Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FUNCTION,
CHAIRMAN
OF
THE
Election Jurisprudence
Page 2
AFFIDAVITS AS EVIDENCE
The Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division cannot be
considered to be based on substantial evidence. It relied
merely on affidavits of witnesses attached to the petition for
disqualification. As stressed, the COMELEC Second Division
gave credence to the affidavits without hearing the affiants.
Codilla v. De Venecia, Locsin G.R. No. 150605.
December 10, 2002
It is settled that no undue importance should be given to a
sworn statement or an affidavit as a piece of evidence
because, being taken ex-parte, an affidavit is almost always
incomplete and often inaccurate. But, it is equally settled
that when there is an omission in an affidavit concerning a
very important detail, the omission can affect the affiant's
credibility. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FIDEL
RAGAY y DE ROSAS, DANILO ODANI y NATALON,
DOMINGO TUMAGOS y DINGLE and ZOSIMO GONZAGA
y AGENSI, G.R. No. 108234, 1997 Aug 11
Election Jurisprudence
Page 3
ANNULMENT
PROTEST
OF
PROCLAMATION
&
ELECTION
ANNULMENT
ERROR
OF
PROCLAMATION
&
MANIFEST
Election Jurisprudence
Page 4
ANNULMENT
OF
NOTICE & HEARING
PROCLAMATION,
WITHOUT
Election Jurisprudence
Page 5
APPEAL, PERFECTION of
The subsequent payment of the filing fee on 28 January
2003 did not relieve Zamoras of his mistake. A case is not
deemed duly registered and docketed until full payment of
the filing fee. Otherwise stated, the date of the payment of
the filing fee is deemed the actual date of the filing of the
notice of appeal. Zamoras v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No.
158610; November 12, 2004
Perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary
period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and
failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and
executory, and deprives the appellate court or body of
jurisdiction to alter the final judgment much less to entertain
the appeal. Zacate v. Comelec et Baldado , G.R. No.
144678. March 1, 2001
It is axiomatic that the perfection of an appeal in the
manner and within the period laid down by the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure is not only mandatory but also
jurisdictional. As a consequence, the failure to perfect an
appeal within the prescribed period as required by the Rules
has the effect of defeating the right of appeal of a party and
precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction
over the case. So the High Court rules in Villanueva vs.
Court of Appeals, et.al. (205 SCRA 537). And so, it should
also be in the case at bar. Antonio v. Comelec, G.R. No.
135869, September 22, 1999
The COMELEC Rules of Procedure (Rule 37 Section 21)
provides that from the decision rendered by the court, the
aggrieved party may appeal to the Commission on Elections
within five (5) days after the promulgation of the decision.
Rule 22 Section 9 (d) of Our Rules of Procedure further
provides that an appeal from decisions of courts in election
protest cases may be dismissed at the instance of the
Commission for failure to file the required notice of appeal
Election Jurisprudence
Page 6
APPEAL, RIGHT TO
The right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege and
a litigant may exercise such right to appeal only in the
manner prescribed by law. The requirement of an appeal fee
is by no means a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is
an essential requirement without which the decision
appealed from would become final and executory as if there
was no appeal filed at all. Zamoras v. Comelec, et al.,
G.R. No. 158610; November 12, 2004
Suffice it to state that the period for filing an appeal is by no
means a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is an
essential requirement without which the decision appealed
from would become final and executory as if no appeal was
filed at all. The right of appeal is merely a statutory
privilege and may be exercised only in the manner
prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of the
law. Antonio v. Comelec, G.R. No. 135869, September
22, 1999
APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS
The appreciation of the contested ballots and election
documents involves a question of fact best left to the
determination of the COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked
with the supervision of elections all over the country, as it is
the constitutional commission vested with the exclusive
original jurisdiction over election contests involving regional,
provincial and city officials, as well as appellate jurisdiction
over election protests involving elective municipal and
barangay officials.
In the absence of grave abuse of
discretion or any jurisdictional infirmity or error of law, the
factual findings, conclusions, rulings, and decisions rendered
by the said Commission on matters falling within its
competence shall not be interfered with by this Court.
Balingit v. Comelec et al, G.R. No. 170300, Feb. 9,
2007
The 7,966 votes were correctly invalidated as written by one
person because aside from the observation that the ballots
Election Jurisprudence
Page 7
Election Jurisprudence
Page 8
Election Jurisprudence
Page 9
AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE
Autoptic proference, in legal parlance, simply means a
tribunal's self-perception, or autopsy, of the thing itself.
Balingit v. Comelec et al, G.R. No. 170300, Feb. 9,
2007
BILLBOARDS, ADVERTISEMENTS
It is true that when petitioner entered into the contracts or
agreements to endorse certain products, he acted as a
private individual and had all the right to lend his name and
image to these products. However, when he filed his
certificate of candidacy for Senator, the billboards featuring
his name and image assumed partisan political character
because the same indirectly promoted his candidacy.
Chavez v. Comelec, G.R. No. 162777, August 31, 2004
Election Jurisprudence
Page 10
the MBC, and the MBC. Alejandro v. Comelec & Co, G.R.
No. 167101, January 31, 2006
BOARD
OF
CANVASSERS,
JURISDICTION
CORRECTION OF MANIFEST ERROR
ON
BURDEN OF PROOF
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the
burden of proving the charge against the respondent by
substantial evidence - that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. Villarin v. Florido, A.C. No. 6046,
February 13, 2007
Election Jurisprudence
Page 11
CANDIDATE
Under Section 79(a), a candidate is one who has filed a
certificate of candidacy to an elective public office. Unless
one has filed his certificate of candidacy, he is not a
candidate. Lanot v. Comelec & Eusebio, G.R. No.
164858, November 16, 2006
CAUSE OF ACTION
What determine a cause of action are the facts or
combination of facts alleged in a partys pleading. Sison v.
