47077054 Election Digested Cases
Short Description
Download 47077054 Election Digested Cases...
Description
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
ELECTION CONTESTS 16
1
17
TOMARONG V. LUBGUBAN 269 SCRA 624 (TAN, L.)
BEAGAN V. BORJA 261 SCRA 474 (TEEHANKEE)
FACTS: ⊥
FACTS: Several Several candidate candidatess including including Tomarong Tomarong were defeated in the 1994 Barangay Elections Elections in Siui!or" Siui!or" They all filed an election #rotest #rotest $efore the res#ective res#ective %CTC&s" The winning candidates filed filed their answers #raying that the #etitions $e dismissed dismissed $ased on the affirmative affirmative defense that the #rotestants #rotestants failed failed to attach to their #etitions the reuired certification on non'forum sho##ing as #rovided for in SC'AC (o" )4'94"
⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥
The %CTC initially ruled to dismiss $ut deferred t o the Secretary of *ustice who then deferred to the Court Administrator who ruled that the certification on non' forum sho##ing should $e reuired in elections elections contests $efore the %TC&s" %TC&s" Thus this #etition under +ule ,-" .E/0: The reuirement of the certification of non'forum sho##ing is reuired for election contests"
⊥
.E/0: =hotoco#ying of $allots is not tantamount to misconduct in office" ⊥
es" es" The Court2 citing /oyola v" Court of A##eals2 said that: 3e 3e do not agree that SC'AC (o" )4'94 is not a##lica$le a##lica$le to election election cases" cases" There There is nothing nothing in the Circular that indicates that it does not a##ly to election cases" 5n the contrary2 it e6#ressly #rovides that the reuirements therein2 which are in addition to those in #ertinent #rovisions of the +ules of Court and e6isting circulars2 7shall $e strictly com#lied with in the filing of com#laints2 #etitions2 a##lications or other initiatory #leadings in all courts and agencies other the Su#reme Court and the Court of A##eals"& 8$i le6 non distinguit nec nos distinguire de$emus" n this case2 the #etitioners filed the reuired certification 1; days after filing their #etitions" t cannot $e considered su$stantial com#liance with the reuirements of the Circular" more than a year2 while the three'year term of the 5ffice of the %ayor continued continued to run" The will of the electorate electorate22 as determined determined $y the trial court in the election #rotest2 had to $e res#ected and given meaning"
FACTS: This is an original action filed $efore the SC acting as a =residential Electoral Tri$unal"
Between the determination $y the trial court of who of the candidates won the elections and the finding of the Board of Canvassers as to whom to #roclaim2 it is the court&s decision that should #revail"
%iriam 0efensor'Santiago ?0S@ ran for #residency in the 199 (ational Elections" She lost2 $ut filed this #resent #rotest against the winner2 =res" FH +amos"
"EFENSOR SOR5SA 5SANTIAGO IAGO V. RAMOS MOS 2! SCRA !!9 (CONCE'CION)
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
Su$seuently however2 she ran for Senator in the 199- Senatorial elections" She won and assumed office as Senator in 199-" Considering this factual milieu2 the issues revolve on whether this #resent electoral #rotest would still $e valid2 even after the #rotestant has already assumed office as Senator2 noting that should she win this #rotest2 her term as #resident would coincide with her term as senator2 which she is now in" (ow2 in 199,2 the SC as =ET decides the case" .E/0: There was a$andonment of #rotest" es" 0S filed her certificate of candidacy to run for senator without ualification or reservation" n doing so2 she entered into a #olitical contract with the electorate2 that2 if elected2 she would assume the office as senator" senator" This is in accord accord with the constitutional doctrine that a #u$lic office is a #u$lic trust" n assuming the office of Senator2 she has effectively a$andoned her determination to #ursue this #resent #rotest" Such a$andonment a$andonment o#erates to render this #rotest moot" moot" Also2 the =ET issued a resolution ordering the #rotestant to inform the =ET within 1) days if after the com#letion of the revision of the $allots from her #ilot areas2 she still wishes to #resent evidence" Since 0S has not informed the Tri$unal of any such intention2 such is a manifest indication that she no longer intends to do so"
ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, LOCAL OFFICIALS, AN" MEMBERS OF THE REGIONAL ASSEMBL% OF THE AUTONOMOUS REGIONS THE 'ART%5LIST S%STEM 22
VETE VETERA RANS NS FE"E FE"ERA RAT TION ION 'A 'ART% RT% V. COME COMELE LEC C 42 SCRA 244 (AGUINAL"O)
FACTS: +es#ondent #roclaimed 14 #arty'list re#resentatives from 1 #arties which o$tained at least N of the total num$er of votes cast for the #arty'list system as mem$ers of the .ouse of +e#resentatives" 8#on #etition for res#ondents2 who who were #arty'list organiOations2 it #roclaimed ; additional #arty'list re#resentatives although they o$tained less than N of the total num$er of votes cast for the #arty'list system on the ground that under the Constitution2 it is mandatory that at least )N of the mem$ers of the .ouse of +e#resentatives come from the #arty'list re#resentatives" .E/0:
4
t is not mandatory" t merely #rovides a ceiling for the #arty'list seats in the .ouse of +e#resentative +e#resentatives" s" The Constitution Constitution vested Congress Congress with the $road #ower to define and #rescri$e the mechanics mechanics of the #arty'list system of re#resentatives" n the e6ercise of its constitutional #rerogative2 Congress deemed it necessary to reuire #arties #artici#ating in the system to o$tain at least N of the total votes cast for the #arty list system to $e entitled to a #arty'list seat" Congress wanted to ensure that only only those those #artie #artiess having having a suffic sufficien ientt num$er num$er of consti constitue tuents nts deserv deserving ing of re#resentation are actually re#resented in Congress" JJ(5TES: determination of total num$er of #arty'list re#resentativesP # districtrepresentatives
∗ .20
.80
additional re#resentatives of first #artyP
# ofvotesoffirstparty #o
additional seats for concerned #artyP
2
voteso voteso art lists lists stem
# votesofconcernedparty # votesoffirstparty
∗
additionalseatsforconcernedparty additionalseatsforcon cernedparty
ANG BA BAGONG ONG BA BA%ANI V. V. COME OMELEC !9 SCRA 698 (ENRI$UE#)
FACTS: The 5mni$us +esolution (o" D;- issued $y the C5%E/EC is challenged insofar as it a##roves the #artici#ation of 1-4 organiOations and #arties in the ))1 #arty'list elections" =etitioners see> the disualification of #rivate res#ondents as the #arty'list system was intended to $enefit the marginaliOed and underre#resented and not the mainstream #olitical #arties" The C5%E/EC received several #etitions for registration filed $y sectoral #arties2 etc" etc" for the ))1 ))1 electi elections ons"" The C5%E/EC C5%E/EC allege allege that that verifi verificat cation ionss for the ualifications of these #arties ta>e a long #rocess and as a result the divisions #romulgated a se#arate 5mni$us +esolution and individual resolution on #olitical #arties only on Fe$ruary 1)2 ))1" Before the Fe$ruary 12 ))1 deadline2 the registered #arties and organiOations filed their %anifestations2 stating their intention to #art #artic ici# i#at atee in the the #art #arty' y'li list st elec electi tion ons" s" The The C5%E C5%E/E /EC C a##r a##rov oved ed the the %anifestations of 1-4 #arties and organiOations $ut denied those of several others"
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
