom: Subordinates or members or parishioners or
employees or house helpers, tenants, overseers, farm
helpers, tillers, or lease holders

How committed:
i. by coercion or intimidation or compulsion
ii. by dismissal or threat to dismiss or to reduce salary,
wage or compensation, or by demotion, transfer, suspension,
separation, excommunication, ejectment.

Purpose of Coercion: to aid, campaign or vote for or against
any candidate or any aspirant for the nomination or
selection of candidates

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

10 | P a g e

How committed:

i. By threatening, intimidating
ii. actually causing, inflicting or producing any
violence, injury, punishment, damage, loss or disadvantage
iii. using any fraudulent device or scheme

Against Whom/What:
i. any person or persons
ii. immediate members of his family,
iii. his honor or property

Purpose:
to compel or induce the registration or refraining
from registration of any voter, or the participation in a
campaign or refraining or desistance from any campaign, or
the casting of any vote or omission to vote, or any promise of
such registration, campaign, vote, or omission therefrom.

6. Coercion of election officials and employees
Any person, who threatens, intimidates, terrorizes
or coerces any election official or employee in the
performance of his election functions or duties.

7. Appointment of new employees, creation of new
position, promotion, or giving salary increases.

When: Forty-five days (45 days) before a regular election
and thirty days (30 days) before a special election

By Whom:
i. any head, official or appointing officer of a
government office, agency or instrumentality, whether
national or local, including government-owned or controlled
corporations;
ii. Any government official (applicable to iii (below)
only)

How committed:
i. by appointing or hiring any new employee, whether
provisional, temporary or casual, or
ii. by creating and filling any new position
iii. by promoting, or giving any increase of salary or
remuneration

Exceptions:
i. authorized by the COMELEC- --position to be filled is
essential to the proper functioning of the office or agency
concerned, and that the position shall not be filled in a
manner that may influence the election
ii. in case of urgent need: Provided, however, That
notice of the appointment shall be given to the Commission
within three days from the date of the appointment.
Note: Any appointment or hiring in violation of this
provision shall be null and void.

8. Transfer of officers and employees in the civil
service
Any public official who makes or causes any transfer
or detail whatever of any officer or employee in the civil
service including public school teachers, within the election
period
Exception: prior approval of the Commission

9. Intervention of public officers and employees.
By whom:
i. any officer or employee in the civil service, except
those holding political offices;
ii. any officer, employee, or member or the Armed
Forces of the Philippines,
11 | P a g e

iii. or any police force, special forces, home defense
forces, barangay self-defense units and all other para-
military units that now exist or which may hereafter be
organized

How committed:
i. by directly or indirectly, intervening in any election
campaign
ii. engaging in any partisan political activity, except to
vote or to preserve public order, if he is a peace officer.

10. Undue influence

Purpose: To induce one to vote for or against any candidate
in any election or any aspirant for the nomination or
selection of an official candidate in a convention of a political
party:
i. by promising any office or employment, public or
private
ii. by making or offering to make an expenditure, or to
causing an expenditure to be made to any person,
association, corporation or entity
iii. soliciting or receiving, any expenditure or promise
or any office, or employment

11. Unlawful electioneering
When:
i. on the day or registration
ii. on the day of election
By soliciting votes or undertaking any propaganda
before the board of election inspectors (registration day) and
within the polling place and with a radius of thirty meters
thereof (day of election).

12. Prohibition against dismissal of employees, laborers,
or tenants
Dismissal covered: Those by reason of refusal or
failure to vote for any candidate of his employer or
landowner.

13. Appointment or use of special policemen, special
agents, confidential agents or the like

When:
i. during the campaign period,
ii. on the day before and on election day

By whom: any appointing authority or any person who
utilizes the services of special policemen, etc.

14. Illegal release of prisoners before and after election
By whom:
i. the Director of the Bureau of Prisons
ii. any provincial warden
iii. the keeper of the jail or the person or persons
required by law to keep prisoners in their custody
How committed:
i. by illegally ordering or allowing any prisoner
detained in the national penitentiary, or the provincial, city
or municipal jail to leave the premises thereof sixty days
before and thirty days after the election.

15. Use of public funds, money deposited in trust,
equipment, facilities owned or controlled by the government
for an election campaign

Property covered:
i. public funds or money deposited with, or held in
trust by, public financing institutions or by government
offices, banks, or agencies;
12 | P a g e

ii. any printing press, radio, or television station or
audio-visual equipment operated by the Government or by
its divisions, sub-divisions, agencies or instrumentalities,
including GOCCs, or by the AFP;
iii. any equipment, vehicle, facility, apparatus, or
paraphernalia owned by the government or by its political
subdivisions, agencies including GOCCs, or by the AFP for
any election campaign or for any partisan political activity.

16. Carrying of deadly weapons
By carrying any deadly weapon in the polling place
and within a radius of one hundred meters thereof during
the days and hours fixed by law for the registration of voters
in the polling place, voting, counting of votes, or preparation
of the election returns.

Exception: any peace officer or public officer authorized by
the Commission to supervise the election is entitled to carry
firearms or any other weapon for the purpose of preserving
order and enforcing the law (in cases of disorder)

Note: It is not necessary that the deadly weapon be seized
from the accused while he was in the precinct or within a
radius of 100m therefrom; it is enough that the accused
carried a deadly weapon within the prohibited radius during
any of the days and hours specified in the law (Mappala v.
Judge Nunez)

17. Carrying firearms outside residence or place of
business
By carrying any firearms (including licensed ones)
outside his residence or place of business during the election
period, unless authorized in writing by the COMELEC

Note: a motor vehicle, water or air craft shall not be
considered a residence or place of business or extension
hereof

Exceptions:
i. cashiers and disbursing officers while in the
performance of their duties
ii. persons who by nature of their official duties,
profession, business or occupation habitually carry large
sums of money or valuables

18. Use of armored land, water or air craft
When:
i. during the campaign period

How committed:
i. using any armored land, water or air craft, provided
with any temporary or permanent equipment or any other
device or contraption for the mounting or installation of
cannons, machine guns and other similar high caliber
firearms, including military type tanks, half trucks, scout
trucks, armored trucks, of any make or model, whether new,
reconditioned, rebuilt or remodelled

Note: Banking or financial institutions and all business firms
may use not more than two armored vehicles strictly for, and
limited to, the purpose of transporting cash, gold bullion or
other valuables in connection with their business from and
to their place of business, upon previous authority of the
COMELEC.

19. Wearing of uniforms and bearing arms.

By whom:
1. any member of security or police organization of
government agencies, commissions, councils, bureaus,
offices, or government-owned or controlled corporations, or
privately-owned or operated security, investigative,
protective or intelligence agencies

How committed:
13 | P a g e

i. by wearing his uniform or uses his insignia,
decorations or regalia, or bears arms outside the immediate
vicinity of his place of work:
When:
ii. on the day before and on the day of election

Exception: When said member is:
i. in pursuit of a person who has committed or is
committing a crime in the premises he is guarding;
ii. escorting or providing security for the transport of
payrolls, deposits, or other valuables;
iii. guarding the residence of private persons or when
guarding private residences, buildings or offices with
approval of the COMELEC.

2. any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
special, forces, home defense forces, barangay self-defense
units and all other para-military units that now exist or
which may hereafter be organized
When:
i. during campaign period
iii. thirty days thereafter

How committed :
iv. by wearing his uniform
v. bears arms outside the camp, garrison or barracks
to which he is assigned or detailed or outside their homes, in
case of members of para-military units
Exceptions:
i. authorized by the President of the Philippines
ii. authorized by the Commission

Note: During the election period, whenever the Commission
finds it necessary for the promotion of free, orderly, honest
and peaceful elections in a specific area, it shall confiscate or
order the confiscation of firearms of any member or
members of the AFP, police forces, home defense forces,
barangay self-defense units, and all other para-military units
etc.

20. Organization or maintenance of reaction forces,
strike forces, or other similar forces.
Any person who organizes or maintains a reaction
force, strike force or similar force during the election period.

Note: The heads of all reaction forces, strike forces, or similar
forces shall, not later than forty-five days before the election,
submit to the Commission a complete list of all members
thereof with such particulars as the Commission may
require.

21. Utilization of policemen and provincial guards
acting as bodyguards or security guards

When:

By whom: any public official, candidate or any other person

Note:
i. When the life and security of a candidate is in
jeopardy, the Commission is empowered to assign at the
candidate's choice, any member of the Philippine
Constabulary or the police force of any municipality within
the province to act as his bodyguard or security guard in a
number to be determined by the Commission but not to
exceed three per candidate after due notice and hearing.
ii. When the circumstances require immediate action,
the Commission may issue a temporary order allowing the
14 | P a g e

assignment of any member of the Philippine Constabulary or
the local police force to act as bodyguard or security guard of
the candidate, subject to confirmation or revocation.

22. Prohibition against release, disbursement or expenditure
of public funds

By Whom:

Any public official or employee including barangay officials
and those of GOCC and their subsidiaries

How committed:
Releasing, disbursing or expending any public funds

When:
- 45 days before a regular election and
- 30 days before a special election,

Purpose:
1. Any and all kinds of public works, except the ff:

(a) Maintenance of existing and/or completed public works
project: Provided, That not more than the average number of
laborers or employees already employed therein during the
six-month period immediately prior to the beginning of the
forty-five day period before election day shall be permitted
to work during such time: Provided, further, That no
additional laborers shall be employed for maintenance work
within the said period of forty-five days;

(b) Work undertaken by contract through public bidding
held, or by negotiated contract awarded, before the forty-five
day period before election: Provided, That work for the
purpose of this section undertaken under the so-called
"takay" or "paquiao" system shall not be considered as work
by contract;

(c) Payment for the usual cost of preparation for working
drawings, specifications, bills of materials, estimates, and
other procedures preparatory to actual construction
including the purchase of materials and equipment, and all
incidental expenses for wages of watchmen and other
laborers employed for such work in the central office and
field storehouses before the beginning of such period:
Provided, That the number of such laborers shall not be
increased over the number hired when the project or
projects were commenced; and

(d) Emergency work necessitated by the occurrence of a
public calamity, but such work shall be limited to the
restoration of the damaged facility.

(2) The Ministry of Social Services and Development and any
other office in other ministries of the government
performing functions similar to said ministry, except for
salaries of personnel, and for such other routine and normal
expenses, and for such other expenses as the Commission
may authorize after due notice and hearing. Should a
calamity or disaster occur, all releases normally or usually
coursed through the said ministries and offices of other
ministries shall be turned over to, and administered and
disbursed by, the Philippine National Red Cross, subject to
the supervision of the Commission on Audit or its
representatives, and no candidate or his or her spouse or
member of his family within the second civil degree of
affinity or consanguinity shall participate, directly or
indirectly, in the distribution of any relief or other goods to
the victims of the calamity or disaster; and

(3) The Ministry of Human Settlements and any other office
in any other ministry of the government performing
functions similar to said ministry, except for salaries of
personnel and for such other necessary administrative or
other expenses as the Commission may authorize after due
notice and hearing.

Note: No payment shall be made within five days before the
date of election to laborers who have rendered services in
15 | P a g e

projects or works except those falling under subparagraphs
(a), (b), (c), and (d), of paragraph 1. This prohibition shall
NOT apply to ongoing public works projects commenced
before the campaign period or similar projects under foreign
agreements. For purposes of this provision, it shall be the
duty of the government officials or agencies concerned to
report to the Commission the list of all such projects being
undertaken by them.

23. Prohibition against construction of public works, delivery
of materials for public works and issuance of treasury
warrants and similar devices

By Whom:
Any person

When:
During the period of 45 days preceding a regular election
and 30 days before a special election:

How committed:
(a) undertakes the construction of any public works, except
for projects or works exempted in the preceding paragraph;
or
(b) issues, uses or avails of treasury warrants or any device
undertaking future delivery of money, goods or other things
of value chargeable against public funds.

24. Suspension of elective provincial, city, municipal or
barangay officer

The provisions of law to the contrary
notwithstanding during the election period, any
public official who suspends, without prior approval
of the Commission, any elective provincial, city,
municipal or barangay officer, unless said
suspension will be for purposes of applying the
"Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act" in relation to
the suspension and removal of elective officials; in
which case the provisions of this section shall be
inapplicable.

25. On Registration of Voters

By Whom:
Any person

How committed:
i. Failure, without justifiable excuse, to register as a
voter in an election, plebiscite or referendum in
which he is qualified to vote.
ii. Knowingly making any false or untruthful statement
relative to any of the data or information
required in the application for registration.
iii. Deliberately imprinting or causing the
imprinting of blurred or indistinct fingerprints
on any of the copies of the application for
registration or on the voter's affidavit; or
allowing the imprinting of blurred or indistinct
fingerprints on any of the aforementioned
registration forms, or tampering with the
fingerprints in said registration records.
iv. Approval of any application which on its face
shows that the applicant does not possess all the
qualifications prescribed by law for a voter; or disapproval of
any application which on its face shows that the applicant
possesses all such qualifications. (applicable to any member
of the BEI)
iv. Registering anew without filing an application for
cancellation of his previous registration.
v. Registering in substitution for another whether with
or without the latter's knowledge or consent.
vi. Tampering with or changing without authority any
data or entry in any voter's application for
registration.
vii. Delaying, hindering or obstructing another from
registering.
viii. Falsely certifying or identifying another as a bona
fide resident of a particular place or locality for
the purpose of securing the latter's registration
as a voter.
ix. Using the voter's affidavit of another for the purpose
of voting, whether or not he actually succeeds in
voting.
x. Placing, inserting or including, as approved
application for registration in the book of voters
or in the provincial or national central files of
registered voters, the application of any
fictitious voter or any application that has not
16 | P a g e

been approved; or removing from, or taking out
of the book of voters or the provincial or
national central files of registered voters any
duly approved voter's application, except upon
lawful order of the Commission, or of a
competent court or after proper cancellation as
provided in Sections 122, 123, 124 and 125
hereof.
xi. Transferring or causing the transfer of the
registration record of a voter to the book of
voters of another polling place, unless said
transfer was due to a change of address of the
voter and the voter was duly notified of his new
polling place.
xii. Asking, demanding, taking, accepting or possessing,
directly or indirectly, the voter's affidavit of
another, in order to induce the latter to
withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any
candidate in an election or any issue in a
plebiscite or referendum.
xiii. Delivering, handing over, entrusting, giving, directly
or indirectly his voter's affidavit to another in
consideration of money or other benefit or
promises thereof, or takes or accepts such
voter's affidavit directly or indirectly, by giving
or causing the giving of money or other benefit
or making or causing the making of a promise
thereof.
xiv. Altering in any manner, tearing, defacing, removing
or destroying any certified list of voters.
xv. Taking, carrying or possessing any blank or unused
registration form already issued to a city or
municipality outside of said city or municipality
except as otherwise provided in this Code or
when directed by express order of the court or
of the Commission.
xvi. Maliciously omitting, tampering or transferring to
another list the name of a registered voter from
the official list of voters posted outside the
polling place

26. On voting:

By Whom: Any person

How committed:
i. Failure to cast his vote without justifiable excuse.
ii. Voting more than once in the same election, or
who, not being a registered voter, votes in an
election.
iii. Voting in substitution for another whether with or
without the latter's knowledge and/or consent.
iv. Not being illiterate or physically disabled, allowing
his ballot to be prepared by another
v. Availing himself of any means of scheme to discover
the contents of the ballot of a voter who is
preparing or casting his vote or who has just
voted.
vi. In the course of voting, using a ballot other than the
one given by the board of election inspectors or
has in his possession more than one official
ballot.
vii. Placing under arrest or detaining a voter without
lawful cause, or molesting him in such a manner
as to obstruct or prevent him from going to the
polling place to cast his vote or from returning
home after casting his vote, or to compel him to
reveal how he voted

By whom: Any member of the board of election inspectors
charged with the duty of reading the ballot during the
counting of votes)

How committed:
viii. Deliberately omitting to read the vote duly written
on the ballot, or misreading the vote actually
written thereon or reads the name of a
candidate where no name is written on the
ballot.

charged with the duty of tallying the votes in the tally board
or sheet, election returns or other prescribed for.