COMELEC, 304 SCRA 170
CERTIFICATE
CANCELLATION
OF
CANDIDACY,
DENIAL
OR
Election Jurisprudence
Page 12
Election Jurisprudence
Page 13
CERTIFICATE
PROCLAMATION
OF
CANDIDACY,
DENIAL
AFTER
Election Jurisprudence
Page 14
CERTIFICATE OF VOTES
Apparently, respondent Reyes, Jr. is counting on the
certificate of votes to establish that he is the second highest
winning candidate.
As we have pointed out earlier, a
certificate of votes is not sufficient to establish the true and
genuine results of the election. A certificate of canvass
issued on the basis of the election returns is required to
proclaim the elected candidate. KAISER B. RECABO, JR.,
petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
FRANCISCO R. REYES, JR., respondents., G.R. No.
134293, 1999 Jun 21, En Banc)
Certificates of Votes are issued by Boards of Election
Inspectors (BEI) to watchers, pursuant to 215 of the
Omnibus Election Code (OEC). While such certificates are
useful for showing tampering, alteration, falsification or any
other irregularity in the preparation of election returns, 16
there is no reason for their use in this case since the
integrity of the election returns is not in question. On the
other hand, in the canvass of votes, the MBC is directed to
use the election returns. 17 Accordingly, in revising the
Statement of Votes supporting the Certificate of Canvass,
the MBC should have used the election returns from the
precincts in question although in fairness to the MBC, it
proposed the use of election returns but the COMELEC en
banc rejected the proposal. The Statement of Votes is a
tabulation per precinct of votes garnered by the candidates
as reflected in the election returns. ([1997V261E] JOSE C.
RAMIREZ, petitioner vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF GIPORLOS,
EASTERN SAMAR and ALFREDO I. GO, respondents.,
G.R. No. 122013, 1997 Mar 26, En Banc)
Election Jurisprudence
Page 15
CERTIORARI
The office of a petition for certiorari is not to correct simple
errors of judgment but capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and
despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal
hostility. Pedragoza v. Comelec & Sumulong, G.R. No.
169885 July 25, 2006
Rule 18, Section 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
requires that a timely motion for reconsideration of a
COMELEC Division decision has to be filed with the
COMELEC en banc before a special civil action for certiorari
may be filed with this Court. Consequently, the filing of the
instant petition was premature. Petitioner failed to exhaust
adequate administrative remedies available before the
COMELEC. Vicente v. Comelec & Sonza [G.R. No.
170255. January 31, 2006]
As a general rule, any decision, order or ruling of the
COMELEC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions may
be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rules
64 and 65 of the Revised Rules of Court within thirty days
from receipt of a copy thereof. However, these decisions or
rulings refer to the decision or final order of the COMELEC
en banc and not of any division thereof. A motion for
reconsideration of a decision of the COMELEC Division has to
be filed first, which is resolved by the COMELEC en banc,
whose decision on the motion for reconsideration may then
be the subject of a petition for certiorari with this Court.
Vicente v. Comelec & Sonza [G.R. No. 170255. January
31, 2006]
In accordance with Rule 65 and other related provisions of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing
petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed with
the Supreme Court, only petitions which are accompanied
by or which comply strictly with the requirements specified
therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court
Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari for
non-compliance therewith, particularly for failure to fully pay
the legal fees in violation of Rule 46, Section 3 in relation to
Election Jurisprudence
Page 16
Rule 56, Section 2. Andueza vs. Bravo & HRET, G.R. No.
166187, January 25, 2005.
Certiorari as a special civil action can be availed of only if
there is concurrence of the essential requisites, to wit: (a)
the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions has
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and (b) there
is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or
modifying the proceeding. There must be capricious,
arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power for it to prosper.
Aggabao v. Miranda G.R. No. 163756 January 26, 2005
Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or
arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion
or personal hostility. The grave abuse of discretion must be
so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law. San Juan v. HRET &
Cerilles, G.R. No. 160939. July 6, 2004
Generally, a motion for reconsideration is a pre-requisite to
the viability of a special civil action for certiorari. However,
there are exceptions to the rule. The aggrieved party is not
obliged to first file a motion for reconsideration of the
assailed resolution before filing a petition under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court, as amended where, as in this case, (1)
the question is purely legal, (2) judicial intervention is
urgent; (3) its application may cause great and irreparable
damage; and (4) the controverted acts violate due process.
Namil, et al. v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No. 150540.
October 28, 2003
We hold that petitioner acted correctly in filing the present
petition because the resolution of the COMELEC in question
is not subject to reconsideration and, therefore, any party
who disagreed with it only had one recourse, and that was
to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure. Angelia v. Comelec, G.R. No. 135468.
May 31, 2000, 388 Phil. 560, 566
The instant controversy involves resolutions issued by the
COMELEC en banc which do not pertain to election offenses.
Election Jurisprudence
Page 17
Election Jurisprudence
Page 18
Election Jurisprudence
Page 19
Election Jurisprudence
Page 20
Election Jurisprudence
Page 21
We have said time and again that the special civil action of
certiorari is not a substitute for the lost or lapsed remedy of
appeal. Cantoria v. Comelec. G.R. No. 162035, Nov. 26,
2004.
CITIZENSHIP, QUALIFICATION
In Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, the Court ruled that
the citizenship qualification must be construed as applying
to the time of proclamation of the elected official and at the
start of his term. Altarejos v. Comelec, G.R. No.
163256. November 10, 2004
In applying election laws, it would be far better to err in
favor of the popular choice than be embroiled in complex
legal issues involving private international law which may
well be settled before the highest court (Cf. Frivaldo vs.
Commission on Elections, 257 SCRA 727). MERCADO, vs.