ACA= filed $efore the C5%E/EC a #etition #etition #raying that the names names of some res#ondents $e deleted from the Certified /ist of =olitical =artiesG=artici#ating in the =arty /ist System for the %ay 142 ))1 Elections" t also #rayed that the votes cast for the said res#ondents res#ondents $e not counted counted or canvassed canvassed and that the latter&s latter&s nominees nominees not $e #roclaimed #roclaimed"" Bayan %una and Bayan Bayan %una'o %una'outh uth also filed a similar #etition against some of the res#ondents" SS8E 1: 5( #olitical #arties may #artici#ate in the #arty'list elections The SC held that under the Constitution and +A D9412 #rivate res#ondents cannot $e disualified from the #arty'list elections2 merely on the ground that t hey are #olitical #arties" Sec" D and ;2 Article 'C #rovides that #olitical #arties may $e registered under the #artylist system" n the ConCom deli$erations2 Com" %onsod stated that the #ur#ose of the #arty'list #rovision was to o#en u# the system2 in order to give a chance to #arties that consistently #lace rd or 4th in congressional district elections to win a seat in Congress" Sec" of +A D941 #rovides that a 3#arty is 3either a #olitical #arty or a sectoral #arty or a collation of #arties" Sec" 11 of the same Act leaves no dou$t as to the #artici#ation of #olitical #arties in the #arty'list system" ndu$ita$le2 #olitical #arties Q even the ma!or ones'may #artici#ate in the #arty'list elections" SS8 SS8E E : 5( 5( the the #art #arty' y'li list st syst system em is e6cl e6clus usiv ivee to marg margin inal aliO iOed ed and and underre#resented sectors and organiOations For #olitical #arties to #artici#ate in the #arty'list elections their reuisite character must $e consistent with the #ur#ose of the #arty'list system in the Constitution and +A D941" The #ur#ose #ur#ose of the #arty'list #arty'list system is to give 3genuine #ower #ower to our #eo#le in Congress" .owever2 t he constitutional #rovision is not self'e6ecutory2 hence +A D941 was enacted" =ro#ortiona =ro#ortionall re#resenta re#resentation tion does not refer to the num$er of #eo#le #eo#le in a #articular #articular distri district2 ct2 $ecaus $ecausee the #arty'lis #arty'listt electio election n is nation national al in sco#e" sco#e" t refers refers to the re#resentation of the marginaliOed and underre#resented as e6em#lified in Section of the Act" The #arty'list #arty'list organiOation organiOation must factually factually and truly re#resent re#resent the marginaliOed and underre#resented constituencies" The #ersons nominated to the #arty'list system must also $elong to the underre#resented and marginaliOed sectors2 organiOations and #arties" /ac> of well'defined constituency refers to the a$sence of a traditionally i dentifia$le electo electoral ral grou#" grou#" t #oints #oints to those those with with dis#ar dis#arate ate intere interests sts define defined d with with the
5
marginaliOed and underre#resented" n the end2 the C5%E/EC&s role is to see to it t ha ha t only those Fili#inos who are marginaliO marginaliOed ed and underre#re underre#resented sented $ecome mem$ers of Congress under the #arty'list system" (ot all sectors can $e re#resented under the #arty'list system" The law crafted to address the #eculiar disadvantages of =ayatas hovel dwellers cannot $e a##ro#riated $y the mansion owners of For$es =ar>" hile the mega'rich are numerically s#ea>ing2 a minority2 they are neither marginaliOed nor underre#resented" t is illogical to o#en the system to those who have long $een within it Q those #rivileged #rivileged sectors that have long dominated dominated the congressional district elections" The SC held that it cannot allow the #arty'list system to $e sullied and #rostituted $y those who are neither marginaliOed nor underre#resented" Mendoza, dissenting: The text of Art. V, !ec. "#$%#&% "#$%#&% 'rovides for a 'arty(list 'arty(list syste) of registered, regional and sectoral 'arties or organizations, and not for sectoral re'resentation. t 'rovides for no *asis for 'etitioner+s contention that hether it is sectoral re'resentation re'resentation or 'arty(list syste) the '-r'ose is to 'rovide excl-sive re'resentation for )arginalized sectors. The Record of the ono) s'ea/s clearly against the 'etitioner+s assertion. To 'ro'osals for additional re'resentation in the Ho-se of Re'resentatives ere s-*)itted s-*)itted na)ely, sectoral re'resentation re'resentation and 'arty( list syste). These to are not the sa)e. n the end, the ono) chose the 'arty(list syste). n choosing this syste), the ono) did not intend to reserve the 'arty(list syste) to the )arginalized or -nderre'resented. -nderre'resented. n fact, the 'arty(list syste) )andates the o''osite. 0-rther)ore, 1-stice Mendoza holds that the )a2ority )isa''rehended )isa''rehended the )eaning of !ection & of RA 3o. 456$. The 'rovision states that the '-r'ose of the 'arty(list syste) is to 'ro)ote 'ro)otional re'resentation re'resentation in the election of re'resentatives in the Ho-se of Re'resentatives. To this end, a f-ll, free and o'en 'arty syste) is g-aranteed t o o*tain the *roadest 'ossi*le re'resentation re'resentation of a 'arty, sectoral or gro-' interests in the Ho-se of Re'resentatives. 7hile the re'resentation re'resentation of the )arginalized and -nderre'resented -nderre'resented sectors is a *asic '-r'ose of the la, it is not its only '-r'ose. SS8E SS8E : 5( the C5%E/E C5%E/EC C commit committed ted grave grave a$use a$use of discre discretio tion n in #romulgating 5mni$us +esolution (o" (o" D;The SC held that it is #ro#er to remand the case to the C5%E/ECT to determine whether whether the 1-4 #arties #arties and organiOation organiOationss allowed allowed to #artici#at #artici#atee in the #arty'list elections com#ly with the reuirements of the law" n light of this2 the SC #rovides for guidelines to assist the C5%E/EC in its wor>" ?1@ The #olitical #artyGmust
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
re#resent the marginaliOed and underre#resented grou#s identified in Section - of +A D9412 ?@ Even if ma!or #olitical #arties are allowed to #artici#ate in the #arty' list system2 they must com#ly with the declared statutory #olicy of ena$ling Fili#ino citiOens $elonging to marginaliOed and underre#resented sectors to $e elected to the .ouse of +e#resentatives2 ?@ a #arty or an organiOation must not $e disualified under Section , of the Act which enumerates the grounds for disualification2 ?4@ the #arty or organiOation must not $e an ad!unct of2 or a #ro!ect organiOed or an entity funded funded or assist assisted ed $y the governm government ent22 ?-@ #arty must not com#ly com#ly with with the reuiremen reuirements ts of the law2 ?,@ not only the candidate candidate #arty or organiOa organiOation tion must re#resent marginaliOed and underre#resented sectors2 so also must its nominees2 ?D@ the nominee must li>ewise $e a$le to contri$ute to the formulation and enactment of a##ro#riate legislation that will $enefit t he nation as a whole"
24
ANG BA BAGON GONG BA BA%ANI V. V. CO COMEL MELEC GR 147!89, JANUAR% 29, 2&&2 (ENRI$UE#)
FACTS: The C5%E/EC issued a T+5 against the #roclamation #roclamation of A=EC2 A=EC2 CBAC and A%( $ecause they failed to meet the ;'#oint guidelines set forth $y this Court" The C5%E/EC C5%E/EC found found that A=EC was merely an arm of the =hili##ine =hili##ine +ural Electric Coo#erative2 nc" ?=./+ECA@ and that it did not truly re#resent the marginaliOed sectors of society2 CBAC was re#orted to $e merely an e6tension of the 1es-s s 8ord ?*/@ religious movement and did not re#resent the interest of the marginaliOed and underre#resented sectors of society and that Ana> %indanao ?A%(@ was listed as having o$tained only 1",;,-N of the total votes cast for the #arty'list system2 not sufficient to meet the N reuired no" of votes" SS8E: 5( A=EC2 CBAC and A%( A%( should should $e #roclaimed #roclaimed winners winners aside from those already validly #roclaimed $y the earlier +esolutions of the SC"
6
#rofessionals2 its mem$ershi# is com#osed not only of #rofessionals $ut also of #easants2 elderly2 youth and women" A=EC addresses the issues of !o$ creation2 #overty alleviation and lac> of electricity" CBAC is com#osed of he underre#resented and marginaliOed and is concerned with their welfare" CBAC is #articularly interested in the youth youth and #rofessional sectors" T+5 #artially lifted with regard to A=EC and CBAC"
2!