How committed:

ix. Deliberately failing to record a vote therein or
records erroneously the votes as read, or
recording a vote where no such vote has been
read by the chairman.
By whom: Any member of a board of election inspectors

How committed:
x. Having made possible the casting of more votes than
there are registered voters.

By whom: Any person
17 | P a g e

xi. Propagating false and alarming reports or
information or transmitting or circulating false
orders, directives or messages regarding any
matter relating to the printing of official ballots,
the postponement of the election, the transfer of
polling place or the general conduct of the
election.
xii. Without legal authority, destroying, substituting or
taking away from the possession of those having
legal custody thereof, or from the place where
they are legally deposited, any election form or
document or ballot box which contains official
ballots or other documents used in the election.

By whom: Any person having legal custody of the ballot box
containing the official ballots used in the election

xiii. Opening or destroying said box or removes or
destroys its contents without or against the
order of the Commission or who, through his
negligence, enabling any person to commit any
of the aforementioned acts, or taking away said
ballot box from his custody.


xiv. Knowingly using ballots other than the official
ballots, except in those cases where the use of
emergency ballots is authorized.
By whom: Any public official
xv. Neglecting or failing to properly preserve or account
for any ballot box, documents and forms
received by him and kept under his custody.
By whom: Any person
xvi. Revealing the contents of the ballot of an illiterate or
disabled voter whom he assisted in preparing a
ballot.
xvii. Without authority, transfering the location of a
polling place.
xviii. Without authority, printing or causing the
printing of any ballot or election returns that
appears as official ballots or election returns or
who distributes or causes the same to be
distributed for use in the election, whether or
not they are actually used.
xix. Without authority, keeping, using or carring out or
causing to be kept, used or carried out, any
official ballot or election returns or printed
proof thereof, type-form mould, electro-type
printing plates and any other plate, numbering
machines and other printing paraphernalia
being used in connection with the printing of
official ballots or election returns.

By whom: Any official or employee of any printing
establishment or of the Commission or any member of the
committee in charge of the printing of official ballots or
election returns
xx. Causing official ballots or election returns to be
printed in quantities exceeding those authorized
by the Commission; or distributing, delivering,
or in any manner disposing of or causing to be
distributed, delivered, or disposed of, any
official ballot or election returns to any person
or persons not authorized by law or by the
Commission to receive or keep official ballots or
election returns or who sends or causes them to
be sent to any place not designated by law or by
the Commission.
By whom: Any person
xxi. Through any act, means or device, violating the
integrity of any official ballot or election returns
before or after they are used in the election.
xxii. Removing, tearing, defacing or destroying any
certified list of candidates posted inside the
voting booths during the hours of voting.
xxiii. Holding or causing the holding of an election on
any other day than that fixed by law or by the
Commission, or stops any election being legally
held.
xxiv. Deliberately blurring his fingerprint in the
voting record.

27. On Canvassing:
By Whom
Any chairman of the board of canvassers

How committed:
i. Failure to give due notice of the date, time and place
of the meeting of said board to the candidates,
political parties and/or members of the board.

By whom: Any member of the board of canvassers
18 | P a g e

ii. Proceeding with the canvass of the votes and/or
proclamation of any candidate which was
suspended or annulled by the Commission.
iii. Proceeding with the canvass of votes and/or
proclamation of any candidate in the absence of
quorum, or without giving due notice of the
date, time and place of the meeting of the board
to the candidates, political parties, and/or other
members of the board.
iv. Without authority of the Commission, using in the
canvass of votes and/or proclamation of any
candidate any document other than the official
copy of the election returns.

28. Common to all boards of election inspectors and boards
of canvassers:

By Whom:
Any member of any board of election inspectors or board of
canvassers

How committed:
i. Deliberately absenting himself from the meetings of
said body for the purpose of obstructing or
delaying the performance of its duties or
functions.
ii. Without justifiable reason, refusing to sign and
certify any election form required by this Code
or prescribed by the Commission although he
was present during the meeting of the said
body.

By whom: Any person
iii. Being ineligible for appointment as member of any
board of election inspectors or board of
canvassers, accepts an appointment to said
body, assuming office, and actually serving as a
member thereof, or any of public officer or any
person acting in his behalf who appoints such
ineligible person knowing him to be ineligible.
iv. In the presence or within the hearing of any board of
election inspectors or board of canvassers
during any of its meetings, conducting himself in
such a disorderly manner as to interrupt or
disrupt the work or proceedings to the end of
preventing said body from performing its
functions, either partly or totally.

By whom: Any public official or person acting in his behalf
v. Relieving any member of any board of election
inspectors or board of canvassers or who
changes or causes the change of the assignments
of any member of said board of election
inspectors or board of canvassers without
authority of the Commission.

29. On candidacy and campaign:

By Whom
Any political party

How committed:
i. Holding political conventions or meetings to
nominate its official candidates earlier that the
period fixed in this Code.

By whom: Any person
i. Abstracting, destroying or cancelling any certificate
of candidacy duly filed and which has not been
cancelled upon order of the Commission.
ii. Misleading the board of election inspectors by
submitting any false or spurious certificate of
candidacy or document to the prejudice of a
candidate.
iii. Being authorized to receive certificates of candidacy,
receiving any certificate of candidacy outside
the period for filing the same and makes it
appear that said certificate of candidacy was
filed on time; or any person who, by means of
fraud, threat, intimidation, terrorism or
coercion, causes or compels the commission of
said act.
iv. By any device or means, jamming, obstructing or
interfering with a radio or television broadcast
of any lawful political program.
v. Soliciting votes or undertakes any propaganda, on
the day of election, for or against any candidate
or any political party within the polling place or
within a radius of thirty meters thereof.

30. Other Prohibitions:

19 | P a g e

By Whom:
Any person

How committed:
i. Selling, furnishing, offering, buying, serving or
taking intoxicating liquor on the days fixed by
law for the registration of voters in the polling
place, or on the day before the election or on
election day: Provided, That hotels and other
establishments duly certified by the Ministry of
Tourism as tourist oriented and habitually in
the business of catering to foreign tourists may
be exempted for justifiable reasons upon prior
authority of the Commission: Provided, further,
That foreign tourists taking intoxicating liquor
in said authorized hotels or establishments are
exempted from the provisions of this
subparagraph.
ii. Opening in any polling place or within a radius of
thirty meters thereof on election day and during
the counting of votes, booths or stalls of any
kind for the sale, dispensing or display of wares,
merchandise or refreshments, whether solid or
liquid, or for any other purposes.
iii. Holding on election day, fairs, cockfights, boxing,
horse races, jai-alai or any other similar sports.
By whom: Any operator or employee of a public utility or
transportation company operating under a certificate of
public convenience, including government-owned or
controlled postal service or its employees or deputized
agents
i. Refusing to carry official election mail matters free
of charge during the election period. In addition
to the penalty prescribed herein, such refusal
shall constitute a ground for cancellation or
revocation of certificate of public convenience
or franchise.
By whom: Any person
ii. Operating a radio or television station who without
justifiable cause discriminates against any
political party, coalition or aggroupment of
parties or any candidate in the sale of air time.
In addition to the penalty prescribed herein,
such refusal shall constitute a ground for
cancellation or revocation of the franchise.

II.PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE (Sec. 263, Omnibus
Election Code)

Principals, accomplices, and accessories as defined
in the RPC
If the one responsible be a political party or an
entity, its president or head, the officials and employees of
the same, performing duties connected with the offense
committed and its members who may be principals,
accomplices, or accessories shall be liable, in addition to the
liability of such party or entity

III. PENALTIES (Sec. 264, Omnibus Election Code)
- Any person found guilty of any election offense shall
be punished with:
imprisonment of not less than one year but not more
than six years and shall not be subject to probation
disqualification to hold public office and deprivation
of the right of suffrage
If he is a foreigner, he shall be sentenced to
deportation which shall be enforced after the prison term
has been served
Any political party found guilty shall be sentenced to
pay a fine of not less than ten thousand pesos

- In case of prisoner or prisoners illegally released
from any penitentiary or jail during the prohibited period as
provided in Section 261, paragraph (n) of this Code, the
director of prisons, provincial warden, keeper of the jail or
prison, or persons who are required by law to keep said
prisoner in their custody shall, if convicted by a competent
court, be sentenced to suffer the penalty of prision mayor in
its maximum period if the prisoner or prisoners so illegally
released commit any act of intimidation, terrorism of
interference in the election.

- Any person found guilty of the offense of failure to
register or failure to vote shall, upon conviction:

Pay fine of one hundred pesos.
disqualification to run for public office in the next
succeeding election following his conviction or be appointed
20 | P a g e

to a public office for a period of one year following his
conviction.

IV. PROSECUTION (Sec. 265, Omnibus Election Code)

- The Commission shall, through its duly authorized
legal officers, have the exclusive power to conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses, and to
prosecute the same.
- The Commission may avail of the assistance of other
prosecuting arms of the government: Provided, however,
That in the event that the Commission fails to act on any
complaint within four months from his filing, the
complainant may file the complaint with the office of the
fiscal or with the Ministry of Justice for proper investigation
and prosecution, if warranted.

V. ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTION
CAMPAIGN (Sec. 266, Omnibus Election Code)
- No person shall be arrested and/or detained at any
time for any alleged offense committed during and in
connection with any election through any act or language
tending to support or oppose any candidate, political party
or coalition of political parties under or pursuant to any
order of whatever name or nature and by whomsoever
issued except only upon a warrant of arrest issued by a
competent judge after all the requirements of the
Constitution shall have been strictly complied with.
- If the offense charged is punishable under a
presidential decree whether originally or by amendment of a
previous law, the death penalty shall not be imposed upon
the offender except where murder, rape or arson is involved.
In all cases, the penalty shall not be higher than reclusion
perpetua and the offender shall be entitled to reasonable bail
upon sufficient sureties to be granted speedily by the
competent court. Moreover, loss of the right of citizenship
and confiscation of property shall not be imposed.
- Any officer or a person who shall violate any
provision of this section shall be punished by imprisonment
of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than
twelve (12) years, with the accessory penalties for election
offenses. The provision of Section 267 of this Code shall not
apply to prosecution under this section.

VI. PRESCRIPTION (Sec. 267, Omnibus Election Code)
- Election offenses shall prescribe after five years
from the date of their commission
- If the discovery of the offense be made in an election
contest proceedings, the period of prescription shall
commence on the date on which the judgment in such
proceedings becomes final and executory.

VII. JURISDICTION (Sec. 268, Omnibus Election Code)
- The regional trial court shall have the exclusive
original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or
proceedings for violation of the Omnibus Elecion Code
- EXCEPT those relating to the offense of failure to
register or failure to vote which shall be under the
jurisdiction of the metropolitan or municipal trial courts.
- From the decision of the courts, appeal will lie as in
other criminal cases.

VIII. CASES:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANDRES FERRER

FACTS:
Accused Andres G. Ferrer was accused of violation of
Sections 51 and 54 in relation to Section 183, 184 and 185 of
the revised Election Code. The information alleged that the
accused being then and there a Foreign Affairs Officer, Class
III, Department of Foreign Affairs, and classified civil service
officer, duly qualified and appointed as such, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly, in utter
disregard and defiance of the specific and several legal
prohibition on the subject, and in disregard of the civil
service rules and regulations, induce, influence, sway and
make the electors vote in favor of the candidates of the
Liberal Party in the following manner, to wit: (1) that
sometime before the elections on November 10, 1958, the
said accused, Andres G. Ferrer, delivered a speech during a
political rally of the Liberal Party in Barrio Caloocan Norte, of
the said municipality of Binmaley, Pangasinan, inducing the
21 | P a g e

electors to vote for the candidates of the Liberal Party but
more particularly for President Quirino and Speaker Perez;
that during said political meeting the said accused caused to
be distributed to the people who attended said meeting
cigarettes and pamphlets concerning the Liberal Party; and
(2) that the said accused, Andres G. Ferrer, sometime prior to
the last elections campaigned in the Barrio of Caloocan
Norte, of the said municipality of Binmaley, going from house
to house and induced the electors to whom he distributed
sample, ballots of the Liberal Party.

The defendant moved to quash the information on the
ground that it charges more than one offense and that the
facts alleged in the information do not constitute a violation
of either section 51 or section 54 of the Revised Election
Code.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused violated Sections 51 and 54 of
the Revised Election Code.