Election Jurisprudence
Page 22
DECISION, COMPLETENESS
The Court rules that a resolution or decision of the COMELEC
is considered complete and validly rendered or issued when
Election Jurisprudence
Page 23
DISQUALIFICATION
Election Jurisprudence
Page 24
Election Jurisprudence
Page 25
DISQUALIFICATION,
DEATH
SUBSTITUTION/INTERVENTION
OF
PETITIONER,
DISQUALIFICATION,
ASPECTS, Sec. 68 OEC
ELECTORAL
&
CRIMINAL
Election Jurisprudence
Page 26
Election Jurisprudence
Page 27
Election Jurisprudence
Page 28
DOMICILE
Comelec,
[G.R.
No.
153945.
DUE PROCESS
In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is
simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to
explain ones side or opportunity to seek a reconsideration
of the action or ruling complained of. A formal trial-type
hearing is not at all times and in all situations essential to
due process. Verily, to be heard does not only mean
presentation of testimonial evidence. One may also be
heard through pleadings and where opportunity to be heard
through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due
process. Alejandro v. Comelec & Co, G.R. No. 167101,
January 31, 2006
A party cannot successfully invoke deprivation of due
process if he was accorded the opportunity of a hearing,
through either oral arguments or pleadings. There is no
denial of due process when a party is given an opportunity
through his pleadings. Alauya, Jr., vs. Comelec, et al.,
[G.R. Nos. 152151-52. January 22, 2003]
Bautista v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 154796-97. October
23, 2003
The right to due process is a cardinal and primary right
which must be respected in all proceedings. It is the
embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play, the
cornerstone of every democratic society. In any proceeding,
the essence of procedural due process is embodied in the
basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be
Election Jurisprudence
heard. Saya-ang v.
November 28, 2003
Page 29
Comelec,
G.R.
No.
155087
ELECTION
In this jurisdiction, an election means the choice or
selection of candidates to public office by popular vote
through the use of the ballot, and the elected officials of
which are determined through the will of the electorate. An
election is the embodiment of the popular will, the
expression of the sovereign power of the people.
Specifically, the term election, in the context of the
Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls, including
the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign,
and the casting and counting of votes. The winner is the
candidate who has obtained a majority or plurality of valid
votes cast in the election. Sound policy dictates that public
elective offices are filled by those who receive the highest
number of votes cast in the election for that office. For, in
all republican forms of government the basic idea is that no
one can be declared elected and no measure can be
declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or
plurality of the legal votes cast in the election. Carlos v.
Angeles & Serapio G.R. No. 142907. November 29,
2000
Election Jurisprudence
Page 30
ELECTION PROTEST
An election contest, unlike an ordinary civil action, is clothed
with a public interest. The purpose of an election protest is
to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed by the board
of canvassers is the lawful choice of the people. What is
sought is the correction of the canvass of votes, which was
the basis of proclamation of the winning candidate. An
election contest therefore involves not only the adjudication
of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates but
paramount to their claims is the deep public concern
involved and the need of dispelling the uncertainty over the
real choice of the electorate. And the court has the
corresponding duty to ascertain by all means within its
command who is the real candidate elected by the people.
BARROSO V. AMPIG, G.R. No. 138218. March 17, 2000
Election Jurisprudence
Page 31
Election Jurisprudence
Page 32
Election Jurisprudence
Page 33
Election Jurisprudence
Page 34
ELECTION
PROTEST,
AUTHENTICITY OF BALLOTS
EVIDENCE
ALIUNDE,
Election Jurisprudence
Page 35
led his opponent to act upon such belief in the validity of the
canvass and the tie, so that he can not be permitted to
repudiate his own acts.
This court has even adopted a more liberal view on this
matter when in a latter case it held that a candidate who
has tied with another and who submits himself to the said
drawing of lots, stating that if the result of said drawing of
lots should be adverse to him, he would file a protest before
a competent court, is not estopped from doing so. The view
adopted by the Court in this latter case is in keeping with
the doctrine that an election protest involves public interest,
so that the court should allow all opportunity possible for the
ascertainment of the true result of the elections. (DE
CASTRO vs. JULIAN G. GINETE and UBALDO Y.
ARCANGEL, Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Sorsogon,
10th
Judicial
District,
Branch
I,
respondents., G.R. No. L-30058, 1969 Mar 28, En
Banc)
EVIDENCE
Mere allegations not evidence. Luxuria Homes vs. CA 302
SCRA 315
Parole evidence not admitted to prove whom one voted.
Lomugdang v. Javier 21 SCRA 402
Election Jurisprudence
Page 36
all of the parties have perfected their appeal and the period
to appeal has yet to expire, the trial court still retains its socalled residual jurisdiction to order discretionary
execution. Zacate v. Comelec et Baldado , G.R. No.
144678. March 1, 2001
While petitioner timely filed his motion for execution
pending appeal, petitioner belatedly filed the motion for
reconsideration of the denial of his motion for execution
pending appeal rendering said denial final and executory .
Zacate v. Comelec et Baldado , G.R. No. 144678.
March 1, 2001
Lauban v. Comelec, G.R. No. 128473, Resolution
dated August 26, 1997
Policarpio v. Comelec, G.R. No. 135390, November 22,
1999
Any motion for execution pending appeal must be filed
before the period for the perfection of the appeal. Asmala
v. Comelec, G.R. No. 126221. April 28, 1998
Executions pending appeal are exceptions to the rule, and,
therefore, must be restrictively construed to comply with the
stringent requirements of the law. The Commission looks
with disfavor on orders of execution pending appeal, without
clear and justifiable good reasons. Policarpio v. Comelec,
G.R. No. 135390. November 22, 1999
At the outset, we note that there is no dispute with respect
to the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts to rule on
motions for execution pending appeal filed within the
reglementary period for perfecting an appeal. Consequently,
the filing of a notice of appeal within the same period does
not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over a case and
resolve pending incidents. Camlian v. Comelec, G.R. No.