ANG BA BAGONG ONG BA BA%ANI V. V. COME OMELEC GR 147!89, A'RIL 1&, 2&&2 ang bagong bayani ng 2D!) (ENRI$UE# ang
The C5%E/EC determined that the following #arty'list #artici#ants2 des#ite their having o$tained at least N of the total votes cast2 have failed to meet the ;'#oint guidelines guidelines set forth in our 0ecision: 0ecision: %amamayan %amamayan Ayaw Ayaw sa 0roga ?%A0@2 Association of =hili##ine Electric Coo#eratives ?A=EC@2 Heterans Federation =arty ?HF=@2 ?HF=@2 A$ag A$ag =romdi =romdi ?=+5%0@2 ?=+5%0@2 (ationalist (ationalist =eo#le&s =eo#le&s Coalition ?(=C@2 /a>as /a>as (8C0'8%0=2 and CitiOen&s Battle Against Corru#tion ?CBAC@" The 5SI2 acting on $ehalf of the Comelec2 in its Consolidated +e#ly dated 5cto$er 1-2 ))1 and in a %anifestation dated 0ecem$er -2 ))12 modified its #osition and recommended that A=EC and CBAC $e declared as having com#lied with the ;' #oint guidelines
ELECTION OF LOCAL OFFICIALS 26
OCCEA V. COMELEC 127 SCRA 4&4 (#UIGA)
FACTS: ⊥
+8/(I: A%( did not get more than two #ercent of the votes cast" A=EC and CBAC have sufficiently met the ;'#oint guidelines of his Court and have sufficient sufficient votes to entitle entitle them to seats in Congress" Congress" ssues are factual in character character22 Commission& Commission&ss findings findings are ado#ted2 ado#ted2 a$sent a$sent any #atent #atent ar$itrarines ar$itrarinesss or a$use or negligence in its action" (o su$stantial #roof that CBAC is merely an arm of */2 or that A=EC is an e6tension of =./+ECA" The 5SI e6#lained the these are se#arate entities with se#arate mem$ershi#s" Although A=EC&s nominees are all
Samu Samuel el 5cce 5ccena na file filed d
a
#eti #etitio tion n
for for
#roh #rohi$ i$it itio ion n
to decl declar aree
as
unconstitutional the #rovisions in the Barangay Election Act of 19; ?B= @ which #rohi$ited: any candidate in the 19; $arangay election from re#resenting o o
himself as a mem$er of a #olitical #artyK the intervention of #olitical #arties in a candidateRs nomination
o
and filing of his certificate of candidacyK and the giving of aid or su##ort su##ort of #olitical #arties for or against a candidateRs cam#aign
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
⊥
5ccena #rayed that the 19; elections $e declared null and void2 and new
⊥
$arangay elections held without the $an on the involvement of #olitical #arties n 19; the court considered the Comments of the Solicitor Ieneral as an
⊥
Answer (ote that the decision in the case was delayed $ecause all the *ustices resigned on %ay 19; ?JSC trivia: over allegations that the $ar e6am results of *ustice ErictaRs son were changed in his favor ' there was #re' decoding of his grades $efore official decoding and #u$lication@
.E/0: The $an on the intervention of #olitical #arties in the election of $arangay officials is (5T violative of the constitutional guarantee of the right to form associations and societies for #ur#oses not contrary to law" 8nder the Barangay Election Act of 19;2 the right to organiOe is intact" =olitical #arties may freely $e formed although there is a restriction on their activities2 i"e"2 their intervention in the election of $arangay officials on %ay 1D2 19; is #rescri$ed" But the $an is narrow2 not total" t o#erates only on concerted or grou# action of #olitical #arties" The $an against the #artici#ation of #olitical #arties in the $arangay election is an a##ro#riate legislative res#onse to the unwholesome effects of #artisan $ias in the im#artial discharge of the duties im#osed im#osed on the $arangay and its officials officials as the $asic unit of our #olitical and social structure" t would definitely enhance the o$!ective and im#artial discharge of their duties for $arangay officials to $e shielded form #olitical #arty loyalty" Some reasons for the restriction: ' Lthe $arangay is the $asic unit not only of our social structure $ut also of our #olitical structure" t would $e a more #rudent #olicy to insulate the $arangays from the influence of #artisan #olitics" The $arangays2 although it is true they are already considered regular units of our government2 are non'#artisanK they constitute the $ase of the #yramid of our social and #olitical structure2 and in order that $ase will not $e su$!ect to insta$ility $ecause of the influence of #olitical forces2 it is $etter that we elect the officials thereof through a non'#artisan system"L ?0eli$erations on =arliamentary Bill 1- which later $ecame B= Blg" @ ' The Barangay Ca#tain and the Barangay Council2 a#art from their legislative and consultative #owers2 also act as an agency for neutral community action such as the distri$ution of $asic foodstuff and as an instrument in conducting #le$iscites and referenda"
7
' The Barangay Ca#tain2 Ca#tain2 together together with the mem$ers of the /u#on Taga#aya#a Taga#aya#a a##oin a##ointed ted $y him2 him2 e6erc e6ercise isess admini administr strativ ativee su#erv su#ervisi ision on over over the $arang $arangay ay conciliatio conciliation n #anels #anels in the latterRs wor> of settling settling local dis#utes" dis#utes" The Barangay Barangay Ca#tain himself settles or hel#s settle local controversies within the $arangay either through mediation or ar$itration" The case of m$ong v" C5%E/EC also involved the restriction as that #rescri$ed in Sec" 4 of B= " n u#holding the constitutionality of what was then Sec" ;?a@ of +e#u$lic Act (o" ,12 the court said that Lhile it may $e true that a #artyRs su##ort of a candidate is not wrong #er se2 it is eually true that Congress in the e6ercise of its $road law'ma>ing authority can declare certain acts as mala #rohi$ita when when !ustif !ustified ied $y the e6igenci e6igencies es of the times"L times"L The #rimar #rimary y #ur#os #ur#osee of the #rohi$ition was to avoid the denial of the eual #rotection of the laws" The s#onsors of the #rovision em#hasiOed that under this #rovision2 the #oor candidate has an even chance as against the rich candidate" Euality of chances may $e $etter attained $y $anning all organiOation su##ort" The $an was to assure eual chances to a candidate with talent and im$ued with #atriotism as well as no$ility of #ur#ose2 so that the country can utiliOe their services if elected" 0ernando9s onc-rring 'inion: Test Test of the #ermissi$le #ermissi$le limitation limitation on freedom freedom of association association:: .ow should the limitation Rfor #ur#oses not contrary to lawR $e inter#retedM t is su$mitted that it is another way of e6#ressing the clear and #resent danger rule for unless an association or society could $e shown to create an imminent danger to #u$lic safety2 there is no !ustification for a$ridging the right to form form associations or societies"L Teehan/ee9s Teehan/ee9s ;issenting 'inion: The restriction denies Lnon'#oliticalL candidates the very freedoms of effectively a##ealing to the electorate through the #u$lic media and of $eing su##orted $y organiOed grou#s that would give them at least a fighting chance to win against candidates of the #olitical >ing#ins" The #olitical $igwigs are meanwhile left to give their LindividualL $lessings to their favored candidates2 which in actuality is ta>en $y all as the #artyRs $lessings"
27
KAN"UM V. V. COMELEC GR 16969, JANUAR% 18, 2&&& (CHOTRANI)
FACTS: =etitioner Amilham!a andum and res#ondent .ad!i Ia#ur Ballaho were candidates for =unong Barangay in Barangay Barangay /oo> Bisaya2 Bisaya2 Ti#o'Ti Ti#o'Ti#o2 #o2 Basilan in the 199D
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
$arangay elections" =etitioner garnered ,1 votes over res#ondentRs -9 votes" hen #etitioner was #roclaimed the winner $y the BBC2 res#ondent filed an election #rotest in the %CTC and secured a favora$le decision" =etitioner =etitioner a##ealed a##ealed the decision decision to the +TC" +TC" But when the +TC dismissed dismissed the a##eal for lac> of !urisdiction2 #etitioner filed a notice of a##eal to the C5%E/EC through the %CTC " The C5%E/EC issued a resolution dismissing the a##eal for having $een filed out of time" ?A##eal was filed D days after #etitioner received received co#y of the decision of the %CTC@ .E/0: +TC doesnRt have !urisdiction over election #rotests involving $arangay officials decided $y trial courts of limited !urisdiction" E6clusive E6clusive a##ellate a##ellate !urisdiction !urisdiction over all contests contests involving involving elective elective $arangay $arangay officials officials decided $y courts of limited limited !urisdiction !urisdiction ?the %etro#olita %etro#olitan n Trial Trial Courts2 Courts2 %unici %unici#al #al Trial Trial Courts Courts and %unici %unici#al #al Circuit Circuit Trial Trial Courts Courts@@ lies lies with with the C5%E/EC2 not the +TC" 8nder #aragra#h ?@2 Section 2 su$division C2 Article of the Constitution2 Sec" " The Commission Commission on Elections shall e6ercise e6ercise the following following #owers #owers and functions: 666 ?@ E6ercise e6clusive " " " a##ellate !urisdiction over all contests involving elective munici#al munici#al officials officials decided decided $y trial courts of general general !urisdiction2 !urisdiction2 or involving involving elective $arangay officials decided $y trial courts of limited !urisdiction"