HELD:
The trial court is of the opinion that causing cigarettes or
pamphlets concerning the Liberal Party to be distributed to
the people who attended a political meeting, charged against
the defendant, does not constitute a violation of section 51 of
the Revised Election Code, because it is not giving "food" for
tobacco is not food; nor does it constitute a violation of that
part of section 51 which makes unlawfully the contributing
or giving, directly or indirectly, of money or things of value,
because the information merely charges the defendant with-
having caused cigarettes, etc. to be distributed, and it does
not state that the cigarette belonged to the defendant and
were being given away by him as his contribution for
electioneering purposes. True, cigarettes are not food, but
they have and are of value and the charge that the defendant
caused cigarettes and pamphlets concerning the Liberal
Party to be distributed to the people who attended a political
meeting mentioned in the information is a sufficient
allegation that he gave or contributed things of value for
electioneering purposes. If the cigarettes did not belong to
him, that is a matter of defense. The trial court is also of the
opinion that the defendant is not a classified civil service
officer or employee, because to be such it is necessary that
he be assigned in the Department of Foreign Affairs under
section 6, Republic Act. No. 708 and if and when thus
assigned he will for purposes of civil service law and
regulations, be considered as first grade civil service
eligible," and that even if the prosecution could establish that
the defendant at the time of the commission of the violation
charged was assigned in the Department of Foreign Affairs
under the section just mentioned, still such assignment
would not make him a classified civil service officer
embraced within the provisions of section 54 of the Revised
Election Code, for, according to the trial court, section 670 of
the Revised Administrative Code provides that the classified
civil service embraces all persons not expressly declared to
be the unclassified civil service and section 671 enumerates
the persons embraced in the unclassified civil service; and
concludes; that the defendant is in the unclassified civil
service under section 671, paragraph b, of the Revised
Administrative Code, because the defendant was appointed
by the President first as Foreign Affairs Officer Class III,
Department of Foreign Affairs, and later on as Vice Consul
the last appointment having been duly confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments, and that the, assignment or
detail in the Department of Foreign Affairs would make him
by mere legal fiction a first grade civil service eligible under
section 6, Republic Act No. 708.

Nevertheless, the information is defective, because it charges
two violations of the Revised Election Code, to wit: section
51 to which a heavier penalty is attached, and section 54 for
which a lighter penalty is provided. And the prosecuting
attorneys had that in mind when at the end of the
information filed by them they stated: "Contrary to Sections
51 and 54 in relation to Sections 183, 184 and 185 of
Republic Act No. 180, as amended." Causing cigarettes which
are things of value to be distributed, made unlawful by
section 51 and punished by section 183, cannot be deemed a
necessary means to commit the lesser violation of section 54
were the penalty attached to it taken into consideration.

That a violation of section 51 is distinct from that of section
54 is further shown by the fact that a violation of the former
may be committed by any candidate, political committee,
voter or any other person, whereas a violation of the latter
may only be committed by a justice, judge, fiscal, treasurer or
assessor of any province, officer or employee of the Army,
member of the national, provincial, city, municipal or rural
police force, and classified civil service officer or employee.

22 | P a g e

The order appealed from is affirmed, not upon the grounds
relied upon by the trial court, but on the ground that the
information charges two different violations, without
pronouncement as to costs

JACINTO MAPPALA vs. JUDGE CRISPULO A. NUEZ

FACTS
In 1989, the Provincial prosecutor of Isabela filed: (1) an
information against Alejandro Angoluan for illegal
possession of a firearm; (2) an information against Angoluan
and five other co-accused for frustrated murder; and (3) an
information against Alejandro and Honorato Angoluan for
violation of the Omnibus election code. The complaining
witness in the second case was Jacinto Mappala, the
complainant against respondent in this administrative case.
All the actions were consolidated and assigned to the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, Cabagan, Isabela, presided
by respondent.
Respondent rendered a consolidated decision in the cases,
finding that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Frustrated Homicide. His co-accused were
acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. The courts also found
him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal
Possession of Firearms in Violation of P.D. No. 1866.
However, he was acquitted for the charge of Violation of the
Omnibus election Code.
In his letter-complaint, complainant charged respondent
with: (1) gross inefficiency for rendering the decision
beyond the reglementary period of ninety days or seven
months after the cases were submitted for decision; (2)
serious misconduct for acquitting Alejandro Angoluan of
violation of the Omnibus Election Code; and (3) violation of
the Code of Judicial Ethics for giving credence to the alibi of
the accused Rizaldy Angoluan in the absence of any
corroborating testimony of any witness. Complainant
likewise accused respondent of accepting bribes in
connection with cases pending before him.
In his comment, respondent averred that the three actions
involved grave offenses that required more time in the
preparation of the decision. He justified the acquittal of
Alejandro of violation of the Election Law in Criminal Case
No. 965 on the ground that ". . . the firearm was not taken
from his person within the precinct but was not taken . . .
more than 50 meters away from the precinct".
Furthermore, he claimed that what the law considered as a
crime was the "carrying of firearms within (50) or 100
meters away from the precinct. The firearm was not taken
from the accused within the 50 or 100 meters distance from
the precinct because in truth and in fact the said firearm was
surrendered by the accused two (2) days after the elections.
The mistake in the distance is merely a clerical error. But be
it 50 meters or 100 meters, still the accused could not be
convicted under the said provision, specifically Section 261,
Subsection (p) of Article XXII of the Omnibus election Code".

ISSUE
WON Judge Nuez erred in rendering a decision of acquittal
for the charge of Violation of the Omnibus election Code

HELD
Section 261 (p) of the Omnibus Election Code provides that:
Any person who carries any deadly weapon in the polling
place and within a radius of one hundred meters thereof
during the days and hours fixed by law for the registration of
voters in the polling place, voting, counting of votes, or
preparation of the election returns. However, in cases of
affray, turmoil, or disorder, any peace officer or public officer
authorized by the Commission to supervise the election is
entitled to carry firearms or any other weapon for the
purpose of preserving and enforcing the law.
In his decision, respondent found that Alejandro shot
complainant herein inside Precinct No. 2 located at the
elementary school building in Santo Tomas, Isabela, during
the barangay elections on March 28, 1989. Respondent also
found that Alejandro was the one who surrendered the gun.
To respondent, the surrender of the weapon was an implied
admission that it was the one used by Alejandro in shooting
complainant. In spite of all these findings, respondent
acquitted Alejandro of illegally carrying a deadly weapon
inside a precinct on the theory that the gun was not seized
from him while he was the precinct.
To support a conviction under Section 261(p) of the
Omnibus election Code, it is not necessary that the deadly
weapon should have been seized from the accused while he
was in the precinct or within a radius of 100 meters
therefrom. It is enough that the accused carried the deadly
weapon "in the polling place and within a radius of one
hundred meters thereof" during any of the specified days
and hours. After respondent himself had found that the
23 | P a g e

prosecution had established these facts, it is difficult to
understand why he acquitted Alejandro of the charge of
violation of Section 261(p) of the Omnibus election Code.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CORNELIO BAYONA

FACTS
Defendant Cornelio Bayona was driving his automobile on a
road in front of electoral precinct No.4 in Barrio de Aranguel,
Pilar, Capiz. He had a revolver with him. He was then called
by his friend, Jose D. Benliro. He alighted from his
automobile and approached him to find out what he wanted.
He did not leave his revolver in the automobile, because
there were many people in the road in front of the polling
place and he might lose it. He was within the fence
surrounding the polling place when Jose E. Desiderio, a
representative of the Department of Interior, took
possession of the revolver defendant was carrying. The
Solicitor General was for his acquittal arguing that since the
Government does not especially construct buildings for
electoral precincts but merely utilizes whatever building
there may be available, and all election precincts are within
fifty meters from some road, a literal application of the law
would be absurd; that if the real object of the Legislature was
to insure the free exercise of suffrage, the prohibition in
question should only be applied when the facts reveal that
the carrying of the firearms was intended for the purpose of
using them directly or indirectly to influence the free choice
of the electors.

ISSUE
Whether or not defendant is guilty of a violation of Sec. 416
of the Election Law

HELD
The law which the defendant violated is a statutory
provision, and the intent with which he violated it is
immaterial. It may be conceded that the defendant did not
intend to intimidate any elector or to violate the law in any
other way, but when he got out of his automobile and carried
his revolver inside of the fence surrounding the polling place,
he committed the act complained of, and he committed it
willfully. The act prohibited by the Election Law was
complete. The intention to intimidate the voters or to
interfere otherwise with the election is not made an essential
element of the offense. Unless such an offender actually
makes use of his revolver, it would be extremely difficult, if
not impossible, to prove that he intended to intimidate the
voters.
The rule is that in acts mala in se there must be a criminal
intent, but in those mala prohibita it is sufficient if the
prohibited act was intentionally done. "Care must be
exercised in distinguishing the difference between the intent
to commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate the act. ..."
(U.S. vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128.)
Since the Election Code prohibits and punishes the carrying
of a firearm inside the polling place and defendant Bayona
did the prohibited act freely and consciously, he had the
intent to perpetrate the act.

Note: The courts have always recognized the power of the
legislature, on grounds of public policy and compelled by
necessity, "the great master of things", to forbid in a limited
class of cases the doing of certain acts, and to make their
commission criminal without regard to the intent of the
doer. (U.S. vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128; U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 15
Phil. 488.) In such cases no judicial authority has the power
to require, in the enforcement of the law, such knowledge or
motive to be shown.

Recall

Definition
The termination of official relationship of an elective official
for loss of confidence prior to the expiration of his term
through the will of the people

NOTE: Other forms of termination of official relationship of
public officers include Expiration of term or tenure,
Resignation, Removal, Abandonment, Death, Impeachment,
etc.

By Whom Exercised (Sec. 69)
By registered voters of a local government unit to which the
local elective official subject to such recall belongs.

Initiation of the Recall Process
(Sec. 70 as amended by RA 9244)

NOTE: By virtue of R.A. 9244, Secs. 70 and 71 of the Local
Government Code were amended, and the Preparatory Recall
24 | P a g e

Assembly has been eliminated as a mode of initiating recall of
elective local government officials
i

Recall of any elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay
official shall be commenced by a petition of a registered
voter in the LGU concerned and supported by the registered
voters in the LGU concerned during the election in which the
local official sought to be recalled was elected subject to the
following percentage requirements:
1. At least 25% for LGUs with a voting population of
not more than 20,000;
at least 20,000 but not more than 75,000: Provided,
That in no case shall the required petitioners be less
than 5,000;
at least 75,000 but not more than 300,000: Provided,
however, That in no case shall the required number
of petitioners be less than 15,000; and
over 300,000: Provided, however, That in no case
shall the required petitioners be less than 45,000.

In Angobung v. Comelec, the SC underscored the need for a
petition signed by at least 25% of the total number of
registered voters in the constituency in order to validly
initiate a recall election. Thus, where the petition is signed
only by the petitioner and does not even bear the names of
the citizens who have allegedly lost confidence in the public
official, then the petition should be dismissed.

PROCEDURE:
1. A written petition for recall duly signed by the
representatives of the petitioners before the election
registrar or his representative, shall be filed with the
Comelec through its office in the local government
unit concerned.

2. The petition to recall shall contain the following:
a. The names and addresses of the petitioners
written in legible form and their signatures;
b. The barangay, city or municipality, local
legislative district and the province to
which the petitioners belong;
c. The name of the official sought to be
recalled; and
d. A brief narration of the reasons and
justifications therefore.

3. The Comelec shall, within 15 days from the filing of
the petition, certify to the sufficiency of the required
number of signatures. Failure to obtain the required
number of signatures automatically nullifies the
petition;

4. If the petition is found to be sufficient in form, the
Comelec or its duly authorized representative shall,
within 3 days form the issuance of the certification:
a. provide the official sought to be recalled a
copy of the petition
b. cause its publication a national newspaper
of general circulation and a newspaper of
general circulation in the locality, once a
week for 3 consecutive weeks at the
expense of the petitioners and
c. at the same time post copies thereof in
public and conspicuous places for a period
of not less than 10 days nor more than 20
days, for the purpose of allowing interested
parties to examine and verify the validity of
the petition and the authenticity of the
signatures contained therein.

5. The Comelec or its duly authorized representatives
shall, upon issuance of certification, proceed
independently with the verification and
authentication of the signatures of the petitioners
and registered voters contained therein.
a. Representatives of the petitioners and the
official sought to be recalled shall be duly
notified and shall have the right to
participate therein as mere observers.
b. The filing of any challenge or protest shall
be allowed within the period provided in
the immediately preceding paragraph and
shall be ruled upon with finality within 15
days from the date of filing of such protest
or challenge;

6. Upon the lapse of the aforesaid period, the Comelec
or its duly authorized representative shall announce
the acceptance of candidates to the positive and
thereafter prepare the list of candidates which shall
include the name of the official sought to be recalled.

Election on Recall (Sec. 71 as amended by RA 9244)
Upon the filing of a valid petition for recall with the
appropriate local office of the Comelec, the Comelec or its
duly authorized representative shall set the date of the
election or recall, which shall not be later than 30 days upon
the completion of the procedure outlined in the preceding
article, in the case of the barangay, city or municipal officials,
and 45 days in the case of provincial officials.

The officials sought to be recalled shall automatically be
considered as duly registered candidate or candidates to the
pertinent positions and, like other candidates, shall be
entitled to be voted upon.

Effectivity of Recall (Sec. 72)
The recall of an elective local official shall be effective only
upon the election and proclamation of a successor in the
person of the candidate receiving the highest number of
votes cast during the election on recall.
25 | P a g e

Should the official sought to be recalled receive the highest
number of votes, confidence in him is thereby affirmed, and
he shall continue in office.

Prohibition from Resignation (Sec. 73)
The elective local official sought to be recalled shall not be
allowed to resign while the recall process is in progress.

Limitations on Recall (Sec. 74)
1. Any elective local government official may be
subject of a recall election only once during his term
of office for loss of confidence; and
2. No recall shall take place within one year from the
date of the official's assumption to office or one year
immediately preceding a regular local election.

In Paras vs. Comelec, it was held that the Sangguniang
Kabataan election is not a regular election within the
contemplation of the Local Government Code as would
bar the holding of a recall election. Neither will the recall
election of the Mayor be barred by the barangay
elections.

In Angobung vs. Comelec, it was held that the regular
local election referred to in Sec. 74 means that the
approaching local election must be one where the
position of the official to be recalled is actually contested
and to be filed by the electorate.

Expenses Incident to Recall Elections (Sec. 75)
All expenses incident to recall elections shall be borne by the
COMELEC. For this purpose, there shall be included in the
annual General Appropriations Act a contingency fund at the
disposal of the COMELEC for the conduct of recall elections.