124169. April 18, 1997
While execution pending appeal may be allowed under the
foregoing rule, the said provision must be strictly construed
against the movant as it is an exception to the general rule
on execution of judgments. Following civil law jurisprudence,
the reason allowing for immediate execution must be of
Election Jurisprudence
Page 37
EXECUTION
JUDGMENT
PENDING
APPEAL,
QUESTIONED
Election Jurisprudence
EXECUTION
RECONSIDERATION
Page 38
PENDING
MOTION
FOR
Election Jurisprudence
Page 39
Election Jurisprudence
Page 40
FAILURE OF ELECTION
A scrutiny of the petitions filed before the COMELEC shows that
petitioners never alleged that no voting was held nor was voting
suspended in the subject municipalities. Neither did petitioners
allege that no one was elected. Petitioners only allege that there
was a sham election and similar sham canvassing. As noted
earlier, to warrant a declaration of failure of election, the alleged
irregularities must be proven to have prevented or suspended the
holding of an election, or marred fatally the preparation and
transmission, custody, and canvass of the election returns. These
essential facts should have been clearly alleged by petitioners before
the COMELEC en banc, but they were not. Tan & Burahan v.
Comelec et al., G. R. Nos. 166143-47, Nov. 20, 2006
It is the Commission (Comelec) sitting en banc that is
vested with exclusive jurisdiction to declare a failure of
election Carlos v. Angeles & Serapio G.R. No. 142907.
November 29, 2000
Baaga vs. Comelec, 336 SCRA, 701
Petition to declare a failure of election and petition to annul
an election are one and the same thing.
Typoco vs. Comelec 319 SCRA 498
Carlos vs. Angeles, 346 SCRA 571
Election Jurisprudence
Page 41
Election Jurisprudence
Page 42
Election Jurisprudence
Page 43
FILING FEES
The subsequent payment of the filing fee on 28 January
2003 did not relieve Zamoras of his mistake. A case is not
deemed duly registered and docketed until full payment of
the filing fee. Otherwise stated, the date of the payment of
the filing fee is deemed the actual date of the filing of the
notice of appeal. Zamoras v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No.
158610; November 12, 2004
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.
Navarosa v. Comelec, G.R. No. 157957. September
18, 2003
Soller vs. Comelec, 339 SCRA 685
Villota vs. Comelec, 362 SCRA 676
Baaga v. Comelec, 336 SCRA 701
FORUM SHOPPING
Forum shopping is an act of a party, against whom an
adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum,
of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in
another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action
Election Jurisprudence
Page 44
Election Jurisprudence
Page 45
Election Jurisprudence
Page 46
HONEST MISTAKE
There is a limit to what can be construed as an honest
mistake or oversight due to fatigue, in the performance of
official duty. Pimentel Jr. vs. Comelec, 325 SCRA 196;
Domalanta vs. Comelec, 334 SCRA 555
HRET, JURISDICTION
With respect to petitioner Cerbo who ran for the position of
congressman, the COMELEC indeed had no jurisdiction over
his petition, his opponent respondent Suharto T.
Mangudadatu having been proclaimed as such. It is well
settled that once a candidate is proclaimed as
representative, the opponents recourse is to file an election
protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
which has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all
contests relative to the election, returns and qualifications of
members of the House of Representatives, and this holds
true even if there is an allegation of nullity of proclamation.
Cerbo et al. v. Comelec & Mangudadatu, G.R. No.
168411, February 15, 2007
Election Jurisprudence
Page 47
ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS
This Court is not persuaded. Non-compliance by a BOC of
the prescribed canvassing procedure is not an illegal
proceeding under paragraph (a) of Section 243 of the
Omnibus Election Code, given the summary nature of a
pre-proclamation controversy, consistent with the laws
desire that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as
little as possible. A pre-proclamation controversy is limited
to an examination of the election returns on their face
and the COMELEC as a general rule need not go beyond the
face of the returns and investigate the alleged election
Election Jurisprudence
Page 48
INCOMPLETE CANVASS
An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the
basis of a subsequent proclamation. A canvass is not
reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless the board
of canvassers considers all returns and omits none.
Election Jurisprudence
Page 49
INHIBITION
Commissioner Lantions voluntary piecemeal inhibition
cannot be countenanced. Nowhere in the COMELEC Rules
does it allow a Commissioner to voluntarily inhibit with
reservation. To allow him to participate in the En Banc
proceedings when he previously inhibited himself in the
Division is, absent any satisfactory justification, not only
judicially unethical but legally improper and absurd.
Estrella v. Comelec, G.R. No. 160465, April 28, 2004
Accordingly, we hold that the failure of Commissioners
Sadain and Tuason to state the reasons for their inhibition
from the 30 September 2005 Resolution does not affect the
validity of that ruling. Pedragoza v. Comelec &
Sumulong, G.R. No. 169885 July 25, 2006
Election Jurisprudence
Page 50
JUDGMENT, VALIDITY OF
The Court agrees with private respondent.
A decision
becomes binding only after it is validly promulgated.
Consequently, if at the time of the promulgation of a
decision or resolution, a member of the collegiate court who
had earlier signed or registered his vote has vacated his
office, his vote is automatically withdrawn or cancelled. The
Resolution, in this case, remains valid because it is still
supported by a majority of the COMELEC en banc.
Benwaren v. Comelec & Crisologo, G.R. No. 169393,
April 18, 2006.
Decision may no longer be promulgated after the ponente
has vacated his office. Consolidated Bank v. IAC, GR No.