28
BUHISAN V. COMELEC GR 12728, JANUAR% &, 2&&1 ('EAFLORI"A)
FACTS: =etitioner *ane Buhisan and #rivate res#ondent Iordon Ioros#e were candidates for the #osition of Sangguniang a$ataan ?S@ Chairman of Barangay =o$lacion2 San *uan2 Siui!or during the %ay ,2 199, elections" Buhisan garnered - votes against
8
Ioros#eRs 4 votes" Buhisan was #roclaimed $y the Board of Election Tellers as the duly elected S Chairman" 5n %ay 1 Ioros#e filed $efore the %CTC of /aOi2 Siui!or an election #rotest which see>s the annulment of the #roclamation of Buhisan and to declare the former the duly elected S Chairman" %CTC nullified BuhisanRs #roclamation and declared Ioros#e as the S Chairman" Buhisan a##ealed with the C5%E/EC" Electoral Contests Ad!udication 0e#artment of C5%E/EC returned the a##eal" A motion for reconsideration was filed" Also2 Buhisan Buhisan re'filed with the C5%E/EC her a##ellantRs a##ellantRs $rief insisting insisting that #u$lic #u$lic res#ondent ta>e cogniOance of her a##eal" C5%E/EC dismissed the a##eal and informed Buhisan that the %CTC decision in the election #rotest may only $e elevated to the Commission en $anc via a #etition for review and not $y ordinary a##eal" .E/0: The C5%E/EC didnRt commit any grave a$use of discretion discretion with dismissing the a##eal due a mere technicality" Section 49 of C5%E/EC +esolution (o" ;4 dated Fe$ruary ,2 199,2 governing the conduct of Sangguniang a$ataan elections #rovides: Sec"49" Finality of =roclamation"'The #roclamation of the winning candidate shall $e final" .owever2 the %etro#olitan Trial Courts%unici#al Trial Courts%unici#al Circuit Trial Courts shall have original !urisdiction over all election #rotest cases2 whose decision shall $e final" The Commission en $anc in meritorious cases may entert entertain ain a #etitio #etition n for review review of the decisi decision on of the %eTC% %eTC%TC TC%CT %CTC C in accordance with the C5%E/EC +ules of =rocedure" An a##eal $ond of =2)))")) shall $e reuired2 which shall $e r efunda$le if the a##eal is found meritorious" Also2 the C5%E/EC may entertain such #etitions only on meritorious gronds" By #rescri$ing a s#ecific mode to $e ado#ted in assailing the %CTCRs decision2 C5%E/EC is afforted o##ortunity to e6amine the allegations on the face !of the #etition if there i s a #rima facie showing that the %CTC committed an error of fact or law or gravely a$used its discretion to warrant reversal or modification of the decision" n other words2 this manner of a##eal is discretionary on the #art of the election tri$unal" t is essential that a #rior determination $e made regarding the e6istence e6istence of meritorious meritorious reasons for the #etition" #etition" 8nli>e in ordinary ordinary a##eals2 acce#tance of the #etition is not a matter of course" .ere an a##eal is o$viously not
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
9
the #ro#er remedy allowed $y the C5%E/EC +ules Accordingly2 Accordingly2 #u$lic res#ondent cannot $e faulted for grave a$use of discretion in dismissing #etitioner&s a##eal
29
o
MONTESCLAROS V. COMELEC 82 SCRA 2 (VAL"E#)
⊥
⊥ ⊥
& disualification to vote and $e voted for in the S elections should it $e #ost#oned from original date ?%A ?%A )@ to (5H ) += =res" Signed the $ill into law #ost#oning the elections 0uring #endency of #etition Congress enacted +A 91,4' synchroniOation
.E/0: The su$!ect law doesnRt disfranchise the the #etitioners" t also doesnRt de#rive them of any #ro#erty right"
.E/0:
ELIGIBILIT% OF CAN"I"ATES AN" CERTIFICATE OF CAN"I"AC% 1
RECABO V. V. COMELEC &8 SCRA 79 (1999) (FLORES)
FACTS: ⊥
This is a #etition for Certiorari see>ing to annul the Comelec&s resolution
⊥
cancelling cancelling aiser +eca$o&s +eca$o&s certificate certificate of candidacy candidacy for Hice'%a Hice'%ayor yor in Surigao 0el (orte aiser +eca$o claimed to $e /AAS (8C0'8%0=&s official candidate
least 1- $ut not more than 1 yo S tas>ed tas>ed to enhance enhance social2 social2 #olitical2 #olitical2 economic2 economic2 cultural2G cultural2G
⊥
to the aforementioned #osition2 su$stituting his mother Candelaria +eca$o aiser +eca$o&s certificate of candidacy was only signed $y Iovernor
⊥
%atuga %atugas2 s2 and not !ointly !ointly with +o$ert +o$ert Bar$er Bar$erss ?s#ace ?s#ace left $lan>@ $lan>@ as intended $y the certificate of nomination 5n the other hand +es#ondent +eyes& certificate of nomination for Hice'
yout youth h
orga organi niOa Oatio tion n
orig origin inal ally ly
esta esta$l $lis ishe hed d
$y
=0
,;4 ,;4
as
dev&t" of youth (o vested right to the #ermanence of age reuirement under /ICK every law #assed is always su$!ect of amendment or re#eal Court cannot restrain Congress from amending or re#ealing lawK o
⊥
FACTS:
ABATAA(I BA+A(IA ?B@com#osed of all $rgy" residents less than 1; y"o" /IC renamed B to S and limited mem$ershi# mem$ershi# to youths youths at o
S: S:
o
⊥
MONTESCLAROS V. COMELEC GR 1!229!, AUGUST 1, 2&&2
%5(TESC/A+5S ?#etitioners@2 all ) y"o" claims $eing in danger of
of $rgy" and S elections on *8/ )K #rovides that voters and candidates for S elections must $e at least 1- $ut less than 1; on the day of election
⊥
authority2 any act disualifying themmem$ershi# in the S is mere statutory right conferred $y law (o one has vested right to any #u$lic office2 much less vested right to an e6#ectancy of holding #u$lic office
FACTS: ⊥
5nly 5nly those those who ualif ualify y can contest2 contest2 $ased $ased on a statut statutory ory
#ower to ma>e laws includes #ower to change lawsK Court cannot direct C5%E/EC to allow over'aged voters to vote or $e voted in an election limited under +A 91,4 Congress has #ower to #rescri$e ualifications o =ETT5(E+S: no #ersonal and su$stantial interest in the S elections see>ing to enforce right which has $een already limited with the #assage of +A 91,4ceased to $e mem$ers of S and no longer ualified to #artici#ate
mayor was signed $y no other than Fidel H" +amos +amos ?(ational Chairman /AAS@ and *ose 0e Henecia Henecia ?Secretary Ieneral /AAS@ .E/0: The certificate of candidacy of #etitioner and that of his mother who he su$stituted as candidate for Hice %ayor 00 (5T su$stantially com#lied with the reuirements of $eing official candidates of the /AAS #arty"
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
10
⊥
To allow +eca$o to run would #ut the election #rocess in moc>ery for we
⊥
Comelec set date for conducting the recall electionK former term mayor
⊥
Edward .agedorn files his certificate of candidacy =etitioner Adovo and Iilo files #etition $efore Comelec to disualify
⊥
would in effect $e allowing an anomalous situation where a single #olitical #arty may field in multi#le candidate for for a singe election #osition /a>as designated designated #arty officers officers to issue certificates certificates of nomination nomination22
⊥
#etitoner&s nomination was signed only $y one2 while res#ondents signed $y +amos and *0H Comelec Comelec declared declared #etitioner& #etitioner&ss mother mother as and inde#endent inde#endent candidate candidate on
⊥
account of the invalidity of her nomination2 thus there can $e no valid su$stitution $y #etitioner for an invalid nomination Besides2 Besides2 #etitioner #etitioner filed his candidacy candidacy out of time for an inde#enden inde#endentt
⊥ ⊥
candidate candidate ?although wn #rescri#tiv #rescri#tivee #eriod #eriod of a su$stituted su$stituted candidate2 candidate2 useles uselesss $ecaus $ecausee alread already y ad!udg ad!udged ed as an invalid invalid nomina nominatio tion n and su$stitution@ ell'settled certificate filed $eyond deadline not valid But +eyes& motion to $e declared winner2 garnering the second highest num$er of votes to +eca$o can not $e granted2 wound $e tantamount to su$stitution of !udgment for the mind of the voter
BAUTISTA V. COMELEC 414 SCRA 299 (A$UINO, T.)