NOTE: Sec. 3, RA 9244
All pending petitions for recall initiated through the
Preparatory Recall Assembly shall be considered dismissed
upon the effectivity of RA 9244 (Approved: February 19,
2004)

In Garcia vs. Comelec, it was held that notices to all the
members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly is imperative;
thus, where the resolution was adopted without giving
notice to all the members of the PRA, the same is fatally
flawed. But in Malonzo vs. Comelec, it was held that where
the Comelec has already conducted an investigation and
found the initiatory recall proceedings to be in accord with
law, there is no necessity for the SC to refer the matter of the
veracity of the questioned notices back to the COMELEC.

FROM SOME OF THE WORLDS ELECTORAL
DEMOCRACIES: INSIGHTS AND BEST PRACTICES

governments that failed to deliver on the promise of
a better life for all will remain fragile and lose their beginning
and sustainability
President Seretse Khama Ian Khama
Botswana, March 7, 2011

Global Electoral Organization Conference
GEO 2011 Conference
Theme: Credible elections for democracy
Hosted by: International Institute for Democracy and
Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) and the
Independent Electoral Commission of Botswana
When: March 7-9 2011
Where: Botswana, Southern Africa
Who: 250 delegates
a. Election management bodies (EMBs)/ electoral
commissions from all continents in the world
b. Donor institutions
c. International organizations
What: to share experiences, compare notes, celebrate
achievements and discuss new ideas and approaches in the
management of elections
One of the biggest democracy forums in the world
First to be held in Africa
Sponsored by Global Electoral Organization (GEO), a
network of election management bodies election
practitioners and experts established following the
wave of democratization that swept the world after
the end of cold war
Its a milestone because it was held in Africa amid a
civil war in Libya and momentous transition in
Egypt and Tunisia
Choice of Botswana as venue is appropriate because
the young republic is a multi-party democracy
whose constitution was adopted in 1966 and
provides for 3 main organs of Government:
Legislature (Parliament) Executive (President and
Cabinet) and the Judiciary. It has its House of Chiefs
comprised of traditional leaders and chiefs who
advice the National assembly on issues of
citizenship, land tenure and customary law.

Comelec (Philippines)
Was invited to participate
26 | P a g e

Shared its experience on the countrys first
automated national elections and electoral
reforms:
a. Biometric registration
b. Detainee voting
c. Express lane for the elderly, pregnant
women and persons with disabilities
Commissioner Sarmiento (the writer as referred
in the book), flew to Botswana to present 10-minute
power point presentation on Electoral Reforms:
Successes, Misses, Steps Ahead

Conference
Opening the conference was Botswana President
Seretse Khama Ian Khama
said that most of the conflicts in Africa are
from election contests
Keynote speech: Mr. Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de
leon, former president of Mexico and vice-chairman
of Global Commission on Elections democracy and
society (chaired by Kofi Anan)
stressed that fair and free election is
essential to security, democracy and
development and lack of electoral integrity
lies at the root of social injustice and
poverty

Insights from the Conference
1. Elections and Reforms
Electoral reform includes improving responsive
electoral processes to public desires and
expectations
Irena Hadziabdic, Central election Commission
president of Bosnia and Herzegovina
electoral reform is a change of the election
system in order to improve the way that
public desires are reflected in the elections
electoral reform is very demanding and
slow process and has to involve
representatives of the government
academe, representatives of the political
parties and non-governmental sector, legal
and international experts to be successful
Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, Chairman African
association of the Election Authorities and EMB
Ghana President
electoral reforms could be changes that are
far and between because they are structural
(like replacing centralized counting by
polling station counting system) or they
could be changes that are regular because
they are non-structural (like replacing
opaque ballot boxes with transparent ones
holding dialogues with stakeholders)
Changes must be characterized by transparency,
professionalism and others
Transparency includes presence of audit trails in
the voting processes and stakeholders inputs in the
electoral system thereby encouraging them to claim
shared ownership in the electoral process
Professionalism means better training and better
facilities for poll personnel and voters
Information technology serves as tool for EMBs to
efficiently conduct elections.
The frontier of voters education should be both
descriptive and demonstrative to impart more
effectively democratic values to the voters

2. Election management bodies and Women
Aiming for greater gender balance has been
observed in many countries in the appointment
of a chairperson/ president and commissioners
of EMBs
In the conference were women-heads of EMBs
like
a. Dr. Brigalia Bam Independent electoral
commission of south Africa
b. Suzana Antonio de conceicao nicalau Ingles
of Angola
c. Tania Arias Manzano of Ecuador
d. Irena Hadziabdic of Boznia and Herzegovina
e. Christiana Thorpe of sierra leone
f. Dra. Maria Eugenia Vilagran De leon of
Guatemala

In 2004, two of the five EMB members in
Cambodia were women 2 of the 5 members in
Jamaica five of the nine members in South Africa
and two of nine in Palestine
Making certain that there is gender balance in
its own personnel and activities will promote
EMBs credibility and allow it to tap womens
capabilities for its membership,professional and
support staff, permanent and temporary or ad
hoc staff, consultants and advisers
At present, women constitute 19% of members
of parliaments around the world.
Rwanda has just superseded Sweden as number
one in the world in terms of womens
parliamentary representation at 56.3 % women
against Swedens 47.3%.

UNDP data on women in elections in 2010 and
women in leadership positions show the following:

Women in Elections 2010:
67 chambers in 48 countries
Women took 20% of seats renewed in 2010
Share of seats increased in half of parliaments
elected
26 lower chambers surpass 30% women MPs
7 chambers above 40% women MPs

27 | P a g e

56% Rwanda
45% Sweden
40.7% Netherlands
39.3% Belgium
38.6% Costa Rica
36% Tanzania
32% Burundi

Women in Leadership Positions:
Women Heads of State: 9 out of 151 (6%)
Women Heads of Government: 13 (6%)
Women Ministers: approx. 16%
Women at the head of Parliament: 14%
(approx. 16)
(Heads of government include: Australia, Argentina,
Bangladesh, Croatia, Finland, Germany, Iceland,
Mozambique)

Women in Elections 2010:
Womens participation stagnated or regressed
in half of chambers elected
Nearly 1/3 of all chambers have less than 10%
women members
5 chambers renewed with 0 women members
(Nauru, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Qatar)

3. Elections and Electoral Justice
Jesus Orazco-Henriquez, Lead Author or
Electoral Justice: The International IDEA
Handbook and professor of the Leagl Research
Institute of the National Autonomous University
of Mexico Electoral Justice represents the
ultimate guarantee of free, fair and genuine
elections and is decisive in ensuring the stability
of the political system
Judge Johann Kriegler, former Chairperson of
the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) of
South Africa, agreed with Michael Svetlik of the
International Foundation for Electoral Systems
(IFES) there are standards of electoral dispute
resolution like:
o the right of redress,
o an impartial and informed arbiter,
o a system that expedites decisions,
o established burdens of proof and
standards of evidence,
o availability of meaningful and effective
remedies and
o effective education of stakeholders
These are only aspirational standards. Electoral
Justice is not a branch of law like insurance law
but that it is supra public law since it interfaces
law and politics and in the final analysis is a
political process. He advised promptness in the
resolution of election contests and warns
against judicialization of electoral disputes.

4. Elections and Media
Dr. Steve Surybally, Chairman, EMB Guyana
advises that media should be treated as
friends
Updates and information about election matters
should be shared with them
Dialogues and meeting should be held between
EMBs and media
Dr. Surybally and Mancoah Esipisu, Deputy
Spokesperson and Deputy Director,
Communication and Public Affairs Division,
Commonwealth Secretariat media should be
given training and briefing on election
procedures and processes.
In the end, successful elections depend on an
informed citizenry and media plays a big role in
ensuring transparent and successful elections.

5. EMBs and Political Pressure
2 Areas where Political Pressure comes in:
1. Appointment of members in the EMBs
Those appointed are close to the
appointing authority and some are
placed in the positions to weaken the
independence of the institutions
2. Release of Budget for the EMBs
Budget is not released immediately and
is used as a leverage against EMBs.
Samuel Kivuitu, former Chairman of Kenya
EMB:
To neutralize political pressure, EMBs
should cultivate good relationships with
political parties, media and other
stakeholders and involve them in electoral
activities like voters registration.
It is also helpful to make these partners
realize they have rights and responsibilities
in the electoral process
EMBs should welcome election observers
who would monitor elections

6. Election and Youth
General observation: The youth in many
countries are not interested in elections
They view it negatively and would rather
involve in activities not related to elections.
Political parties share a big part of the blame for
not making efforts and extra-efforts to educate
and encourage the youth to be involved in
electoral politics
In some countries, political parties have a
negative perception, thus, discouraging young
people from political exercises

7. Elections, democracy and violence
28 | P a g e

Pres. Khama Ian Khama of Botswana:
Although there is a democracy deficit in
many parts of the world, it remains a vital
aspiration of millions and a much sought
after universal value
Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo:
Although democracy remains an aspiration
to millions, it is a real achievement for many
others.
Dr. Annie Barbara Chikwanha of International
Institute for Democracy and Electoral
Assistance (IIDEA), in her paper entitled
Women in Elections-related Conflict:
These types of conflict are present in Africa
which are violent and non-violent and
which are intermittent, endemic and
intractable.
These conflicts are not just about power
and resources but are rooted in the denial
of human needs such as identity, security,
respect and recognition.
To address these election-related conflicts:
o Incorporation of human rights into the
national educational curriculum
o Establishments of long-term election
conflict management/ resolution
boards across all regions in the national
level
o Gender balance of the leadership in
election administration and election
observation teams and enforcement of
an Electoral Code of Conduct
Gaborone Declaration 2011 Conference
Participants expressed that elections exist
as a cornerstone of democracy that
empowers people to participate in the
selection of their political representatives
But while an increasing number of
countries around the globe conduct
elections as a peaceful means of discerning
the will of the people, they also observed
that there are increasing instances of
election-related violence
Therefore they acknowledged the need to
address the root causes of, and reduce the
potential of election-related violence

8. Elections and the newly-created Global
Commission on Elections, Democracy and
Security
Headed by former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi
Anan
Members are former heads of states Nobel
laureates and EMBs
Serves as a useful forum for issues relating to
elections, democracy and security affecting
various EMBs and as a collective voice to urge
and push for reforms in electoral processes.
The political value of this body in the
international arena is invaluable.

Conclusion
The GEO Conference ended with the approval of
the Global Electoral Organization (GEO)
Gaborone Declaration 2011
Highlights the importance of establishing
and strengthening the professionalism of
credible electoral institutions
Acknowledges the need to address the root
causes of, and the potential for election-
related violence
Calls greater attention to the importance of
promoting gender equality in all economic,
political and social contexts and
empowering women in the conduct and
administration of elections
Urges participants of the conference,
individuals and organizations,, to bring the
experiences and outcomes of the conference
to the attention of the electoral authorities,
political parties, civil society the media and
others across the globe and to endeavor to
ensure more credible and inclusive
electoral processes.

93-year old Nelson Mandela, tata (father) of
South Africa and considered an icon of democracy
will surely relish the fruitful outcome of the GEO
Conference.
CHORVA!

CASES

1. MAYOR RICARDO M. ANGOBUNG vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS EN BANC, and ATTY. AURORA S. DE ALBAN
G.R. No. 126576 March 5, 1997
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
FACTS: Petitioner won as the duly elected Mayor of the
Municipality of Tumauini, Isabela in the local elections of
1995. He garnered 55% of all the votes cast. Private
respondent de Alban was also a candidate in said elections.
Sometime in early September, 1996, private respondent filed
with the Local Election Registrar of Tumauini, Isabela, a
Petition for Recall against petitioner. On September 12,
1996, petitioner received a copy of this petition.
Subsequently said petition was forwarded to the Regional
Office in Tuguegarao, Cagayan and then to the main office of
COMELEC in Manila, for approval.
29 | P a g e

Acting on the petition, Deputy Executive Director for
Operations Pio Jose Joson submitted to the COMELEC En
Banc, a Memorandum dated October 8, 1996 recommending
approval of the petition for recall filed by private respondent
and its signing by other qualified voters in order to garner at
least 25% of the total number of registered voters as
required by Section 69(d) of the Local Government Code of
1991.
In turn acting on the abovementioned Memorandum of
Deputy Executive Director Joson, the COMELEC en banc
issued the herein assailed Resolution No. 96-2951.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the term regular local election
includes that of barangay election for purposes of 1
year bar to apply.
2. Whether or not a petition for recall may be filed by
only one person.
HELD:
1. NO. Pursuant to the case of Paras v. COMELEC, the
recall election scheduled on December 2, 1996 in the
instant case cannot be said to be barred by the May
12, 1997 Barangay Elections. The term "regular local
election" in Section 74 of the Local Government
Code of 1991 which provides that "no recall shall
take place within one (1) year . . . immediately
preceding a regular local election, "for the time bar
to apply, the approaching regular local election must
be one where the position of the official to be
recalled, is to be actually contested and filled by the
electorate. Thus, in the instant case where the time
bar is being invoked by petitioner mayor in view of
the approaching Barangay Elections in May 1997,
there can be no application of the one year bar,
hence no invalidity may be ascribed to Resolution
No. 96-2951 on this ground.
2. NO. Before the enactment of RA 7160, the recall of
public officials voted for in popular elections, was
governed by Sections 54 to 59 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 337, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1983. In the case of Sanchez v. COMELEC, the
SC upheld the constitutionality of the resolution
promulgated by the COMELEC authorizing initiatory
recall petition to be filed by only one person. The
issue in Sanchez was not this questioned procedure
but the legal basis for the exercise by the COMELEC
of its rule-making power in the alleged absence of a
grant of such power by an enabling statute on recall.
As this is the crux of the present constitutional
challenge, the proper time has come for this court to
issue a definitive ruling on the matter.
Section 69 (d) of the Local Government Code of
1991 expressly provides that "recall of any elective .
. . municipal . . . official may also be validly initiated
upon petition of at least twenty-five percent (25%)
of the total number of registered voters in the local
government unit concerned during the election in
which the local official sought to be recalled was
elected". The law is plain and unequivocal as to what
initiates recall proceedings: only a petition of at least
25% of the total number of registered voters, may
validly initiate recall proceedings. We take careful
note of the phrase, "petition of at least twenty-five
percent (25%)" and point out that the law does not
state that the petition must be signed by at least
25% of the registered voters; rather, the petition
must be "of" or by, at least 25% of the registered
voters, i.e., the petition must be filed, not by one
person only, but by at least 25% of the total number
of registered voters. This is understandable, since
the signing of the petition is statutorily required to
be undertaken "before the election registrar or his
representative, and in the presence of a
representative of the official sought to be recalled,
and in a public place in the . . . municipality . . . " .
Hence, while the initiatory recall petition may not
yet contain the signatures of at least 25% of the total
number of registered voters, the petition must
contain the names of at least 25% of the total
number of registered voters in whose behalf only
one person may sign the petition in the meantime.
(We) cannot sanction the procedure of the filing of
the recall petition by a number of people less than
the foregoing 25% statutory requirement, much
less, the filing thereof by just one person, as in the
instant case, since this is indubitably violative of
clear and categorical provisions of subsisting law.
Note:
MAYOR RICARDO M. ANGOBUNG incumbent mayor of
Municipality of Tumauini, Isabela who is sought to be
recalled
ATTY. AURORA S. DE ALBAN rival candidate for
mayoralty in the 1995 local elections and who filed the
petition for recall against the petitioner
Pio Jose Joson - Deputy Executive Director for Operations
who recommended for the approval of the petition for recall
filed by private respondent.
Comelec Resolution No. 96-2951 subject matter of the
case; authorizing private respondent alone to file an
initiatory recall petition.
30 | P a g e