73333-78
For a judgment to be valid, it must be duly signed and
promulgated during the incumbency of the judge who
signed it. People v. Labao, 220 SCRA 100 March 17,
1993
JUDGMENT OF COMELEC
Besides, it is a settled rule that the COMELECs judgment
cannot be overturned by this Court unless it is clearly
tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Aradais v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 157863. April 28, 2004
JURISDICTION; ESTOPPEL
While it is true that a court acquires jurisdiction over a case
upon complete payment of the prescribed filing fee, the rule
admits of exceptions, as when a party never raised the issue
of jurisdiction in the trial court. Villagracia v. Comelec,
G.R. No. 168296, January 31, 2007
Election Jurisprudence
Page 51
Election Jurisprudence
Page 52
Election Jurisprudence
Page 53
JURISDICTION, COVERAGE
The HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the
House of Representatives and has the power to promulgate
procedural rules to govern proceedings brought before it.
This exclusive jurisdiction includes the power to
determine whether it has the authority to hear and
determine the controversy presented, and the right
to decide whether that state of facts exists which
confers jurisdiction, as well as all other matters
which arise in the case legitimately before it.
Accordingly, it has the power to hear and determine, or
inquire into, the question of its own jurisdiction, both as to
parties and as to subject matter, and to decide all questions,
Election Jurisprudence
Page 54
JURISDICTION, RETENTION OF
The exception to the rule of retention of jurisdiction after
proclamation applies when the challenged candidate
becomes a member of the House of Representatives or of
the Senate, where the appropriate electoral tribunal would
have jurisdiction. Lanot v. Comelec & Eusebio, G.R. No.
164858, Nov. 16, 2006
Election Jurisprudence
Page 55
MALA PROHIBITA
More importantly, COMELEC Resolution No. 2323 is a special
law and a violation of which is in the nature of a mala
prohibita crime. As such, regardless of petitioners intent,
mere carrying of the gun without the necessary permit is
already a violation of the COMELEC resolution.
It is
hornbook doctrine that in mala prohibita crimes, the only
inquiry is whether the law has been violated. When the act
is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial. AMPO vs
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 169091, 2006
Feb 16, 1st Division
MANIFEST ERROR
A petition for correction of manifest errors filed directly with
the COMELEC should thus pertain to errors that could not
have been discovered during the canvassing, despite the
exercise of due diligence. Petitioner Arzagon, however,
together with the other petitioners, initially filed a petition
for correction of manifest errors with the PBOC, evidently
showing that the errors sought to be corrected were
discovered during the canvassing. Cerbo et al. v. Comelec
& Mangudadatu, G.R. No. 168411, February 15, 2007
A manifest clerical error is one that is visible to the eye or
obvious to the understanding and is apparent from the
papers to the eye of the appraiser and collector, and does
not include an error which may, by evidence dehors the
record be shown to have been committed. Suliguin v.
Comelec, MBOC of Nagcarlan, Laguna, G.R. No.
166046, March 23, 2006
It found that there was manifest error in the addition of
votes for Baddiri resulting in the addition of 2000 votes in
his favor. The Certificate of Canvass of Votes from the
Municipality of Patikul, Sulu, reflected 4,873 votes in favor
of petitioner, but the supporting Statement of Votes by
Precincts showed that the correct total votes garnered by
Election Jurisprudence
Page 56
MANIFEST
PROCLAMATION
ERROR,
ANNULMENT
OF
Election Jurisprudence
Page 57
MANIFEST ERROR
CONTROVERSY
IS
PRE-PROCLAMATION
Election Jurisprudence
Page 58
MAXIMS
Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their
rights. Ampo v. CA & Pp, G.R. No. 169091, FEBRUARY
16, 2006
MINUTE RESOLUTION
To be sure, minute resolutions denying or dismissing
unmeritorious petitions are the result of a thorough
deliberation among the Members of the Court although they
are promulgated through the Clerk of Court. They need not
be signed by the Members of the Court who took part in the
deliberations thereon, nor do they require the Certification
of the Chief Justice (unlike decisions and signed resolutions)
in order to avoid undue delay in the disposition of cases.
Petitioner would prefer a resolution which spells out why and
how the Court arrived at its conclusions. Suffice it to state
that minute resolutions denying or dismissing unmeritorious
petitions affirm the assailed resolution/decision of the lower
court or tribunal. Valencia v. Comelec & Cua, G.R. No.
168418, March 28, 2006
Election Jurisprudence
Page 59
MOTION
PLEADING
FOR
RECONSIDERATION,
PROHIBITED
MOTION
OFFENSE
FOR
RECONSIDERATION,
ELECTION
Election Jurisprudence
Page 60
Election Jurisprudence
Page 61
Election Jurisprudence
Page 62
NATURE OF ACTION
Election Jurisprudence
Page 63
NEIGHBORHOOD RULE
We agree with the COMELEC En Banc. In each of these
ballots (Exhibits 1, 2, 5 and 6), the space for Punong
Barangay is blank. Tibong Co is written on the first line of
the space for Barangay Kagawad. The votes are valid for Co
under the neighborhood rule. Abad v. Comelec, G.R. No.
167438, July 25, 2006, citing Ferrer v. Comelec, 386
Phil. 431, (2000)
Election Jurisprudence
Page 64
NEW MATTERS
The foregoing issue and the incidents thereunder were
never raised by the petitioners during the proceedings
before the RTC. Suffice it to say that issues raised for the
first time on appeal and not raised timely in the proceedings
in the lower court are barred by estoppel. Matters, theories
or arguments not brought out in the original proceedings
cannot be considered on review or appeal where they are
raised for the first time. To consider the alleged facts and
arguments raised belatedly would amount to trampling on
the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.
Dicman et al. v. Cario, G.R. No. 146459, June 8, 2006
NOMINATION, SUBSTITUTION
Junaid, having been nominated by REPORMA only after the
expiration of the period for filing of certificates of candidacy,
could not be considered as officially nominated by the latter.
Consequently he could not be substituted by petitioner, a
nominee of REPORMA, since the law requires that the
candidate to be substituted and the substitute should come
from the same party. BACARAMAN V. COMELEC, G.R. No.