.agedorn claiming that he is disualified from running for a 4th termK #etition was dismissed .E/0: .agedorn is ualified to run in the recall election ⊥
Art" Sec" ; of 19;D Constitution: the term of office of elective local
⊥
officials2 officials2 e6ce#t $arangay officials2 officials2 which shall $e determined determined $y law2 shall shall $e years years and no such official official shall serve serve for more than consecutive terms" Holuntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not $e considered as an interru#tion in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected" Sec" 4 ?$@ +A D1,): Term of office Q no local official shall serve for more
⊥
than consecutive terms in the same #osition" Holuntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not $e considered as an interru#tion in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official was elected These constitutional and statutory #rovisions have #arts The first #art #rovides that an elective local official cannot serve ore than
⊥
consecutive terms The clear intent is that only consecutive terms count in determining the '
⊥
term limit rule The second #art states that voluntary renunciation of office for any length
⊥
of time does not interru#t the continuity of service The clear intent is that involuntary severance from office for any length of
⊥
time interru#ts continuity of service and #revents the service $efore and after the interru#tion from $eing !oined together to form a continuous service or consecutive terms After consecutive terms2 an elective local official cannot see> immediate
⊥
reelection for a fourth term The #rohi$ited election refers to the ne6t regular election for the same
⊥
FACTS: .E/0:
"IS$UALIFICATIONS
SOCRATES V. COMELEC 91 SCRA 4!7 (NE'OMUCENO)
FACTS: ⊥
=etitioner is mayor of =uerto =rincesa2 who was removed from office thru
⊥
a recall #roceeding initiated $y the ma!ority of the incum$ent $arangay officials of the city =etitioner filed a motion to nullify the recall resolution $ut was dismissed
office following the end of the third consecutive term
$y the Comelec for lac> of merit merit
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
⊥
Any su$seuent election2 li>e a recall election2 is no longer covered $y the
⊥
#rohi$ition for two reasons First2 a su$seuent election li>e a recall election is no longer an immediate
⊥
reelection after three consecutive terms Second2 the intervening #eriod constitutes an involuntary interru#tion in
⊥
the continuity of service Clearly2 the constitution #rohi$its immediate reelection for a fourth term
⊥
following three consecutive terms The constitution2 however2 does not #rohi$it a su$seuent reelection for a
⊥
fourth term as long as the reelection is not immediately after the end of the third consecutive term A recall election midway in the term following the third consecutive term
⊥
is a su$seuent election $ut not an immediate reelection after the third term (either does the constitution #rohi$it one $arred from see>ing immediate
⊥
reelection to run in any other su$seuent election involving the same term of office hat the constitution #rohi$its is a consecutive fourth term The #rohi$ited election referred to $y the framers of the constitution is the
⊥
immediate immediate reelection reelection after the third term2 not any other su$seuen su$seuentt election The framers e6#ressly ac>nowledged that the #rohi$ited election refers
⊥
only to the immediate reelection2 and not to any su$seuent election2 during the , year #eriod following the two term limit The framers of the constitution constitution did not intend 3the #eriod of rest of an
⊥
elective official who has reached his term limit to $e the full e6tent of the succeeding term
4
A"ORMEO V. COMELEC 76 SCRA 9& (HOSAKA)
11
Adormeo filed a with the =rovincial Election Su#ervisor a =etition To 0eny 0ue Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and or 0isualification of Talaga on the ground that the latter was elected and had served as city mayor for consecutive terms as follows: 1@ election of %ay 199 where he served the full termK @ election of %ay 199-2 again he served a full termK and @ in the recall election of %ay 12 ))) where he served only the une6#ired term of Tagarao after having lost to Tagarao Tagarao in the 199; election" Adormeo contended that Talaga&s candidacy as %ayor was a violation of Sec ; Art of the Constitution''' Sec" ;" The term of office of elective local officials2 e6ce#t $arangay officials2 which shall $e determined $y law2 shall $e years and no such official shall serve for more than consecutive terms" Holuntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not $e considered as an interru#tion in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected" Talaga claims that he only served for consecutive terms and that his service from %ay ))) was not a full term $ecause he only served Tagarao&s une6#ired term $y virtue of the recall election" .e cites the case of /onOanida giving conditions for the disualification 1@ that the official has $een elected for consecutive terms in the same local govt #ostK and @ that he has fully served consecutive terms" Comelec division ruled in favor of Adormeo" Comelec en $anc reversed2 hence this #etition" .E/0: Talaga is ualified to run for mayor" Talaga was not elected for consecutive terms having lost his rd $id in the %ay 112 199; elections2 said defeat is an interru#tion in the continuity of his service as city mayor of /ucena" The term limit for elective local officials must $e ta>en to refer to the right to $e elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective #osition"
FACTS: =et +aymundo Adormeo and #rivate res# +amon Talaga were the only candidates who filed the certificates of candidacy for mayor of /ucena City in the %ay 142 ))1 elections" Talaga was then the incum$ent mayor"
Talaga was not elected for consecutive terms and for nearly years he was a #rivate citiOen" The continuity of his mayorshi# was disru#ted $y his defeat in the 199; elections" t was only $y virtue of the recall that he served Tagarao&s Tagarao&s une6#ired term" This did not amount to a third full term"
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
Fr" Bernas& comment that 3if one is elected re#resentative to serve the une6#ired term of another2 that une6#ired term2 no matter how short2 will $e considered one term for the #ur#ose of com#uting the num$er of successive terms allowed only #ertains to the mem$ers of the .ouse of +e#resentatives and not to local govt officials" (either can Talaga&s Talaga&s victory in the recall election $e deemed as 3voluntary renunciation under the Constitution"
!
"IANGKA V. COMELEC 2 SCRA 887 (RE%ES)
FACTS: =etitioner %aimona 0iang>a filed a #etition for certiorari uestioning the decision of C5%E/EC in disualifying her as candidate for %ayor of Ianassi2 /anao del Sur" =etitioner =etitioner was the wife of the incum$ent incum$ent %ayor" %ayor" Ali Balindong2 Balindong2 the other mayoralty candidate2 filed a s#ecial action for disualification against 0iang>a and her hus$and alleging that they committed acts of terrorism: J First2 that they loaded the $allot $o6es $o6es into an am$ulance am$ulance then su$seuently2 through through force and threats2 threats2 made the watchers watchers of Balindong Balindong go down from the vehicle" J Second2 Second2 that that 0iang>a& 0iang>a&ss hus$and hus$and went went to the the voting voting areas areas and caused caused a commotion that #revented voters from voting" n the results of the elections2 0iang>a emerged the winner" C5%E/EC ordered the $oard of canvassers to cease and desist from declaring 0iang>a as mayor2 $ut that order came in late and still 0iang>a was declared mayor" n the hearing for the disua disualif lifica icatio tion2 n2 only only Balind Balindong ong and lawye lawyerr a##ear a##eared2 ed2 hence hence C5%E/EC C5%E/EC disualified 0iang>a" 0iang>a now assails the decision via certiorari2 meanwhile vice'mayor elect %aca#odi assumed the mayor #osition" .E/0: 0iang>a can $e held lia$le for the two acts of terrorism of her hus$and thus2 she could $e disualified $y the C5%E/EC" 1" C5%E/EC determined that 0iang>a 0iang>a was at the front seat $eside the driver in the am$ulance when the watchers of Balindong were made to go down via threats" .er e6cuse that she did not >now nor was she in collusion with her hus$and can not hold water" First2 she admitted that she reuested t hat the driver2 after they
12
threatened the watchers2 dro# her off at t he school" Such shows she had control over the driver" Second2 her mere #resence in the am$ulance shows that she acuiesced to her hus$ands acts and hence guilty also" " C5%E/EC determined that it was actually 0iang>a&s 0iang>a&s hus$and who caused the commotion which #revented the voters from voting" hile it was not actually 0iang>a who committed the acts2 she did not #rove that her running was not a mere alter ego of her hus$and who is in his term as mayor" This together with her #resence in the am$ulance am$ulance ma>es her guilty of the acts of terrorism in violation of the 5mni$us Election Code" (ote: Irounds for 0isualification ?Section ?Section ,; of 5mni$us Election Code@: a@ Iiving money or other other material material consideration consideration to influence2 influence2 induce or corru#t corru#t the voters or #u$lic officials #erforming electoral functionsK $@ Committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacyK c@ S#ent in his election cam#aign an amount in e6cess of that that allowed allowed d@ Solicited2 received or made any contri$ution which are #rohi$ited
6
SOON5RUI# V. COMELEC GR 1442, SE'TEMBER !, 2&&& (TAN, E.)