2. JOVITO O. CLAUDIO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT,
COMMISSION ON AUDIT and RICHARD ADVINCULA
G.R. No. 140560 May 4, 2000

G.R. No. 140714 May 4, 2000
PREPARATORY RECALL ASSEMBLY OF PASAY CITY,
herein represented by its Chairman, RICHARD
ADVINCULA vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
COMMISSION ON AUDIT and HON. JOVITO O. CLAUDIO
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS: Jovito O. Claudio was the duly elected mayor of Pasay
City in the May 11, 1998 elections. He assumed office on July
1, 1998. Sometime during the second week of May 1999, the
chairs of several barangays in Pasay City gathered to discuss
the possibility of filing a petition for recall against Mayor
Claudio for loss of confidence. On May 19, 1999, at the
residence of barangay chair Benjamin Lim, several barangay
chairs formed an ad hoc committee for the purpose of
convening the Preparatory Recall assembly (PRA). Richard
Advincula was designated chair.
On May 29, 1999, members of the PRA composed of
barangay chairs, kagawads, and sangguniang kabataan chairs
of Pasay City, adopted entitled RESOLUTION TO INITIATE
THE RECALL OF JOVITO O. CLAUDIO AS MAYOR OF PASAY
CITY FOR LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. In a letter dated June 29,
1999, Advincula, as chair of the PRA, invited the Mayor, Vice-
Mayor, Station Commander, and thirteen (13) Councilors of
Pasay City to witness the formal submission to the Office of
the Election Officer on July 2, 1999 of the petition for recall.
On July 2, 1999 the petition for recall was filed accompanied
by an affidavit of service of the petition on the Office of the
City Mayor. Pursuant to the rules of the COMELEC, copies of
the petition were posted on the several areas. Subsequently,
a verification of the authenticity of the signatures on the
resolution was conducted by Ligaya Salayon, the election
officer for Pasay City designated by the COMELEC.
Oppositions to the petition were filed by petitioner Jovito O.
Claudio, Rev. Ronald Langub, and Roberto L. Angeles,
alleging procedural and substantive defects in the petition.
The COMELEC granted the petition for recall and dismissed
the oppositions against it.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the word "recall" in paragraph (b) of
Sec. 74 of the LGC covers a process which includes
the convening of the Preparatory Recall Assembly
and its approval of the recall resolution.
2. Wether or not the term "regular local election" in
the last clause of paragraph (b) includes the election
period for that regular election or simply the date of
such election.
HELD:
1. NO. Recall is a process which begins with the
convening of the preparatory recall assembly or the
gathering of the signatures at least 25% of the
registered voters of a local government unit, and
then proceeds to the filing of a recall resolution or
petition with the COMELEC, the verification of such
resolution or petition, the fixing of the date of the
recall election, and the holding of the election on the
scheduled date. However, as used in paragraph (b)
of Sec. 74, "recall" refers to the election itself by
means of which voters decide whether they should
retain their local official or elect his replacement.
a) First, Sec. 74 deals with restrictions on the
power of recall. It is in fact entitled
"Limitations on Recall." On the other hand,
Sec. 69 provides that "the power of recall . . .
shall be exercised by the registered voters
of a local government unit to which the local
elective official belongs." Since the power
vested on the electorate is not the power to
initiate recall proceedings but the power to
elect an official into office, the limitations in
Sec. 74 cannot be deemed to apply to the
entire recall proceedings. In other words,
the term "recall" in paragraph (b) refers
only to the recall election, excluding the
convening of the PRA and the filing of a
petition for recall with the COMELEC, or the
gathering of the signatures of at least 25 %
of the voters for a petition for recall.
b) The second reason why the term "recall" in
paragraph (b) refers to recall election is to
be found in the purpose of the limitation
itself. There are two limitations in
paragraph (b) on the holding of recalls: (1)
that no recall shall take place within one
year from the date of assumption of office of
the official concerned, and (2) that no recall
shall take place within one year
immediately preceding a regular local
election. The purpose of the first limitation
is to provide a reasonable basis for judging
the performance of an elective local official.
c) Third, to construe the term "recall" in
paragraph (b) as including the convening of
31 | P a g e

the PRA for the purpose of discussing the
performance in office of elective local
officials would be to unduly restrict the
constitutional right of speech and of
assembly of its members. The people cannot
just be asked on the day of the election to
decide on the performance of their officials.
The crystallization and formation of an
informed public opinion takes time. To hold,
therefore, that the first limitation in
paragraph (b) includes the holding of
assemblies for the exchange of ideas and
opinions among citizens is to unduly curtail
one of the most cherished rights in a free
society. Indeed, it is wrong to assume that
such assemblies will always eventuate in a
recall election. To the contrary, they may
result in the expression of confidence in the
incumbent.

2. NO. The law is unambiguous in providing that "[n]o
recall shall take place within . . . one (1) year
immediately preceding a regular local election." Had
Congress intended this limitation to refer to the
campaign period, which period is defined in the
Omnibus Election Code, it could have expressly said
so.
Note:
JOVITO O. CLAUDIO - the duly elected mayor of Pasay City
in the May 11, 1998 elections.
RICHARD ADVINCULA chair of the PRA.
PRA Preparatory Recall Assembly
3. ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, ET AL. vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS and LUCILA PAYUMO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 111511 October 5, 1993
PUNO, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner Enrique T. Garcia was elected governor
of the province of Bataan in the May 11, 1992 elections. In
the early evening of July 1993, some mayors, vice-mayors
and members of the Sangguniang Bayan of the twelve (12)
municipalities of the province met at the National Power
Corporation compound in Bagac, Bataan. At about 12:30 A.M
of the following day, July 2, 1993, they proceeded to the
Bagac town plaza where they constituted themselves into a
Preparatory Recall Assembly to initiate the recall election of
petitioner Garcia. The mayor of Mariveles, Honorable Oscar,
de los Reyes, and the mayor of Dinalupihan, the Honorable
Lucila Payumo, were chosen as Presiding Officer and
Secretary of the Assembly, respectively. Thereafter, the Vice-
Mayor of Limay, the Honorable Ruben Roque, was
recognized and he moved that a resolution be passed for the
recall of the petitioner on the ground of "loss of
confidence." The motion was "unanimously seconded.
One hundred forty-six (146) names appeared in Resolution
No. 1 but only eighty (80) carried the signatures of the
members of the PRA. Of the eighty (80) signatures, only
seventy-four (74) were found genuine. The PRAC of the
province had a membership of one hundred forty-four
(144) and its majority was seventy-three (73).
On July 7, 1993, petitioners filed with the respondent
COMELEC a petition to deny due course to said Resolution
No. 1. In a per curiam Resolution promulgated August 31,
1993, the respondent COMELEC dismissed the petition and
scheduled the recall elections for the position of Governor of
Bataan on October 11 , 1993
ISSUE: Whether or not the lack of notice of the meeting to all
the members of the PRA would vitiate the proceedings of the
assembly including its resolution for recall.
HELD: YES. The due process clause of the Constitution
requiring notice as an element of fairness is inviolable and
should always be considered as part and parcel of every law
in case of its silence. The need for notice to all the members
of the assembly is also imperative for these members
represent the different sectors of the electorate of Bataan. To
the extent that they are not notified of the meeting of the
assembly, to that extent is the sovereign voice of the people
they represent nullified. The resolution to recall should
articulate the majority will of the members of the assembly
but the majority will can be genuinely determined only after
all the members of the assembly have been given a fair
opportunity to express the will of their constituents.
Needless to stress, the requirement of notice is indispensable
in determining the collective wisdom of the members of the
Preparatory Recall Assembly. Its non-observance is fatal to
the validity of the resolution to recall petitioner Garcia as
Governor of the province of Bataan.
Note: The legislative records reveal there were two (2)
principal reasons why this alternative mode of initiating the
recall process thru an assembly was adopted, viz: (a) to
diminish the difficulty of initiating recall thru the direct
action of the people; and (b) to cut down on its expenses.

Enrique T. Garcia - elected governor of the province of
Bataan in the May 11, 1992 elections.
4. DANILO E. PARAS vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 123169 November 4, 1996
32 | P a g e

FRANCISCO, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent Punong
Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan City who won during the last
regular barangay election in 1994. A petition for his recall as
Punong Barangay was filed by the registered voters of the
barangay. Acting on the petition for recall, public respondent
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolved to approve
the petition, scheduled the petition signing on October 14,
1995, and set the recall election on November 13, 1995.
At least 29.30% of the registered voters signed the petition,
well above the 25% requirement provided by law. The
COMELEC, however, deferred the recall election in view of
petitioner's opposition. On December 6, 1995, the COMELEC
set anew the recall election, this time on December 16, 1995.
To prevent the holding of the recall election, petitioner filed
before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City a petition
for injunction, with the trial court issuing a temporary
restraining order. After conducting a summary hearing, the
trial court lifted the restraining order, dismissed the petition.
In a resolution dated January 5, 1996, the COMELEC, for the
third time, re-scheduled the recall election on January 13,
1996.
ISSUE: Whether or not the term regular local election
includes the SK election.
HELD: NO. The evident intent of Section 74 is to subject an
elective local official to recall election once during his term of
office. Paragraph (b) construed together with paragraph (a)
merely designates the period when such elective local official
may be subject of a recall election, that is, during the second
year of his term of office. Thus, subscribing to petitioner's
interpretation of the phrase regular local election to include
the SK election will unduly circumscribe the novel provision
of the Local Government Code on recall, a mode of removal
of public officers by initiation of the people before the end of
his term. And if the SK election which is set by R.A No. 7808
to be held every three years from May 1996 were to be
deemed within the purview of the phrase "regular local
election", as erroneously insisted by petitioner, then no recall
election can be conducted rendering inutile the recall
provision of the Local Government Code.
Nevertheless, recall at this time is no longer possible because
of the limitation stated under Section 74 (b) of the Code
considering that the next regular election involving the
barangay office concerned is barely seven (7) months away,
the same having been scheduled on May 1997.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby dismissed for having
become moot and academic.
Note:
DANILO E. PARAS - incumbent Punong Barangay of Pula,
Cabanatuan City who won during the last regular barangay
election in 1994. (witty Paras! )

CASES

1. MAYOR RICARDO M. ANGOBUNG vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS EN BANC, and ATTY. AURORA S. DE ALBAN
G.R. No. 126576 March 5, 1997
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
FACTS: Petitioner won as the duly elected Mayor of the
Municipality of Tumauini, Isabela in the local elections of
1995. He garnered 55% of all the votes cast. Private
respondent de Alban was also a candidate in said elections.
Sometime in early September, 1996, private respondent filed
with the Local Election Registrar of Tumauini, Isabela, a
Petition for Recall against petitioner. On September 12,
1996, petitioner received a copy of this petition.
Subsequently said petition was forwarded to the Regional
Office in Tuguegarao, Cagayan and then to the main office of
COMELEC in Manila, for approval.
Acting on the petition, Deputy Executive Director for
Operations Pio Jose Joson submitted to the COMELEC En
Banc, a Memorandum dated October 8, 1996 recommending
approval of the petition for recall filed by private respondent
and its signing by other qualified voters in order to garner at
least 25% of the total number of registered voters as
required by Section 69(d) of the Local Government Code of
1991.
In turn acting on the abovementioned Memorandum of
Deputy Executive Director Joson, the COMELEC en banc
issued the herein assailed Resolution No. 96-2951.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the term regular local election
includes that of barangay election for purposes of 1
year bar to apply.
2. Whether or not a petition for recall may be filed by
only one person.
HELD:
1. NO. Pursuant to the case of Paras v. COMELEC, the
recall election scheduled on December 2, 1996 in the
instant case cannot be said to be barred by the May
12, 1997 Barangay Elections. The term "regular local
33 | P a g e

election" in Section 74 of the Local Government
Code of 1991 which provides that "no recall shall
take place within one (1) year . . . immediately
preceding a regular local election, "for the time bar
to apply, the approaching regular local election must
be one where the position of the official to be
recalled, is to be actually contested and filled by the
electorate. Thus, in the instant case where the time
bar is being invoked by petitioner mayor in view of
the approaching Barangay Elections in May 1997,
there can be no application of the one year bar,
hence no invalidity may be ascribed to Resolution
No. 96-2951 on this ground.
2. NO. Before the enactment of RA 7160, the recall of
public officials voted for in popular elections, was
governed by Sections 54 to 59 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 337, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1983. In the case of Sanchez v. COMELEC, the
SC upheld the constitutionality of the resolution
promulgated by the COMELEC authorizing initiatory
recall petition to be filed by only one person. The
issue in Sanchez was not this questioned procedure
but the legal basis for the exercise by the COMELEC
of its rule-making power in the alleged absence of a
grant of such power by an enabling statute on recall.
As this is the crux of the present constitutional
challenge, the proper time has come for this court to
issue a definitive ruling on the matter.
Section 69 (d) of the Local Government Code of
1991 expressly provides that "recall of any elective .
. . municipal . . . official may also be validly initiated
upon petition of at least twenty-five percent (25%)
of the total number of registered voters in the local
government unit concerned during the election in
which the local official sought to be recalled was
elected". The law is plain and unequivocal as to what
initiates recall proceedings: only a petition of at least
25% of the total number of registered voters, may
validly initiate recall proceedings. We take careful
note of the phrase, "petition of at least twenty-five
percent (25%)" and point out that the law does not
state that the petition must be signed by at least
25% of the registered voters; rather, the petition
must be "of" or by, at least 25% of the registered
voters, i.e., the petition must be filed, not by one
person only, but by at least 25% of the total number
of registered voters. This is understandable, since
the signing of the petition is statutorily required to
be undertaken "before the election registrar or his
representative, and in the presence of a
representative of the official sought to be recalled,
and in a public place in the . . . municipality . . . " .
Hence, while the initiatory recall petition may not
yet contain the signatures of at least 25% of the total
number of registered voters, the petition must
contain the names of at least 25% of the total

number of registered voters in whose behalf only
one person may sign the petition in the meantime.
(We) cannot sanction the procedure of the filing of
the recall petition by a number of people less than
the foregoing 25% statutory requirement, much
less, the filing thereof by just one person, as in the
instant case, since this is indubitably violative of
clear and categorical provisions of subsisting law.
Note:
MAYOR RICARDO M. ANGOBUNG incumbent mayor of
Municipality of Tumauini, Isabela who is sought to be
recalled
ATTY. AURORA S. DE ALBAN rival candidate for
mayoralty in the 1995 local elections and who filed the
petition for recall against the petitioner
Pio Jose Joson - Deputy Executive Director for Operations
who recommended for the approval of the petition for recall
filed by private respondent.
Comelec Resolution No. 96-2951 subject matter of the
case; authorizing private respondent alone to file an
initiatory recall petition.
2. JOVITO O. CLAUDIO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
COMMISSION ON AUDIT and RICHARD ADVINCULA
G.R. No. 140560 May 4, 2000