148153. November 18, 2003
As the earlier quoted Section 77 of the Omnibus
Election Code provides, "only a person belonging to and
certified by the same political party" may substitute the
candidate who, in Junaid's case, died. In petitioner's case, he
was officially nominated by "PPC REPORMA." While Junaid
was also "nominated" by said party, the nomination came
only on February 12, 2001 or after the period for filing of
certificates of candidacy had expired on January 14, 2001.
BACARAMAN
V.
COMELEC,
G.R.
No.
148153.
November 18, 2003
Election Jurisprudence
Page 65
NOTICE, CANVASSING
Sabeniano v. Comelec, 101 SCRA 289; Quilala v.
Comelec, 188 SCRA 502
NUISANCE CANDIDATES
The rationale for the prohibition against nuisance candidates
and the disqualification of candidates who have not
demonstrated a bond fide intention to run for office is the
State's compelling interest in ensuring that its electoral
exercises are rational, objective, and orderly. Chavez vs.
Comelec; [G.R. No. 162731-32. April 13, 2004]
We have ruled that a nuisance candidate is one whose
certificate of candidacy is presented and filed to cause
confusion among the electorate by the similarity of names
of the registered candidate or by other names which
demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention
to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy
has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of
the true will of the electorate. (Fernandez vs. Fernandez, 36
SCRA 1 [1970]) Bautista v. Comelec, G.R. No. 133840.
November 13, 1998
Election Jurisprudence
Page 66
PLEBISCITE
The conduct of plebiscite and determination of its result
have always been the business of the COMELEC and not the
regular courts. Such a case involves the appreciation of
ballots which is best left to the COMELEC. As an
independent constitutional body exclusively charged with
the power of enforcement and administration of all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum and recall, the COMELEC has the
indisputable expertise in the field of election and related
laws. Its acts, therefore, enjoy the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties. Cayetano v.
Comelec, Buac & Bautista; G.R. Nos. 166388 and
166652, January 23, 2006 citing Buac vs. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 1555855, January 26, 2004, 421
SCRA 92, 106
The COMELEC Resolutions are correct in limiting the
plebiscite for the conversion of the Municipality of Sta. Rosa
into a component city to qualified voters of Sta. Rosa only,
to the exclusion of the other voters/residents of the Province
of Laguna. Valera v. Comelec, G.R. No. 164076.
November 22, 2005
POLITICAL PARTY
The law defines political party as an organized group of
citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and
policies for the general conduct of government and which,
as the most immediate means of securing their adoption,
regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and
members as candidates for public office. Ang Bagong
Bayani et al. v. Comelec G.R. No. 147589, June 26,
2001
Election Jurisprudence
Page 67
Election Jurisprudence
Page 68
Election Jurisprudence
Page 69
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Kilosbayan v. Comelec, GR No. 128054, October 16,
1997
Baytan, et al., vs.
February 4, 2003]
Comelec,
[G.R.
No.
153945.
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
It is clear from the foregoing that after the board has ruled
on the petition for exclusion, it is duty bound to suspend the
proclamation to give the other party an opportunity to
question the ruling by filing a notice of appeal with the
board within 48 hours from the suspension of the
proceedings, and of an appeal with the COMELEC, within five
days from the same suspension. Failure to comply with
these requirements renders the proclamation void ab initio.
Cambe v. Comelec et al., G.R. No. 178456, January 30,
2008
Election Jurisprudence
Page 70
Election Jurisprudence
Page 71
Election Jurisprudence
Page 72
Election Jurisprudence
Page 73
Election Jurisprudence
Page 74
PRE-PROCLAMATION
CONTROVERSY,
PAGE ELECTION RETURNS, OMISSIONS
MISSING
Election Jurisprudence
Page 75
PRE-PROCLAMATION
CONTROVERSY,
ELECTION
RETURN WOULD MATERIALLY AFFECT ELECTION
Section 243 (d) of the Omnibus Election Code requires that
for a pre-proclamation controversy to prosper, it must be
shown that the election return sought to be annulled would
materially affect the results of the election . Basarte v.
Comelec, G.R. No. 169413, May 9, 2007
When the exclusion or inclusion of returns will not anymore
affect the results of election, proclamation can be made.
Benwaren v. Comelec & Crisologo, G.R. No. 169393,
April 18, 2006.
Election Jurisprudence
PRE-PROCLAMATION
RESOLUTION
Page 76
CONTROVERSY,
SPEEDY
Election Jurisprudence
Page 77
Election Jurisprudence
Page 78
The COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction over preproclamation controversies. Re: COMELEC Resolution No.
2521, 234 SCRA 1(1994) See also Libardos v. Casar,
234 SCRA 13 (1994)
RTC has no authority to order by mandamus the Board of
Canvassers to proclaim a candidate. Re: COMELEC
Resolution No. 2521, 234 SCRA 1(1994)
MTC has no jurisdiction to order the suspension of the
canvassing of election returns. Libardos v. Casar, 234
SCRA 13 (1994)
PRE-PROCLAMATION,
PROCLAMATION)
PETITION
(AFTER
Election Jurisprudence
Page 79
PRE-PROCLAMATION
ANNULMENT OF ELECTION
CONTROVERSY
V.
In Loong v. Commission on Elections we ruled that a preproclamation controversy is not the same as an action for
annulment of election results, or failure of elections.
Ampatuan et al. v. Comelec, G.R. No. 149803, January
31, 2002
PRESCRIPTION
The liberal construction of punitive laws in relation to the
prescription of offenses cannot be invoked to prejudice the
interest of the State to prosecute election offenses,
especially those which the COMELEC described as ruffling
the electoral system. Reynato Baytan, et al., v.