FACTS: =etitioner ?S5//E+@ and res#ondent ?SA8/5(I@ were $oth candidates for mayor of Bansud2 5riental %indoro" %unici#al $oard of canvassers #roclaimed S5//E+ duly elected mayor" SA8/5(I filed two actions: a" $"
C5%E/EC C5%E/EC:: 3#etiti 3#etition on for annulm annulment ent of the #rocla #roclamat mation ione6 e6clu clusio sion n of election return +TC: election #rotest against SA8/5(I
S5//E+ filed motion to dismissC5%E/EC granted2 +TC denied The denial $y +TC of S5//E+&s motion to dismiss was uestioned via #etition for certiorari certiorari with C5%E/EC" C5%E/EC" This certiorari certiorari was dismissed dismissed $y the C5%E/EC en $anc"
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
.E/0: 1" ( C5%E/EC gravely a$used its discretion amounting amounting to lac> of !urisdiction in not ordering the dismissal of SA8/5(I&s election #rotest" ES" The decision of the C5%E/EC en $anc is null and void" The authority to resolve #etition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election #rotest falls within the division division of the C5%E/EC C5%E/EC and not on the C5%E/EC en $anc" $anc" The C5%E/EC en $anc does not have the reuisite authority t o hear and decide election cases including #re'#roclamation controversies in the first instance" Any decision $y it in the first instance is null and void" void" f the #rinci#al #rinci#al case2 once decided decided on the merits2 merits2 is cogniOa$le cogniOa$le on a##eal a##eal $y a division of the C5%E/EC2 then2 there is no reason why #etitions for certiorari relating to incidents of election #rotest should not $e referred first to a division of the C5%E/EC for resolution" resolution"
13
⊥
=etitioner =a#andayan and res#ondent Balt were contending candidates for
⊥
mayor of Tu$aran2 /anao del Sur in the %ay 142 ))1 elections" C5%E/EC nd 0ivision issued a resolution declaring #etitioner to $e
⊥
disualifi disualified ed $ased $ased on affidavit affidavitss su$mitted su$mitted $y res#ondent res#ondent as evidenceK evidenceK ordered #etitioner&s name to $e stric>en off the list of candidates and all votes cast in his favor not to $e counted $ut considered as stra y votes" 5n election day2 #etitioner #etitioner was voted $y the electorate electorate as munici#al munici#al
⊥
mayor" The following day2 he received a telegram from the C5%E/EC notifying him that the C5%E/EC en $anc denied his %+" =etitioner filed a #etition with the C5%E/EC 1st 0ivision see>ing the
⊥
issuance of an order directing the Board of Election ns#ectors to count and tally the $allots cast in his favor during the elections #ursuant to C5%E C5%E/E /EC C +eso +esolu luti tion on 411, 411,"" +eso +esolu lutio tion n #rov #rovid ides es that that if the the disualification case has not $ecome final and e6ecutory on the day of the election2 BE shall tally and count the votes of the candidate declared disualified" +es#onden +es#ondentt filed #re'#roclamati #re'#roclamation on caseK C5%E/EC issued an order
⊥
sus#en sus#endin ding g the #rocla #roclamat mation ion of #etitio #etitioner ner $ut des#it des#itee said said order order22 %unici#al Board of Canvassers still #roclaimed #etitioner as winner" 8#on motion of res#ondent2 C5%E/EC 1st 0ivision set aside #etitioner&s
" ( +TC committed grave grave a$use of discretion in failing to dismiss res#ondent&s res#ondent&s election #rotest" es" es" Close scrutiny of the recei#ts show that res#ondent failed to #ay the filing filing fee of =))" Thus2 the trial court did not acuire !urisdiction over res#ondent&s res#ondent&s election #rotest" C5%E/EC erred in not ordering the dismissal of res#ondent&s #rotest case" Errors in the #ayment of filing fees in election cases is no longer e6cusa$le" The #rotest should have also $een dismissed dismissed for lac> of #ro#er #ro#er verificatio verification n ?tantamoun ?tantamountt to filing an unsigned #leading@2 #leading@2 and for failure failure to com#ly com#ly with the reuired certification against forum sho##ing" This reuirement is mandatory2 mandatory2 and cannot cannot $e e6cused e6cused $y the fact that a #arty has not actually resorted resorted to forum sho##ing" Iood faith is not an e6cuse" e6cuse" %oreover2 res#ondent&s #etition was a #re'#roclamation case2 which may no longer $e entertained $y the C5%E/EC after the winning candidates have $een #roclaimed" By resorting to the wrong remedy2 res#ondent may $e claimed to have a$andoned the #re'#roclamation case that he filed"
#roclamationK C5%E/EC en $anc sustained annulment of #roclamation of #etitioner .E/0: =etitioner shouldnRt $e disualified" ⊥
At the time the elections were held in %ay 142 ))12 the assailed
⊥
resolution resolution22 had not $ecome $ecome final and e6ecutory" e6ecutory" .ence2 .ence2 the Board of Election ns#ectors ?BE@ was duty $ound to tally and count the votes cast in favor of #etitioner" C5%E/EC +esolution 411, #ertains to the finality of decisions or
⊥
resolutions of the Commission en $anc or division2 #articularly on S#ecial Actions ?0isualification cases@ Sec" 12 #aragra#hs ?$@ and ?c@ of said resolution #rovide: ?$@ n S#ecial
=ETT5( I+A(TE0"
7
FACTS:
'A'AN"A%AN, JR JR. V. V. COME OMELEC 81 SCRA 1 (BAUTISTA)
Actions and S#ecial cases2 a decision or resolution of the Commission en
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
⊥
$anc shall $ecome final and e6ecutory after five ?-@ days from its #romulgation unless restrained $y the Su#reme Court" ?c@ 8nless a motion for reconsideration reconsideration is seasona$ly seasona$ly filed2 a decision decision or resolution resolution of a 0ivision shall $ecome final and e6ecutory after the la#se of five ?-@ days in S#ecial Actions and S#ecial cases and after fifteen ?1-@ days in all other actions or #roceedings2 following its #romulgation" C5%E/EC +esolution 411, further #rovides that: " where the ground
⊥
for the disualification case is $y reason of non'residence2 citiOenshi#2 violation of election laws and other analogous cases and on the day of the election the resolution has not $ecome final and e6ecutory2 the BE shall tally and count the votes of such disualified candidate" +es#ondent2 therefore2 is in error in assuming that the issuance of a
⊥
tem#orary restraining order $y this Court within five ?-@ days after the date of the #romulgation of the assailed resolution is the o#erative act that #revents it from attaining finality" finality" ith ith due regard regard for the e6#erti e6#ertise se of the C5%E/E C5%E/EC2 C2 we find the
⊥
evidence to $e insufficient insufficient to sustain its resolution" =etitioner has duly #roven that2 although he was formerly a resident of the %unici#ality of Bayang2 he later transferred residence to Tangcal in the %unici#ality of Tu$aran as shown $y his actual and #hysical #resence therein for 1) years #rior to the %ay 142 ))1 elections" The #rinci#le of animus revertendi has $een used to determine whether a
⊥
candidate has an 3intention to return to the #lace where he see>s to $e elected" elected" Corollary Corollary to this is a determination determination whether whether there has $een an 3a$andonment of his former residence which signifies an intention to de#art therefrom" Caasi v" Court of A##eals: res#ondent&s immigration to the 8nited States
⊥
in 19;4 constituted an a$andonment of his domicile and residence in the =hili##ines" Being a green card holder was was #roof that he was a #ermanent #ermanent resident or immigrant of the 8nited States" Co v" Electoral Tri$unal of the .ouse of +e#resentatives: this Court2
⊥
citing Fay#on v" ed wor>ed as a #rivate secretary of the mayor mayor of Bayang2 he went home to Tu$aran everyday everyday after wor>" This is #roof of animus manendi" t is the fact of residence that is the decisive factor in determining
⊥
whether whether or not an individual individual has satisfied satisfied the Constitution Constitution&s &s residency residency ualification reuirement" hen the evidence of the alleged lac> of residence ualification of a candidate candidate for an elective #osition is wea> or inconclusiv inconclusivee and it clearly clearly a##ears that the #ur#ose of the law would not $e thwarted $y u#holding the victor&s victor&s right to the office2 office2 the will will of the electora electorate te should should $e res#ected"
8
MAGNO V. COMELEC 9& SCRA 49! (GO)
FACTS:
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
⊥
=etitioner (estor %agno ran for %A5+ of San sidro2 (ueva Eci!a in
⊥
))1" =rivate +es#ondent filed a #etition for disualification of %agno $ecause
⊥
he was convicted $y the Sandigan$ayan of 4 counts of 0irect Bri$ery and sentenced" %agno a##lied for #ro$ation and was discharged on %arch of 199;" C5%E/EC C5%E/EC disualifie disualified d #etitioner #etitioner $ased on a #rovision #rovision of B= ;;1
⊥
?5mni$us Election Code@ disualifying a candidate convicted of a crime involving moral tur#itude until after the la#se of - years from the service of sentence" %agno claims Sec 4) ?a@ +AD1,) ?/ocal Iovernment Code@ should a##ly
⊥
instea instead d of B= ;;1: A #erson #erson convict convicted ed of a crime crime involv involving ing moral moral tur#itude may run after the la#se of years after the service of sentence" Sonia sidro was declared %ayor while the case was #ending"
.E/0: First2 0irect $ri$ery is a crime involving moral tur#itude" (ot every criminal act involves moral tur#itude" Blac>&s /aw 0ictionary defines i t as 7an act of $aseness2 vileness or de#ravity in the #rivate duties which a man owes his fellow men or society in generalG& generalG& 0irect $ri$ery $ri$ery contem#lates contem#lates ta>ing ta>ing advantage of his #osition and is a $etrayal of the trust re#osed to him $y the #u$lic" Second2 he is not ualified" +A D1,) should a##ly" First2 +A D1,) is the more recent law" t im#liedly re#eals B= ;;1 should there $e any inconsistencies" Second2 +A D1,) is a s#ecial law a##lying s#ecifically to local government units" B= ;;1 a##lies for the election of any #u$lic office" S#ecial law #revails" Since he was discharged on %arch 199;2 %agno&s disualification ceased on %arch )))" JCourt declared that it could not rule on %agno&s #rayer for his #roclamation as winner of the mayoralty race2 it $eing outside its !urisdiction"