G.R. No. 140714 May 4, 2000
PREPARATORY RECALL ASSEMBLY OF PASAY CITY,
herein represented by its Chairman, RICHARD
ADVINCULA vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
COMMISSION ON AUDIT and HON. JOVITO O. CLAUDIO
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS: Jovito O. Claudio was the duly elected mayor of Pasay
City in the May 11, 1998 elections. He assumed office on July
1, 1998. Sometime during the second week of May 1999, the
chairs of several barangays in Pasay City gathered to discuss
the possibility of filing a petition for recall against Mayor
Claudio for loss of confidence. On May 19, 1999, at the
residence of barangay chair Benjamin Lim, several barangay
chairs formed an ad hoc committee for the purpose of
34 | P a g e

convening the Preparatory Recall assembly (PRA). Richard
Advincula was designated chair.
On May 29, 1999, members of the PRA composed of
barangay chairs, kagawads, and sangguniang kabataan chairs
of Pasay City, adopted entitled RESOLUTION TO INITIATE
THE RECALL OF JOVITO O. CLAUDIO AS MAYOR OF PASAY
CITY FOR LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. In a letter dated June 29,
1999, Advincula, as chair of the PRA, invited the Mayor, Vice-
Mayor, Station Commander, and thirteen (13) Councilors of
Pasay City to witness the formal submission to the Office of
the Election Officer on July 2, 1999 of the petition for recall.
On July 2, 1999 the petition for recall was filed accompanied
by an affidavit of service of the petition on the Office of the
City Mayor. Pursuant to the rules of the COMELEC, copies of
the petition were posted on the several areas. Subsequently,
a verification of the authenticity of the signatures on the
resolution was conducted by Ligaya Salayon, the election
officer for Pasay City designated by the COMELEC.
Oppositions to the petition were filed by petitioner Jovito O.
Claudio, Rev. Ronald Langub, and Roberto L. Angeles,
alleging procedural and substantive defects in the petition.
The COMELEC granted the petition for recall and dismissed
the oppositions against it.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the word "recall" in paragraph (b) of
Sec. 74 of the LGC covers a process which includes
the convening of the Preparatory Recall Assembly
and its approval of the recall resolution.
2. Wether or not the term "regular local election" in
the last clause of paragraph (b) includes the election
period for that regular election or simply the date of
such election.
HELD:
1. NO. Recall is a process which begins with the
convening of the preparatory recall assembly or the
gathering of the signatures at least 25% of the
registered voters of a local government unit, and
then proceeds to the filing of a recall resolution or
petition with the COMELEC, the verification of such
resolution or petition, the fixing of the date of the
recall election, and the holding of the election on the
scheduled date. However, as used in paragraph (b)
of Sec. 74, "recall" refers to the election itself by
means of which voters decide whether they should
retain their local official or elect his replacement.

a) First, Sec. 74 deals with restrictions on the
power of recall. It is in fact entitled
"Limitations on Recall." On the other hand,
Sec. 69 provides that "the power of recall . . .
shall be exercised by the registered voters
of a local government unit to which the local
elective official belongs." Since the power
vested on the electorate is not the power to
initiate recall proceedings but the power to
elect an official into office, the limitations in
Sec. 74 cannot be deemed to apply to the
entire recall proceedings. In other words,
the term "recall" in paragraph (b) refers
only to the recall election, excluding the
convening of the PRA and the filing of a
petition for recall with the COMELEC, or the
gathering of the signatures of at least 25 %
of the voters for a petition for recall.
b) The second reason why the term "recall" in
paragraph (b) refers to recall election is to
be found in the purpose of the limitation
itself. There are two limitations in
paragraph (b) on the holding of recalls: (1)
that no recall shall take place within one
year from the date of assumption of office of
the official concerned, and (2) that no recall
shall take place within one year
immediately preceding a regular local
election. The purpose of the first limitation
is to provide a reasonable basis for judging
the performance of an elective local official.
c) Third, to construe the term "recall" in
paragraph (b) as including the convening of
the PRA for the purpose of discussing the
performance in office of elective local
officials would be to unduly restrict the
constitutional right of speech and of
assembly of its members. The people cannot
just be asked on the day of the election to
decide on the performance of their officials.
The crystallization and formation of an
informed public opinion takes time. To hold,
therefore, that the first limitation in
paragraph (b) includes the holding of
assemblies for the exchange of ideas and
opinions among citizens is to unduly curtail
one of the most cherished rights in a free
society. Indeed, it is wrong to assume that
such assemblies will always eventuate in a
recall election. To the contrary, they may
result in the expression of confidence in the
incumbent.

2. NO. The law is unambiguous in providing that "[n]o
recall shall take place within . . . one (1) year
immediately preceding a regular local election." Had
Congress intended this limitation to refer to the
35 | P a g e

campaign period, which period is defined in the
Omnibus Election Code, it could have expressly said
so.
Note:
JOVITO O. CLAUDIO - the duly elected mayor of Pasay City
in the May 11, 1998 elections.
RICHARD ADVINCULA chair of the PRA.
PRA Preparatory Recall Assembly
3. ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, ET AL. vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS and LUCILA PAYUMO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 111511 October 5, 1993
PUNO, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner Enrique T. Garcia was elected governor
of the province of Bataan in the May 11, 1992 elections. In
the early evening of July 1993, some mayors, vice-mayors
and members of the Sangguniang Bayan of the twelve (12)
municipalities of the province met at the National Power
Corporation compound in Bagac, Bataan. At about 12:30 A.M
of the following day, July 2, 1993, they proceeded to the
Bagac town plaza where they constituted themselves into a
Preparatory Recall Assembly to initiate the recall election of
petitioner Garcia. The mayor of Mariveles, Honorable Oscar,
de los Reyes, and the mayor of Dinalupihan, the Honorable
Lucila Payumo, were chosen as Presiding Officer and
Secretary of the Assembly, respectively. Thereafter, the Vice-
Mayor of Limay, the Honorable Ruben Roque, was
recognized and he moved that a resolution be passed for the
recall of the petitioner on the ground of "loss of
confidence." The motion was "unanimously seconded.
One hundred forty-six (146) names appeared in Resolution
No. 1 but only eighty (80) carried the signatures of the
members of the PRA. Of the eighty (80) signatures, only
seventy-four (74) were found genuine. The PRAC of the
province had a membership of one hundred forty-four
(144) and its majority was seventy-three (73).
On July 7, 1993, petitioners filed with the respondent
COMELEC a petition to deny due course to said Resolution
No. 1. In a per curiam Resolution promulgated August 31,
1993, the respondent COMELEC dismissed the petition and
scheduled the recall elections for the position of Governor of
Bataan on October 11 , 1993
ISSUE: Whether or not the lack of notice of the meeting to all
the members of the PRA would vitiate the proceedings of the
assembly including its resolution for recall.

HELD: YES. The due process clause of the Constitution
requiring notice as an element of fairness is inviolable and
should always be considered as part and parcel of every law
in case of its silence. The need for notice to all the members
of the assembly is also imperative for these members
represent the different sectors of the electorate of Bataan. To
the extent that they are not notified of the meeting of the
assembly, to that extent is the sovereign voice of the people
they represent nullified. The resolution to recall should
articulate the majority will of the members of the assembly
but the majority will can be genuinely determined only after
all the members of the assembly have been given a fair
opportunity to express the will of their constituents.
Needless to stress, the requirement of notice is indispensable
in determining the collective wisdom of the members of the
Preparatory Recall Assembly. Its non-observance is fatal to
the validity of the resolution to recall petitioner Garcia as
Governor of the province of Bataan.
Note: The legislative records reveal there were two (2)
principal reasons why this alternative mode of initiating the
recall process thru an assembly was adopted, viz: (a) to
diminish the difficulty of initiating recall thru the direct
action of the people; and (b) to cut down on its expenses.

Enrique T. Garcia - elected governor of the province of
Bataan in the May 11, 1992 elections.
4. DANILO E. PARAS vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 123169 November 4, 1996
FRANCISCO, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent Punong
Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan City who won during the last
regular barangay election in 1994. A petition for his recall as
Punong Barangay was filed by the registered voters of the
barangay. Acting on the petition for recall, public respondent
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolved to approve
the petition, scheduled the petition signing on October 14,
1995, and set the recall election on November 13, 1995.
At least 29.30% of the registered voters signed the petition,
well above the 25% requirement provided by law. The
COMELEC, however, deferred the recall election in view of
petitioner's opposition. On December 6, 1995, the COMELEC
set anew the recall election, this time on December 16, 1995.
To prevent the holding of the recall election, petitioner filed
before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City a petition
for injunction, with the trial court issuing a temporary
restraining order. After conducting a summary hearing, the
trial court lifted the restraining order, dismissed the petition.
36 | P a g e

In a resolution dated January 5, 1996, the COMELEC, for the
third time, re-scheduled the recall election on January 13,
1996.
ISSUE: Whether or not the term regular local election
includes the SK election.
HELD: NO. The evident intent of Section 74 is to subject an
elective local official to recall election once during his term of
office. Paragraph (b) construed together with paragraph (a)
merely designates the period when such elective local official
may be subject of a recall election, that is, during the second
year of his term of office. Thus, subscribing to petitioner's
interpretation of the phrase regular local election to include
the SK election will unduly circumscribe the novel provision
of the Local Government Code on recall, a mode of removal
of public officers by initiation of the people before the end of
his term. And if the SK election which is set by R.A No. 7808
to be held every three years from May 1996 were to be
deemed within the purview of the phrase "regular local
election", as erroneously insisted by petitioner, then no recall
election can be conducted rendering inutile the recall
provision of the Local Government Code.
Nevertheless, recall at this time is no longer possible because
of the limitation stated under Section 74 (b) of the Code
considering that the next regular election involving the
barangay office concerned is barely seven (7) months away,
the same having been scheduled on May 1997.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby dismissed for having
become moot and academic.
Note:
DANILO E. PARAS - incumbent Punong Barangay of Pula,
Cabanatuan City who won during the last regular barangay
election in 1994. (witty Paras! )

Petition for quo warranto (BP 881, Sec. 253)
Who may file: Any voter

Against whom:
a. Member of House of Representatives, regional,
provincial, or city officer
b. Municipal Officer
c. Barangay Officer

Grounds:
a. ineligibility
b. disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines

What to file: sworn petition for quo warranto

Where to file:
a. COMELEC - if Member of HR, regional, provincial, or
city officer-
b. regional trial court - Municipal Officer
d. metropolitan or municipal trial court - Barangay
Officer

When to file: within ten days after the proclamation of the
results of the election.

Certificate of candidacy (BP 881, Sec. 73)
No person shall be eligible for any elective public office
unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy within
the period fixed herein.
A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may,
prior to the election, withdraw the same by submitting to
the office concerned a written declaration under oath.
No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be
filled in the same election, and if he files his certificate of
candidacy for more than one office, he shall not be
eligible for any of them.
However, before the expiration of the period for the
filing of certificates of candidacy, the person who was
filed more than one certificate of candidacy may declare
37 | P a g e

under oath the office for which he desires to be eligible
and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other office
or offices.
The filing or withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy
shall not affect whatever civil, criminal or administrative
liabilities which a candidate may have incurred.

WITHDRAWAL OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY (SEC. 12,
COMELEC RESOLUTION 8678 GUIDELINES ON THE FILING
OF CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY AND NOMINATION OF
OFFICIAL CANDIDATES OF REGISTERED POLITICAL
PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAY 10, 2010
NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS)

Any person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may
at any time before election day and subject to Sec. 13
hereof, file personally a statement of withdrawal under
oath in five (5) legible copies with the office where the
certificate of candidacy was filed. No statement of
withdrawal shall be accepted if filed by a person other
than the candidate or if filed by mail, telegram or
facsimile.

The Regional Election Director, Provincial Election
Supervisor, or the Election Officer concerned shall, upon
receipt of the withdrawal, notify the Law Department by
the fastest means of communication of the
a) full name of the candidate withdrawing;
b) elective office concerned;
c) political party, if any; and
d) substitution made, if any.
On the same date, he shall retain a file copy and
immediately forward to the Commission through the
Law Department all the other copies. The Law
Department shall, in turn, distribute the copies to the
offices/departments concerned as provided under Sec.
11 hereof.

For any withdrawal of candidacy and/or substitution
filed with the Commission, the field office concerned and
the Project Director of Phase II shall be notified.

SUBSTITUTION (SEC. 13, COMELEC RESOLUTION 8678)

If after the last day for the filing of certificate of
candidacy, an official candidate of a registered political
party 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.

The substitute for a candidate who died or suffered
permanent incapacity or disqualified by final judgment,
may file his certificate of candidacy up to mid-day of
election day. If the death or permanent disability should

occur between the day before the election and mid-day
of election day, the substitute candidate may file the
certificate with any board of election inspectors in the
political subdivision where he is a candidate, or in the
case of a candidate for President, Vice-President or
Senator, with the Law Department of the Commission on
Elections in Manila.