Comelec, GR No. 153945, February 4, 2003
Zaldivia v. Reyes, GR No. 102342, July 3, 1992
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY
As stated by HRET, the presumption of regularity in the
public officials performance of his duty holds true only when
it is not found to be inconsistent with the facts. Abbubakar
v. HRET et al. G.R. No. 173609, March 7, 2007
PROBABLE CAUSE
Probable cause is merely based on opinion and reasonable
belief, and so it is enough that there exists such state of
Election Jurisprudence
Page 80
PROCEDURAL RULES
Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly
administration of justice, namely, to ensure the effective
enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system
that
obviates
arbitrariness,
caprice,
despotism
or
whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. The enforcement
of procedural rules is not antithetical to the substantive
rights of the litigants. The policy of the courts is to give
effect to both procedural and substantive laws, as
complementing each other, in the just and speedy resolution
of the dispute between the parties. Balindong et al. v.
Court of Appeals, GR No. 159962, December 16, 2004.
Because of the special and expeditious nature of election
cases, the early resolution of the same should not be
hampered by any unnecessary observance of procedural
rules. Gementiza v. Comelec, G.R. No. 140884, March
6, 2001, 353 SCRA 724
Election Jurisprudence
Page 81
PROCLAMATION
RECONSIDERATION
PENDING
MOTION
FOR
Election Jurisprudence
Page 82
PROCLAMATION, SUSPENSION OF
The COMELEC has the discretion to suspend the
proclamation of the winning candidate during the pendency
of a disqualification case when evidence of his guilt is
strong. However, an order suspending the proclamation of a
winning candidate against whom a disqualification case is
filed is merely provisional in nature and can be lifted when
warranted by the evidence. Lanot v. Comelec & Eusebio,
G.R. No. 164858, Nov. 16, 2006
PROCLAMATION, VOID
It is clear from the foregoing that after the board has ruled
on the petition for exclusion, it is duty bound to suspend the
proclamation to give the other party an opportunity to
question the ruling by filing a notice of appeal with the
board within 48 hours from the suspension of the
proceedings, and of an appeal with the COMELEC, within five
days from the same suspension. Failure to comply with
these requirements renders the proclamation void ab initio.
Cambe v. Comelec et al., G.R. No. 178456, January 30,
2008
The proclamation of petitioner in this case is void for three
(3) reasons: (1) it was based on a canvass that should have
been suspended with respect to the contested election
returns; (2) it was done without prior COMELEC authorization
which is required in view of the unresolved objections of
Talib to the inclusion of certain returns in the canvass; and
(3) it was predicated on a canvass that included unsigned
election returns involving such number of votes as will affect
the outcome of the election. Jainal v. Comelec, Talib &
Ahajan, G.R. NO. 174551, March 7, 2007
PROMULGATION
In Lindo v. Commission on Elections, this Court held that the
5-day period for the filing of an appeal commences from the
date of receipt of copy of the decision. As correctly ruled by
the COMELEC: (SALLY A. LEE vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS and LEOVIC R. DIONEDA, , G. R. No.
157004, 2003 Jul 4, En Banc)
Election Jurisprudence
Page 83
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
Proportional representation here does not refer to the
number of people in a particular district, because the partylist election is national in scope. Neither does it allude to
numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed group.
Rather, it refers to the representation of the marginalized
and underrepresented as exemplified by the enumeration
in Section 5 of the law; namely, labor, peasant, fisherfolk,
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers,
and professionals. Ang Bagong Bayani et al. v. Comelec
G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001
QUOROM
To begin with, even if the votes of Commissioners Sadain
and Tuason are disregarded (for whatever reason), a quorum
still remains, with three of the then five COMELEC
Commissioners voting to deny petitioners motion for
reconsideration. Pedragoza v. Comelec & Sumulong,
G.R. No. 169885 July 25, 2006
However, unless the withdrawal of the votes would
materially affect the result insofar as votes for or against a
party is concerned, we find no reason for declaring the
decision a nullity. In the present case, with the cancellation
of the votes of retired Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani,
the remaining votes among the four incumbent
commissioners at the time of the resolutions
promulgation would still be 3 to 1 in favor of
respondent. Noteworthy, these remaining Commissioners
still constituted a quorum. In our view, the defect cited by
petitioner does not affect the substance or validity of
respondent Commissions disposition of the controversy. The
nullification of the challenged resolution, in our view, would
merely prolong the proceedings unnecessarily. Dumayas v.
Comelec G.R. Nos. 141952-53, 2001 Apr 20
Estrella v. Comelec, April 28, 2004
Sema v. Comelec, G.R. No. 134163-64, Dec. 13, 2000
RECALL
Election Jurisprudence
Page 84
REMEDY
If there is a right, there must be a remedy. Roces v. HRET,
G.R. NO. 167499, Sept. 15, 2005
REPATRIATION, REQUISITE
The law is clear that repatriation is effected by taking the
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and
registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of
Immigration. Hence, in addition to taking the Oath of
Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, the registration
of the Certificate of Repatriation in the proper civil registry
Election Jurisprudence
Page 85
RESOLUTION, FINALITY
Section 3, Article IX-C, in authorizing motions for
reconsideration to be heard by the COMELEC en banc,
necessitates the conclusion that a decision by a COMELEC
division, such as that of the First Division in this case, is not
yet final and executory unless no motion for reconsideration
thereto has been filed before the COMELEC en banc. Tiu v.
Comelec, G. R. No. 168795, August 2, 2005
RESOLUTION,
DIVIDED
PROMULGATION,
IF
EQUALLY
Election Jurisprudence
Page 86
Election Jurisprudence
Page 87
Election Jurisprudence
Page 88
Election Jurisprudence
Page 89
Election Jurisprudence
Page 90
Election Jurisprudence
Page 91
Election Jurisprudence
Page 92
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Election protests are guided by an extraordinary rule of
interpretation that statutes providing for election contests
are to be liberally construed to the end that the will of the
people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated
by mere technical objections. Tiu v. Comelec, G.R. No.