9
CO"ILLA, SR SR. V. V. "E VE VENECIA 9 SCRA 69 (AGUINAL"O)
15
=etitioner and res#ondent were o##osing candidates candidates for re#resentative" A voter filed with the C5%E/EC a #etition to disualify #etitioner on the ground that #etitioner2 who was then a mayor2 violated Section ,; of the 5mni$us Election Code $y distri$ distri$uti uting ng gravel gravel and sand to voters voters to induce induce them to vote for him" The C5%E/EC delegated the hearing to the +egional 0irector" 0irector" 5n election day2 no no hearing hearing has $een $een done done yet" yet" =etitioner =etitioner won" won" +es#onden +es#ondentt intervened intervened in the the disualification case and #rayed for the sus#ension of the #roclamation of #etitioner" =etitioner =etitioner was not furnished furnished a co#y of the motion" C5%E/EC C5%E/EC sus#ended sus#ended the #roclamation $ecause of the seriousness of the allegations against #etitioner" =etitioner has not $een served served any summons" =etitioner filed his answer" .e alleged that the re#air of the roads was underta>en without without his authority" After a hearing on the motion to sus#end sus#end the #roclamatio #roclamation n of #etitioner2 #etitioner2 the C5%E/EC C5%E/EC issued issued a resolution disualifying #etitioner and declaring the immediate #roclamation of the candidate who received the highest highest num$er of votes" The votes of #etitioner were declared declared stray" stray" +es#onden +es#ondentt was #roclaimed #roclaimed elected elected and she assumed assumed office" =etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration" reconsideration" The C5%E/EC en $anc nullified the #roclamation of res#ondent and ordered the #roclamation of #etitioner" +es#ondent didn&t didn&t a##eal from the decision" She argued argued that since she assumed assumed office2 the C5%E/EC doesn&t have !urisdiction to annul her #roclamation" .E/0: =etitioner was not notified of the #etition for his disualification through the service of summons nor of the %otions to sus#end his #roclamation" The records of the case do not show that summons was served on the #etitioner" They do not contain a co#y of the summons allegedly served on the #etitioner and its corres#onding #roof of service" Furthermore2 #rivate res#ondent never re$utted #etitionerRs re#eated assertion that he was not #ro#erly notified notified of the #etition for his disualification $ecause he never received summons"D1 =etitioner claims that #rior to receiving a telegra#hed 5rder from the C5%E/EC Second 0ivision on %ay 2 ))12 directing the 0istrict Board of Canvassers to sus#end his #roclamation2 he was never summoned nor furnished a co#y of the #etition for his disualification" .e was a$le to o$tain a co#y of the #etition and the %ay 5rder of the C5%E/EC Second 0ivision $y #ersonally going to the C5%E/EC +egional 5ffice on %ay 2 ))1" Thus2 he was a$le to file his Answer to the disualification case only on %ay 42 ))1" %ore2 the #roclamation of the #etitioner was sus#ended in gross violation of section D of the 5mni$us Election Code which #rovides:
FACTS:
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
LSec" D" Effects of disualification cases and #riority"' The Commission and the courts shall give #riority to cases of disualification $y reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall $e rendered not later than seven days $efore the election in which the disualification is sought" Any candidate who has $een declared $y final !udgment to $e disualified shall not $e voted for2 and the votes votes cast for him shall not $e counted" (evertheless2 if for any reason2 reason2 a candidate candidate is not declared declared $y final !udgment !udgment $efore an election election to $e disualified and he is voted for and receives the winning num$er of votes in such election2 his violation of the #rovisions of the #receding sections shall not #revent his #roclamation and assum#tion to office"L ?em#hases su##lied@ n the instant case2 #etitioner has not $een disualified $y final !udgment when the elections were conducted on %ay 142 ))1" The +egional Election 0irector has yet to conduct conduct hearing hearing on the #etition for his disualificatio disualification" n" After the elections2 elections2 #etitioner was voted in office $y a wide margin of 1D29)" 5n %ay 1,2 ))12 however2 however2 res#ondent res#ondent /ocsin filed a %ost 8rgent %otion for the sus#ension sus#ension of #etitionerRs #roclamation" The %ost 8rgent %otion contained a statement to the effect that a co#y was served to the #etitioner through registered mail" The records reveal that no registry recei#t was attached to #rove such service"D This violates C5%E/EC +ules of =rocedure reuiring notice and service of the motion to all #arties" +es#ondentRs %ost 8rgent %otion does not fall under the e6ce#tions to notice and service of motions" First2 the sus#ension of #roclamation of a winning candidate is not a matter which the C5%E/EC Second 0ivision can dis#ose of motu #ro#rio" Second2 the right of an adverse #arty2 in this case2 the #etitioner2 is clearly affected" Iiven the lac> of service of the %ost 8rgent %otion to the #etitioner2 said %otion is a mere scra# of #a#er" 8nder section , of +"A" (o" ,,4,2 the C5%E/EC can sus#end #roclamation only when evidence of the winning candidateRs guilt is strong" n the case at $ar2 the C5%E/EC Second 0ivision did not ma>e any s#ecific finding that evidence of #etitionerRs guilt is strong" ts only $asis in sus#ending the #roclamation of the #etitioner is the Lseriousness of the allegationsL in the #etition for disualification" A$sent any finding of evidence that the guilt is strong2 then clearly2 there was grave a$use of discretion on the #art of C5%E/EC"
16
4&
BAUTISTA V. COMELEC 298 SCRA 48& (SINGSON)
FACTS: ⊥
=etitioner =etitioner Ci#riano 3Efren Bautista and #rivate #rivate res#onden res#ondentt were duly
⊥
registered candidates for the #osition of %ayor of (avotas in the 199; Elections" Elections" Aside from them2 a certain certain Edwin 3Efren 3Efren Bautista ?Edwin Bautista@ also filed a certificate of candidacy for the same #osition" =etitioner =etitioner filed a #etition #etition #raying that Edwin Bautista $e declared declared a
⊥
nuisance candidate" C5%E/EC C5%E/EC declar declared ed Edwin Edwin Bautist Bautistaa as nuisan nuisance ce candid candidate ate and
⊥ ⊥
conseuently ordered the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy for the #osition of %ayor" %+ was filed $y Edwin BautistaK su$seuently denied" Before Before final determination determination of Edwin Bautista&s Bautista&s %+2 u#on reuest of
⊥
#etitioner&s counsel2 the +egional Election 0irector of (C+ gave instructions to the BE to tally se#arately either in some #ortion of the same election return not intended for votes for mayoralty candidates or in a se#arate se#arate #a#er the votes 3Efren Bautista2 Bautista2 3Efren2 3Efren2 3E" Bautista Bautista and 3Bautista2 considered as stray votes" hen the canvass of the election returns was commenced2 the %unici#al
⊥
Board of Canvassers of (avotas refused to canvass as #art of the valid votes of #etitioner the se#arate tallies of votes on which were written 3Efren Bautista2 3Efren2 3E" Bautista and 3Bautista" =etitio =etitioner ner filed filed with with C5%E/E C5%E/EC C a =etiti =etition on to 0eclar 0eclaree llega llegall the =roceedings of the %unici#al Board of CanvassersK dismissed for lac> of merit"
.E/0: There was grave a$use of discretion in denying the inclusion as #art of #etitioner&s valid votes the Bautista stray votes that were se#arately tallied $y the BE and Board of Canvassers"
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS 'RECINCTS AN" 'OLLING 'LACES BOAR" OF ELECTION INS'ECTORS ATCHERS OFFICIAL BALLOTS AN" ELECTION RETURNS CASTING AN" COUNTING OF VOTES
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
⊥
t must must $e em#hasiO em#hasiOed ed that that the case at $ar involve involvess a ground ground for
⊥
disualification which clearly affects the voter&s will and causes confusion that frustrates the same" Election /aws give effect to2 rather than frustrate2 the will of the voter"
⊥
Thus2 e6treme caution should $e o$served $efore any $allot is invalidated" n the a##reciation a##reciation of $allots2 dou$ts are resolved in favor of their
⊥
validity" %atters tend to get com#licated when technical rules are strictly a##lied
⊥
Q technicalities should not $e #ermitted to defeat the intention of the voter2 voter2 es#ecially so if that intention is discovera$le from the $allot itself2 as in this case" Sec" ,9 of the 5mni$us Election Code Q the C5%E/EC may motu
⊥
#ro#rio or u#on a verified #etition of an interested interested #arty2 refuse refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy 1@ if it is shown that said certificate certificate has $een filed to #ut the election election #rocess in moc>ery or disre#ute2 @ or to cause confusion among voters $y the similarity of the names of registered candidatesK @ or $y other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that a candidate has no $ona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has $een filed and thus #revent a faithful determination of the the true will of the electorate" Fatual circumstances and logic dictate that the 3Bautista and 3Efren
⊥