No person who has withdrawn his candidacy for a
position shall be eligible as substitute candidate for any
other position after the deadline for filing of certificates
of candidacy.

Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging receipt
(BP 881, Sec. 76)
The Commission, provincial election supervisor, election
registrar or officer designated by the Commission or the
board of election inspectors under the succeeding
section shall have the ministerial duty to receive and
acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy. (Sec.
25, 1978 EC)
EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL
(from Navarosa vs Comelec)

To grant execution pending appeal in election protest
cases, the following requisites must concur: (1) there
must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to
the adverse party; (2) there must be good reasons for
the execution pending appeal; and (3) the order granting
execution pending appeal must state the good
reasons. Petitioner Navarosa concedes respondent
Estos compliance with the first and third requisites.
What she contests is the trial courts finding that there
are good reasons to order discretionary execution of
its decision.

The Court in Ramas vs. Comelec summarized the
circumstances qualifying as good reasons justifying
execution pending appeal, thus: In a nutshell, the
following constitute good reasons, and a combination
of two or more of them will suffice to grant execution
pending appeal: (1) the public interest involved or the
will of the electorate; (2) the shortness of the remaining
portion of the term of the contested office; and (3) the
length of time that the election contest has been
pending.

FILING FEE (Rule 35, Section 9 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure) (from Navarosa vs Comelec)

Filing Fee. No protest, counter-protest, or protest-in-
intervention shall be given due course without the
payment of a filing fee in the amount of three hundred
pesos (P300.00) for each interest.
38 | P a g e

Each interest shall further pay the legal research fee as
required by law.

CASES
DUMAYAS vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Petitioner Dumayas, Jr. and respondent Bernal, Jr. were
rival candidates for the position of mayor in Carles,
Iloilo.
During the canvassing, election returns for precincts in
Barangay Pantalan was protested for inclusion in the
canvass before the Municipal Board of Canvassers by
Dumayas Jr.
The grounds relied upon for their exclusion are all the
same- that is, "violation of Secs. 234, 235, 236 of the
Omnibus Election Code and other election laws; acts of
terrorism, intimidation, coercion, and similar acts
prohibited by law."
Petitioner said that certain local barangay officials and
men with armalite were inside the polling place during
the casting and counting of votes. The BEIs were so
intimidated and coerced that the election returns were
prepared under duress; the voters were coerced to vote
for certain favored candidates.
Respondent Bernal, Jr. denied allegations.
Municipal Board of Canvassers denied petitioners
objection to the inclusion of the contested returns and
proceeded with the canvass.
Petitioner appealed and was favored by the COMELEC
Second Division
Private respondent Felipe Bernal, Jr., filed a motion for
reconsideration of the above-cited resolution with the
COMELEC en banc.
Petitioner was proclaimed winner of the election after
excluding from the canvass the election returns from the
three contested precincts.
The following day, private respondent immediately filed
an urgent motion to declare void ab initio the
proclamation of petitioner on the ground that the
resolution of the COMELEC Second Division was not yet
final and executory.
Meanwhile, on August 25, 1998, the duly-proclaimed
Vice-Mayor Arnold Betita filed an action for quo
warranto
5
against petitioner before the Regional Trial
Court of Iloilo.
Petitioner filed before the COMELEC en banc a motion to
expunge respondent Bernals motion for reconsideration
and motion to declare petitioners proclamation void ab
initio, on the ground that respondent Bernal should be
deemed to have abandoned said motions by the filing of
Spl. Civil Action which, according to petitioner, is a
formal election protest via quo warranto brought before
the regular courts.
COMELEC en banc denied petitioners motion to expunge

Respondent Bernal, Jr. was proclaimed by the newly-
constituted Municipal Board of Canvassers as the duly-
elected Mayor of the Municipality of Carles, thereby
unseating petitioner Dumayas.

ISSUES:
Should respondent Bernal, who was named as petitioner in
the quo warranto proceedings commenced before the
regular court, be deemed to have abandoned the motions he
had filed with respondent Commission?
DECISION:
As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a
petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of
a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the
abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the
COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the
title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. The
reason for this rule is that once the competent tribunal has
acquired jurisdiction of an election protest or a petition for
quo warranto, all questions relative thereto will have to be
decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding, so as
to prevent confusion and conflict of authority.
9

Nevertheless, the general rule is not absolute. It admits of
certain exceptions, as where: (a) the board of canvassers
was improperly constituted; (b) quo warranto was not the
proper remedy; (c) what was filed was not really a petition
for quo warranto or an election protest but a petition to
annul a proclamation; (d) the filing of a quo warranto
petition or an election protest was expressly made without
prejudice to the pre-proclamation controversy or was made
ad cautelam; and (e) the proclamation was null and void.
10

An examination of the petition filed primarily by Vice-Mayor
Betita with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City reveals that
it is neither a quo warranto petition under the Omnibus
Election Code nor an election protest. A petition for quo
warranto under the Omnibus Election Code raises in issue
the disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning candidate. It is a
proceeding to unseat the respondent from office but not
necessarily to install the petitioner in his place. An election
protest is a contest between the defeated and winning
candidates on the ground of frauds or irregularities in the
casting and counting of the ballots, or in the preparation of
the returns. It raises the question of who actually obtained
the plurality of the legal votes and therefore is entitled to
hold the office.
The allegations contained in Betitas petition before the
regular court do not present any proper issue for either an
election protest or a quo warranto case under the Omnibus
Election Code. Spl. Civil Action NO. 98-141 appears to be in
the nature of an action for usurpation of public office
brought by Betita to assert his right to the position of Mayor
pursuant to the rules on succession of local government
39 | P a g e

officials contained in the Local Government Code.
12
Although
said petition is also denominated as a quo warranto petition
under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, it is different in nature
from the quo warranto provided for in the Omnibus Election
Code where the only issue proper for determination is either
disloyalty or ineligibility of respondent therein. Neither can
it be considered as an election protest since what was put
forth as an issue in said petition was petitioners alleged
unlawful assumption of the office of Mayor by virtue of his
alleged illegal proclamation as the winning candidate in the
election.
SANDE v COMELEC
FACTS:
In the January 30, 1980 election, there were three
candidates, Saturnino Tiamson of the Nacionalista Party,
Cesar Villones of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan and Edgardo
Samson of the National Union for Liberation. After the
canvassing of the election returns, it was shown that private
respondent Tiamson had more than 117 votes over the
candidate Villones. On February 29, 1980, he was proclaimed
as Mayor by the Municipal Board of Canvassers and on
March 3, 1980 assumed such position. On March 10, 1980,
Villones filed a quo warranto petition to disqualify Tiamson
based on a change of political party affiliation within six
months immediately preceding or following an election. This
certiorari proceeding was not filed until May 30, 1980,
directed against an order of respondent Comelec denying the
motion for reconsideration of a previous order of dismissal
of a petition to disqualify private respondent Tiamson.
ISSUE:
WON the certiorari proceeding should be dismissed for
having been filed after the election and proclamation of
private respondent Tiamson.
HELD:
YES.
Since Venezuela v. Comelec, this Court has invariably
adhered to the principle that after the holding of the January
30, 1980 election, and a proclamation thereafter made, a
petition to disqualify a candidate based on a change of
political party affiliation within six months immediately
preceding or following an election, filed with this Court after
January 30, 1980, arising from a pre-proclamation
controversy, should be dismissed without prejudice to such
ground being passed upon in a proper election protest or
quo warranto proceeding.
The ruling in Venezuela was applied in Villegas v.
Comelec, Potencion v. Comelec, Arcenas v. Comelec, and

Singco v. Comelec. A citation from Arcenas finds pertinence:
"Nor does a decision of this character detract from the
binding force of the principle announced in Reyes v.
Comelec,that the provision on disqualification arising from a
change in a political party affiliation by a candidate within
six months is both 'innovative and mandatory.' As should be
clear, the issue of disqualification has not been rendered
moot and academic, only the remedy to be pursued is no
longer the pre-proclamation controversy." So it must be in
this case with a quo warranto petition having already been
filed as far back as March 10, 1980, by the party most
interested, no less than the losing candidate, Cesar Villones.
JOY CHRISMA B. LUNA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Facts:
On 15 January 2004, Luna filed her certificate of candidacy
for the position of vice-mayor of Lagayan, Abra as a
substitute for Hans Roger, who withdrew his certificate of
candidacy on the same date. Ruperto Blanco, Election Officer
of Lagayan, Abra removed the name of Hans Roger from the
list of candidates and placed the name of Luna.
On 20 April 2004, private respondents filed a petition for the
cancellation of the certificate of candidacy or disqualification
of Luna. Private respondents alleged that Luna made a
false material representation in her certificate of
candidacy because Luna is not a registered voter of Lagayan,
Abra but a registered voter of Bangued, Abra. Private
respondents also claimed that Lunas certificate of candidacy
was not validly filed because the substitution by Luna for
Hans Roger was invalid. Private respondents alleged that
Hans Roger was only 20 years old on election day and,
therefore, he was disqualified to run for vice-mayor and
cannot be substituted by Luna.
2
1vvphi1.nt
In the 4 June 2004 Resolution, the COMELEC First Division
granted the petition and denied due course to the
substitution of Luna for Hans Roger. The COMELEC First
Division ruled that, while Luna complied with the procedural
requirements for substitution, Hans Roger was not a valid
candidate for vice-mayor. The COMELEC First Division
pointed out that Hans Roger, being underage,
3
did not file a
valid certificate of candidacy and, thus, Hans Roger was not a
valid candidate for vice-mayor who could be substituted by
Luna. The COMELEC First Division also ruled that Luna was
not a registered voter of Lagayan, Abra and that this was
sufficient to disqualify Luna from running as vice-mayor.
Issue:
Whether Hans Roger can be validly substituted by Luna as
candidate for vice-mayor.
Held:
40 | P a g e

Substitution of Luna for Hans Roger was Valid
When a candidate files his certificate of candidacy, the
COMELEC has a ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge
its receipt. Section 76 of the Omnibus Election Code (Election
Code) provides:
Sec. 76. Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging
receipt.- The Commission, provincial election supervisor,
election registrar or officer designated by the Commission or
the board of election inspectors under the succeeding section
shall have the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge
receipt of the certificate of candidacy.
Section 77 of the Election Code prescribes the rules on
substitution of an official candidate of a registered political
party who dies, withdraws, or is disqualified for any cause
after the last day for the filing of certificate of candidacy.
Section 77 of the Election Code provides:
Sec. 77. Candidates in case of death, disqualification or
withdrawal of another. - If after the last day for the filing of
certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a registered
or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is
disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to, and
certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of
candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or
was disqualified. The substitute candidate nominated by the
political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy
for the office affected in accordance with the preceding
sections not later than mid-day of election day of the
election. If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should
occur between the day before the election and mid-day of
election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of
election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a
candidate, or, in the case of candidates to be voted for by the
entire electorate of the country, with the Commission.
Since Hans Roger withdrew his certificate of candidacy
and the COMELEC found that Luna complied with all the
procedural requirements for a valid substitution,
10
Luna
can validly substitute for Hans Roger.
Section 74
13
of the Election Code provides that the certificate
of candidacy shall state, among others, the date of birth of
the person filing the certificate. Section 78
14
of the Election
Code provides that in case a person filing a certificate of
candidacy has committed false material representation, a
verified petition to deny due course to or cancel the
certificate of candidacy of said person may be filed at any
time not later than 25 days from the time of filing of the
certificate of candidacy.
If Hans Roger made a material misrepresentation as to his
date of birth or age in his certificate of candidacy, his
eligibility may only be impugned through a verified petition

to deny due course to or cancel such certificate of candidacy
under Section 78 of the Election Code.
In this case, there was no petition to deny due course to
or cancel the certificate of candidacy of Hans Roger. The
COMELEC only declared that Hans Roger did not file a
valid certificate of candidacy and, thus, was not a valid
candidate in the petition to deny due course to or cancel
Lunas certificate of candidacy. In effect, the COMELEC,
without the proper proceedings, cancelled Hans Rogers
certificate of candidacy and declared the substitution by
Luna invalid.
It would have been different if there was a petition to deny
due course to or cancel Hans Rogers certificate of candidacy.
For if the COMELEC cancelled Hans Rogers certificate of
candidacy after the proper proceedings, then he is no
candidate at all and there can be no substitution of a person
whose certificate of candidacy has been cancelled and denied
due course.
15
However, Hans Rogers certificate of candidacy
was never cancelled or denied due course by the COMELEC.
Moreover, Hans Roger already withdrew his certificate of
candidacy before the COMELEC declared that he was not a
valid candidate. Therefore, unless Hans Rogers certificate of
candidacy was denied due course or cancelled in accordance
with Section 78 of the Election Code, Hans Rogers certificate
of candidacy was valid and he may be validly substituted by
Luna.
REP. MA. CATALINA L. GO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, FELIPE V. MONTEJO and ARVIN V. ANTONI,
respondents.
[G.R. No. 147741. May 10, 2001]
FACTS: Petitioner is the incumbent representative of the
Fifth District, province of Leyte, whose term of office will
expire at noon on 30 June 2001. On 27 February 2001,
petitioner filed with the municipal election officer of the
municipality of Baybay, Leyte, a certificate of candidacy for
mayor of Baybay, Leyte.
On 28 February 2001, at 11:47 p.m., petitioner filed
with the provincial election supervisor of Leyte, with office
at Tacloban City, another certificate of candidacy for
governor of the province of Leyte. Simultaneously therewith,
she attempted to file with the provincial election supervisor
an affidavit of withdrawal of her candidacy for mayor of the
municipality of Baybay, Leyte. However, the provincial
election supervisor of Leyte refused to accept the affidavit of
withdrawal and suggested that, pursuant to a COMELEC
resolution, she should file it with the municipal election
officer of Baybay, Leyte where she filed her certificate of
candidacy for mayor.
41 | P a g e