168795. August 2, 2005
The Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law or the
rules that would hinder in any way not only the free and
intelligent casting of the votes in an election but also the
correct ascertainment of the results. Suliguin v. Comelec,
MBOC of Nagcarlan, Laguna, G.R. No. 166046, March
23, 2006
Finally, Zamoras cannot invoke the argument that courts
must liberally construe technical rules of procedure to
promote the ends of justice. The right to appeal is merely a
statutory privilege and a litigant may exercise such right to
appeal only in the manner prescribed by law. The
requirement of an appeal fee is by no means a mere
technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential
requirement without which the decision appealed from
would become final and executory as if there was no appeal
filed at all. Zamoras v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No.
158610; November 12, 2004
Election Jurisprudence
Page 93
Election Jurisprudence
Page 94
SUFFRAGE, RIGHT TO
In a representative democracy such as ours, the right of
suffrage, although accorded a prime niche in the hierarchy
of rights embodied in the fundamental law, ought to be
exercised within the proper bounds and framework of the
Constitution and must properly yield to pertinent laws
skillfully enacted by the Legislature, which statutes for all
intents and purposes, are crafted to effectively insulate such
so cherished right from ravishment and preserve the
democratic institutions our people have, for so long,
guarded against the spoils of opportunism, debauchery and
abuse. Akbayan et al. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066
March 26, 2001
SUMMARY PROCEEDING
A summary proceeding does not mean that the COMELEC
could do away with the requirements of notice and hearing.
Bautista v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 154796-97. October
23, 2003
Election Jurisprudence
Page 95
because the action was filed on time by the person who died
and who is being substituted. The same rationale applies to
a petition-in-intervention. Lanot v. Comelec & Eusebio,
G.R. No. 164858, Nov. 16, 2006
SUSPENSION OF PROCLAMATION
While we agree with the petitioner that the COMELEC can
suspend the proclamation pending the resolution of the
petition to declare a failure of election, the same order,
however, is merely provisional in nature and can be lifted
when the evidence so warrants. In Nolasco v. COMELEC,
275 SCRA 762 [1997], it is said to be akin to a temporary
restraining order which a court can issue ex-parte under
exigent circumstances. Tan, et al., vs. Comelec, Jikiri, et
al., G.R. Nos. 148575-76. December 10, 2003
SUSPENSION OF RULES
Jaramilla v. Comelec, 23 October 2003
Cometa v. CA, 351 SCRA 294
The COMELEC thus has the discretion to suspend its rules or
any portion thereof in the interest of justice such that even if
the petition was filed 12 days after the proclamation, the
COMELEC may, in the interest of justice, disregard the
reglementary periods provided by the rules and resolve the
matter filed before it. Barot v. Comelec, G.R. No.
149147. 18 June 2003
Thus, the COMELEC did not act with grave abuse of
discretion when it entertained respondents petition by
suspending its own Rules of Procedure. De la Llana v.
Comelec, G.R. No. 152080. November 28, 2003
Indeed, the Comelec has the discretion to liberally construe
its rules and, at the same time, suspend the rules or any
portion thereof in the interest of justice. Suliguin v.
Comelec, MBOC of Nagcarlan, Laguna, G.R. No.
166046, March 23, 2006
Election Jurisprudence
Page 96
Election Jurisprudence
Page 97
Election Jurisprudence
Page 98
Election Jurisprudence
Page 99
VERIFICATION, LACK OF
We can find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
COMELEC in countenancing the lack of verification of the
motion for reconsideration in view of what the poll body
deemed as the higher interest of justice. Tiu v. Comelec,
G. R. No. 168795, August 2, 2005
VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION
The second sentence of the constitutional provision under
scrutiny states, Voluntary renunciation of office for any
length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in
the continuity of service for the full term for which he was
elected. The clear intent of the framers of the constitution
to bar any attempt to circumvent the three-term limit by a
voluntary renunciation of office and at the same time
respect the peoples choice and grant their elected official
full service of a term is evident in this provision. Voluntary
renunciation of a term does not cancel the renounced term
in the computation of the three term limit; conversely,
involuntary severance from office for any length of time
short of the full term provided by law amounts to an
interruption of continuity of service. The petitioner vacated
his post a few months before the next mayoral elections, not
by voluntary renunciation but in compliance with the legal
process of writ of execution issued by the COMELEC to that
effect.
Such involuntary severance from office is an
interruption of continuity of service and thus, the petitioner
did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term. Lonzanida
v. COMELEC 311 SCRA 602, 611 (1999).
THAN
50%
Election Jurisprudence
Page 100
VSAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
As it stands, the COMELEC unofficial quick count would be
but a needless duplication of the NAMFREL quick count, an
illegal and unnecessary waste of government funds and
effort. Brillantes, Jr. v. Jose Concepcion, Jr., Jose de
Venecia, Edgardo J. Angara, Dr. Jaime Z. Galvez Tan,
Franklin M. Drilon, Frisco San Juan, Norberto M.
Gonzales, Honesto M. Isleta, and Jose a. Bernas, v.
Commission on Elections, [G.R. No. 163193. June 15,
2004]
VOID JUDGMENT
A void judgment is defined as one that, from its inception,
is a complete nullity and without legal effect. A void
judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to, and is
attended by none of the consequences of, a valid
adjudication. Indeed, a void judgment need not be
recognized by anyone, but may be entirely
disregarded or declared inoperative by any tribunal
in which effect is sought to be given to it. It has no
legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any
place. It cannot affect, impair, or create rights, nor can any
rights be based on it. All proceedings founded on the void
judgment are themselves regarded as invalid and ineffective
for any purpose. Needless to stress, the HRET did not
commit grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction
over the election protest as the COMELEC Resolution dated
April 30, 2004, Order of May 5, 2004, and Resolution No.
6823 were void ab initio. Roces v. HRET, G.R. NO.
167499, Sept. 15, 2005
Election Jurisprudence
Page 101