At that late hour, with only minutes left to midnight, the
deadline for filing certificates of candidacy or withdrawal
thereof, and considering that the travel time from Tacloban
to Baybay was two (2) hours, petitioner decided to send her
affidavit of withdrawal by fax to her father at Baybay, Leyte
and the latter submitted the same to the office of the lection
officer of Baybay, Leyte at 12:28 a.m., 01 March 2001. On the
same day, at 1:15 p.m., the election officer of Baybay, Leyte,
received the original of the affidavit of withdrawal.
On 05 March 2001, respondent Montejo filed with the
provincial election supervisor of Leyte, at Tacloban City a
petition to deny due course and/or to cancel the certificates
of candidacy of petitioner. Respondent Antoni filed a similar
petition to disqualify petitioner. The petitions were based on
the ground that petitioner filed certificates of candidacy for
two positions, namely, that for mayor of Baybay, Leyte,
and that for governor of Leyte, thus, making her
ineligible for both.
ISSUES: Was there a valid withdrawal of the certificate of
candidacy for municipal mayor of Baybay, Leyte?
HELD: We hold that petitioner's withdrawal of her certificate
of candidacy for mayor of Baybay, Leyte was effective for all
legal purposes, and left in full force her certificate of
candidacy for governor.
Section 73, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as
the Omnibus Election Code, provides that:
"SEC. 73. Certificate of candidacy.- No person shall be eligible
for any elective public office unless he files a sworn
certificate of candidacy within the period fixed herein.
"A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may, prior
to the election, withdraw the same by submitting to the
office concerned a written declaration under oath.
"No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be
filled in the same election, and if he files his certificate of
candidacy for more than one office, he shall not be eligible
for any of them. However, before the expiration of the
period for the filing of certificates of candidacy, the
person who has filed more than one certificate of
candidacy may declare under oath the office for which
he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of
candidacy for the other office or offices."
There is nothing in this Section which mandates
that the affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the
same office where the certificate of candidacy to be
withdrawn was filed. Thus, it can be filed directly with
the main office of the COMELEC, the office of the regional
election director concerned, the office of the provincial
election supervisor of the province to which the

municipality involved belongs, or the office of the
municipal election officer of the said municipality.
While it may be true that Section 12 of COMELEC
Resolution No. 3253-A, adopted on 20 November 2000,
requires that the withdrawal be filed before the election
officer of the place where the certificate of candidacy was
filed, such requirement is merely directory, and is intended
for convenience. It is not mandatory or jurisdictional. Hence,
the filing of petitioner's affidavit of withdrawal of candidacy
for mayor of Baybay with the provincial election supervisor
of Leyte sufficed to effectively withdraw such candidacy. The
COMELEC thus acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
declared petitioner ineligible for both positions for which
she filed certificates of candidacy.

DIVINAGRACIA v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
FACTS:
Salvador Divinagracia, Jr. (petitioner) and Alex
Centena (private respondent) vied for the vice-mayoralty
race in Calinog, Iloilo during the May 14, 2007 Elections
wherein petitioner garnered 8,141 votes or 13 votes more
than the 8,128 votes received by respondent.
After the proclamation of petitioner as the duly
elected vice-mayor on May 16, 2007, private respondent
filed with the RTC of Iloilo City an election protest, claiming
that irregularities attended the appreciation of marked
ballots in seven precints.
The RTC dismissed private respondents protest and
ruled that private respondent failed to overcome the
disputable presumption of regularity in the conduct of
elections since no challenge of votes or objection to the
appreciation of ballots was raised before the Board of
Elections Inspectors or the Municipal Board of Canvassers.
Private respondent and petitioner filed their
respective notices of appeal before the trial court, upon
payment of the P1,000 appeal fee under Section 9, Rule 14 of
the "Rules of Procedure in Election Contests before the
Courts involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials.
The Comelec, by Order of March 12, 2008,
consolidated the appeals of the parties and directed them to
file their respective briefs.
Meanwhile, the duly elected mayor of Calinog,
Teodoro Lao, died on March 18, 2008. On even date,
petitioner assumed office as mayor.
On July 17, 2008, the Comelec Second Division
issued its first assailed resolution declaring private
respondent as the duly elected vice mayor. In reversing the
trial courts Decision, the Comelec Second Division found the
same to be fatally defective in form for non-observance of
the prescribed rules as it failed to indicate the specific
markings in the contested ballots and merely discussed in a
42 | P a g e

general manner the reasons why those ballots should not be
declared as "marked." The Comelec re-appreciated those
ballots and ascertained that respondent was the true winner
in the elections for the vice-mayoralty post.
Petitioner filed a Verified Motion for
Reconsideration, alleging, inter alia, that both parties
failed to pay the appeal fee/s in the amount of P3,200
under Section 3, Rule 40 of the Comelec Rules of
Procedure, and following Section 9, Rule 22 of the same
Rules, an appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or upon
motion on the ground of failure of the appellant to pay
the correct appeal fee.
On January 26, 2009, the Comelec En Banc issued its
second assailed Resolution affirming the pronouncements of
the Second Division. It held that petitioner was barred under
the doctrine of estoppel by laches when he failed to raise the
question of jurisdiction when he filed his Appellants and
Appellees Briefs.

ISSUE:
WON the payment of the appeal fee is a mandatory
and jurisdictional requirement warranting a dismissal of the
case.
HELD:
The petition lacks merit.
On May 15, 2007, the Court, by A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC,
introduced the "Rules of Procedure in Election Contests
before the Courts involving Elective Municipal and Barangay
Officials," which superseded Rules 35 and 36 of the Comelec
Rules of Procedure governing elections protests and quo
warranto cases before the trial courts. Not only was the
amount of the filing fee increased from P300 to P3,000 for
each interest; the amount of filing fee was determined by the
Court, not by the Comelec.
Another major change introduced by A.M. No. 07-4-
15-SC is the imposition of an appeal fee under Section 9 of
Rule 14 thereof, separate and distinct from, but payable
within the same period as, the appeal fee imposed by the
Comelec under Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the Comelec
Rules of Procedure, as amended by Comelec Resolution No.
02-0130. Contrary to respondents contention, the Comelec-
prescribed appeal fee was not superseded by A.M. No. 07-4-
15-SC.
The requirement of these two appeal fees by two
different jurisdictions had caused confusion in the
implementation by the Comelec of its procedural rules on
payment of appeal fees for the perfection of appeals,
prompting the Comelec to issue Resolution No. 8486 (July
15, 2008) clarifying as follows:
1. That if the appellant had already paid the
amount of P1,000.00 before the Regional
Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court,

Municipal Trial Court or lower
courts within the five-day period, pursuant
to Section 9, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Procedure in Election Contests Before the
Courts Involving Elective Municipal and
Barangay Officials (Supreme Court
Administrative Order No. 07-4-15) and
his Appeal was given due course by the
Court, said appellant is required to pay
the Comelec appeal fee of P3,200.00 at
the Commission's Cash Division through
the Electoral Contests Adjudication
Department (ECAD) or by postal money
order payable to the Commission on
Elections through ECAD, within a period
of fifteen days (15) from the time of the
filing of the Notice of Appeal with the
lower court. If no payment is made
within the prescribed period, the appeal
shall be dismissed pursuant to Section
9(a) of Rule 22 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, which provides:
Sec. 9. Grounds for Dismissal of
Appeal. The appeal may be
dismissed upon motion of either
party or at the instance of the
Commission on any of the following
grounds:
(a) Failure of the appellant to pay
the correct appeal fee; x x x
2. That if the appellant failed to pay the
P1,000.00-appeal fee with the lower
court within the five (5) day period as
prescribed by the Supreme Court New Rules
of Procedure but the case was nonetheless
elevated to the Commission, the appeal shall
be dismissed outright by the Commission, in
accordance with the aforestated Section
9(a) of Rule 22 of the Comelec Rules of
Procedure.
That Comelec Resolution No. 8486 took effect on
July 24, 2008 or after a party had filed a notice of appeal, as
in the case of petitioner, does not exempt it from paying the
Comelec-prescribed appeal fees. The Comelec merely
clarified the existing rules on the payment of such appeal
fees, and allowed the payment thereof within 15 days from
filing the notice of appeal.
In the recent case of Aguilar v. Comelec, the Court
harmonized the rules with the following ratiocination:
The appeal to the COMELEC of the trial
courts decision in election contests
involving municipal and barangay officials
is perfected upon the filing of the notice of
appeal and the payment of the P1,000.00
43 | P a g e

appeal fee to the court that rendered the
decision within the five-day reglementary
period. The non-payment or the
insufficient payment of the additional
appeal fee of P3,200.00 to the
COMELEC Cash Division, in accordance with
Rule 40, Section 3 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, as amended, does not affect the
perfection of the appeal and does not
result in outright or ipso facto dismissal
of the appeal. Following, Rule 22, Section
9(a) of the COMELEC Rules, the appeal may
be dismissed. And pursuant to Rule 40,
Section 18 of the same rules, if the fees are
not paid, the COMELEC may refuse to take
action thereon until they are paid and may
dismiss the action or the proceeding. In
such a situation, the COMELEC is merely
given the discretion to dismiss the appeal or
not.
In Aguilar, the Court recognized the Comelecs
discretion to allow or dismiss a "perfected" appeal that lacks
payment of the Comelec-prescribed appeal fee. The Court
stated that it was more in keeping with fairness and
prudence to allow the appeal which was, similar to the
present case, perfected months before the issuance of
Comelec Resolution No. 8486.
On the Comelecs application of the doctrine of
estoppel by laches, records show that petitioner raised the
issue of lack of jurisdiction for his and private respondents
non-payment of the appeal fee only after the Comelec
appreciated the contested ballots and ruled in favor of
respondent, an issue which could have been raised with
reasonable diligence at the earliest opportunity. The Court
finds the Comelec resolution well-taken.

EDGAR Y. SANTOS vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Facts:
Petitioner Edgar Y. Santos and respondent Pedro Q. Panulaya
were both candidates for Mayor of the Municipality of
Balingoan, Misamis Oriental in the May 14, 2001 elections.
On May 16, 2001, after the votes were counted and
canvassed, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed
respondent Panulaya as the duly elected Mayor.
Petitioner filed an election protest. After trial and revision of
the ballots, the trial court found that petitioner garnered
2,181 votes while respondent received only 2,105. Hence, it
rendered judgment declaring and proclaiming
protestant/petitioner Edgar Y. Santos as the duly elected
Municipal Mayor of Balingoan, Misamis Oriental, in the
mayoralty elections held on May 14, 2001

Petitioner thereafter filed a motion for execution pending
appeal. Meanwhile, before the trial court could act on
petitioners motion, respondent filed on April 22, 2002 with
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a petition for
certiorari, docketed as SPR No. 20-2002, assailing the
decision of the trial court.
2
Likewise on April 22, 2002,
respondent appealed the trial courts decision to the
COMELEC, where it was docketed as EAC No. A-12-2002.
The COMELEC, in SPR No. 20-2002, issued a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, which effectively enjoined the trial
court from acting on petitioners motion for execution
pending appeal. Subsequently, on August 19, 2002, the
COMELEC dismissed SPR No. 20-2002 after finding that the
trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
rendering the assailed judgment. Moreover, the COMELEC
held that the remedy from the decision of the court a
quo was to file a notice of appeal, which respondent precisely
did in EAC No. A-12-2002. Hence, it directed the trial court to
dispose of all pending incidents in SPL Election Protest No. 1-
M(2001) with dispatch, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission
(First Division) RESOLVED as it hereby RESOLVES to
DISMISS the instant petition

NAVAROSA V. COMELEC

Petitioner Charito Navarosa and respondent Roger M.
Esto were candidates for mayor of Libacao, Aklan in the
14 May 2001 elections.
On 17 May 2001, the COMELEC Municipal Board of
Canvassers of Libacao proclaimed petitioner Navarosa
as the duly elected mayor, with a winning margin of
three (3) votes over respondent Esto.
Respondent Esto filed an election protest alleging the
presence of irregularities in the canvassing of ballots in
several precincts.
Petitioner Navarosa, who also claimed that canvassing
irregularities prejudiced her, filed a counter-protest.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of
respondent Esto.
Petitioner Navarosa appealed the trial courts ruling to
the COMELEC.
Respondent Esto, on the other hand, filed with the trial
court a motion for execution of the judgment pending
petitioner Navarosas appeal.
Petitioner Navarosa opposed respondent Estos motion.
In the alternative, petitioner Navarosa offered to file a
supersedeas bond to stay execution pending appeal.
44 | P a g e

The COMELEC Second Division affirmed the trial courts
Order granting execution pending appeal and nullified
the stay of the execution.
Petitioner Navarosa sought reconsideration of this
ruling but the COMELEC En Banc denied her motion.

ISSUE:
1. WON the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case
despite respondents failure to pay the COMELEC filing fee.
2. WON Comelec erred for no good reason exists to execute
judgment pending appeal

DECISION:

1. The Trial Court Acquired Jurisdiction Over Election Case
No. 129
Petitioner Navarosa contends that the trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the election protest because of
respondent Estos failure to pay the COMELEC filing fee
under Rule 35, Section 9 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure.
Section 9 provides:
Filing Fee. No protest, counter-protest, or protest-in-
intervention shall be given due course without the payment
of a filing fee in the amount of three hundred pesos
(P300.00) for each interest.
Each interest shall further pay the legal research fee as
required by law.
Respondent Esto must pay this filing fee before the trial
court can exercise its jurisdiction over the election
protest. The COMELEC filing fee, to distinguish from the
other mandatory fees under Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court, as amended, is credited to the Courts General
Fund.
However, Petitioner Navarosa raised the issue of
incomplete payment of the COMELEC filing fee only in
her memorandum to respondent Estos petition before
the COMELEC Second Division. Petitioner Navarosas
conduct estops her from claiming, at such late stage, that
the trial court did not after all acquire jurisdiction over
the election protest.

2. Good Reasons Exist to Grant Execution Pending
Appeal in this Case
To grant execution pending appeal in election protest
cases, the following requisites must concur: (1) there
must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to
the adverse party; (2) there must be good reasons for

the execution pending appeal; and (3) the order granting
execution pending appeal must state the good reasons.
In a nutshell, the following constitute good reasons,
and a combination of two or more of them will suffice to
grant execution pending appeal: (1) the public interest
involved or the will of the electorate; (2) the shortness of
the remaining portion of the term of the contested office;
and (3) the length of time that the election contest has
been pending.
The trial court in the present case invoked two good
reasons to justify its order allowing execution pending
appeal. First, the order will give substance and
meaning to the peoples mandate. Second, more than
10 months or nearly 1/3 of the 3-year term of the office
in question had already lapsed. The COMELEC found
these good reasons sufficient. Being consistent with
Ramas, we find no grave abuse of discretion in the ruling
of the trial court or of the COMELEC.

45 | P a g e

Election Reviewer Finals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Election Reviewer Finals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 | P a g e

You might also like