votes which which were mista>enly mista>enly deemed deemed as stray votes refer refer only to one candidate2 candidate2 herein #etitioner" #etitioner" Such votes2 votes2 which re#resent re#resent the voice of a##ro6" 12))) electors could not have $een intended for Edwin Bautista2 allegedly >nown in (avotas as a tricycle driver and worse a drug addict2 not >nown as 3Efren as stated in his certificate of candidacy2 $ut Bo$oy or 3Bo$oy 3Bo$oy Tarug Tarugo o as his >nown >nown a##ell a##ellati ation on or nic>na nic>name2 me2 and satisfactorily and finally shown as a candidate with no #olitical line u#2 no #ersonal funds that could have su##orted his cam#aign2 and no accom#lishments which may $e noted $and considered $y the #u$lic2 as against against a >nown >nown former former #u$lic #u$lic officer who had served served the #eo#le #eo#le of (avotas as Brgy" Brgy" 5fficial2 councilor and vice vice mayor" To rule otherwise will definitely result in the disenfranchisement of the will of the electorate2 which is2 as we mentioned2 the situation that our election laws are enacted to #revent"
17
41
'UN#ALAN V. COMELEC 289 SCRA 7&2 (FERNAN"E#)
FACTS: ⊥
%analastas2 %eneses and =unOalan were among of the 4 candidates for
⊥
mayor of the munici#ality of %e6ico =am#anga %unici#al Board of Canvassers ?%BC@ #roclaimed %eneses as the duly
⊥
elected mayor %analastas and =unOalan se#arately siled election #rotests challenging the
⊥
results of the electionsK %eneses filed his answer to $oth with counter #rotests: ordered consolidated and !ointly tried $y the court Election Election contests sought the nullificatio nullification n of the election of %eneses %eneses
⊥
allegedly allegedly due to massive massive fraud2 fraud2 irregularit irregularities ies and other illegal electoral electoral #ractices during the registration and voting as well as during the counting of votes Because Because of irregularit irregularities ies ?massive ?massive fraud2 fraud2 illegal illegal electoral electoral #ractices #ractices and
⊥
serious anomaliesK $allots2 election returns and tally sheets disa##eared under under mysterious mysterious circumstances circumstances and filled u# $allots $allots with undetached undetached lower stu$s and grou#s of $allot with stu$s cut out with scissors were found inside $allot $o6es@ found after hearing the #rotests2 the trial court was constrained to e6amine the contested $allots and the handwritings a##earing thereon and came u# with the declaration that =unOalan was the winner in the elections various notices of a##eal2 motions for e6ecution2 #etitions for certiorari2
⊥
#rohi$ition with #rayer for issuance of tem#orary restraining order andor #reliminary in!unction Comelec #romulgated a resolution affirming the #roclamation of %eneses
.E/0: 5n the first issueG hile +A D1,, ?An Act =roviding for SynchroniOed (ational and /ocal ⊥ Elections and For Electoral +eforms@ reuires the BE chairman to affi6 his signature at the $ac> of the $allot2 the mere failure to do so does not invalid invalidate ate the same same althou although gh it may constit constitute ute an electi election on offen offense se im#uta$le to said BE
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
⊥
Failure of the BE chairman or any of the mem$ers of the $oard to com#ly
⊥
with their mandated administrative res#onsi$ility should not #enaliOe the voter with disenfranchisement A $allot without BE chairmanRs signature at the $ac> is valid and not
⊥
s#urious For as long as the $allot $ears any one of the following authenticating mar>s2 it is considered valid: The Comelec watermar> o Signature or initials or thum$#rint of the Chairman of the BE o here the watermar>s are $lurred or not readily a##arent to the o
⊥
na>ed eye2 the #resence of red or $lue fi$ers in the $allots Every $allot shall $e #resumed to $e valid unless there is a clear and good reason to !ustify its re!ection
5n the second issueG The a##reciation of the contested $allots and election documents involves ⊥ ⊥
a uestion of fact $est left to the determination of the Comelec The Comelec need not conduct an adversarial #roceeding or a hearing to
⊥
determine the authenticity of $allots or the handwriting found thereonK neither neither does it need to solicit the hel# of the handwriting handwriting e6#erts e6#erts in e6amining e6amining or com#aring com#aring the handwriting handwritingKK even evidence evidence aliunde aliunde is not necessary to ena$le the Commission to determine the authenticity of the $allots and the genuineness of the handwriting on the $allots as an e6amination of the $allots themselves is already sufficient %inor and insignifica insignificant nt variations variations in handwriting handwriting must $e #erceived #erceived as
⊥
indicia of genuineness rather than of falcity Carelessnes Carelessness2 s2 s#ontaneity s#ontaneity22 un#remedit un#remeditation ation and s#eed in signing signing are evidence of genuineness
18
⊥
ELECTORAL CONTRIBUTIONS AN" E:'EN"ITURES 42
'ILAR V. COMELEC 24! SCRA 7!9 (OBERIO)
FACTS: =etitioner =ilar filed his certificate of candidacy for the #osition of mem$er of the Sangguniang =anlalawigan =anlalawigan of the =rovince of sa$ela" days later2 he withdrew his certificate of candidacy" C5%E/ECim#osed u#on #etitioner a fine of =1)2))) for failure to file his statement of contri$utions and e6#enditures" =etitioner filed motion for reconsideration which was denied $y C5%E/EC" =etitioner went to C5%E/EC en $anc which denied denied the #etition #etition in its +esolution" +esolution" .ence2 .ence2 this #etition for certiorari" .E/0: =etitioner should $e held lia$le for failure to file his statement of contri$utions and e6#enditures" ⊥
=etitioner argues that he cannot $e held lia$le for failure to file a statement
⊥
of contri$utio contri$ution n and e6#enditures e6#enditures $ecause $ecause he was a Lnon'candi Lnon'candidate2 date2LL having having withdrawn withdrawn his certificate certificate of candidacy candidacy days after its filing" filing" =etitioner #osits that Lit is 666 clear from the law that the candidate must have entered the #olitical contest2 and should have either won or lostL" =etitonerRs argument is without merit" Section 14 of +A (o" D1,, states that Levery candidateL has the o$ligation
⊥
to file his statement statement of contri$utio contri$utions ns and e6#enditures" e6#enditures" here here the law does not distinguish distinguish22 courts should not distinguish distinguish"" The term Levery Levery candidateL must $e deemed to refer not only to a candidate who #ursued his cam#aign2 $ut also to one who withdrew his candidacy" Section 1 of +esolution (o" 4; of the C5%E/EC2 in im#lementation
05CT+(E: the laws and statues governing election contests es#ecially a##reciation of ⊥ $allots must $e li$erally construed to the the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of #u$lic officials may not $e defeated $y technical infirmities
an election #rotests is im$ued with #u$lic interest so much so that the need to dis#el uncertainties uncertainties which $ecloud the real choice of the #eo#le is im#erative
of the #rovisions of +A D1,,2 categorically refers to Lall candidates who filed their certificates of candidacy"L
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
⊥
Furthermor Furthermore2 e2 Section 14 of the law uses the word LshallL" LshallL" Such im#lies im#lies
⊥
that the statute is mandatory2 #articularly if #u$lic interest is involved state has an interest in seeing that the electoral #rocess is clean and e6#ressive e6#ressive of the true will of the electorate" electorate" 5ne way to attain such o$!ective is to #ass a legislation regulating contri$utions and e6#enditures2 and com#elling the #u$lication of the same" t is not im#ro$a$le that a candidate candidate who withdrew withdrew his candidacy candidacy has acce#ted acce#ted contri$utio contri$utions ns and incurred incurred e6#enditures2 e6#enditures2 even in the short s#an of his cam#aign" cam#aign" The evil sought to $e #revented $y the law is not all too remote" +esolution (o" 4; also contem#lates the situation where a candidate
⊥
may not have received any contri$ution or made any e6#enditure" Such candidate is not e6cused from filing a statement" B= Blg" ;;1 or the 5mni$us Election Code #rovides that Lthe filing or withdrawal withdrawal of certificate certificate of candidacy candidacy shall not affect whatever civil2 crimin criminal al or admini administr strativ ativee lia$il lia$ilitie itiess which which a candid candidate ate may have have incurred"L =etitionerRs withdrawal of his candidacy did not e6tinguish his lia$ility for the administrative fine"
ELECTION OFFENSES 4
19
⊥
0irector Bal$uena filed an information for Hiolation of Section D42 in
⊥
relation to Section , of the 5mni$us Election Code =laintiff filed a %otion for nhi$ition2 see>ing the inhi$ition of the entire
⊥
C5%E/EC $ecause of its $ias in rendering a resolution" =laint =laintiff iff filed on )D %ay 199, 199, a %otion %otion to of
⊥ ⊥ ⊥
!urisdiction and lac> of authority on the #art of 0irector Bal$uena to file the information" Court denied" =etitioner then filed a #etition for certiorari $efore the Court of A##eals" The Court of A##eals u#held the trial court and ruled that the #ro#er #rocedure was followed $y the C5%E/EC $ut directed the trial court to remand the case to the C5%E/EC for rece#tion of #etitionerRs motion for reconsidera reconsideration tion of the C5%E/EC resolution resolution dated *anuary *anuary -2 199,2 which a##roved the filing of a criminal com#laint against #etitioner"
.E/0: $. t as error for the o-rt of A''eals to hold there as no fla in the 'roced-re folloed *y the ME8E in the cond-ct of the 'reli)inary 'reli)inary investigation. '(o" There are two ways through which a com#laint for election offenses may $e initiated" t may $e filed $y the C5%E/EC motu #ro#rio2 or it may $e filed via written com#laint $y any citiOen of the =hili##ines2 candidate2 registered #olitical #arty2 coalition of #olitical #arties or organiOations under the #artylist system or any accredited citiOens arms of the Commission
LAUR LAUREL EL V. HONO HONORA RABL BLE E 'RE 'RESI SI"I "ING NG JU"G JU"GE E 2 SCRA 779 (A$UINO, '.)
FACTS:
' %otu #ro#rio com#laints may $e signed $y the Chairman of the C5%E/EC and need not $e verified"
⊥
.on" Bernardo =" =ardo sent a verified letter'com#laint to *ose =" Bal$uena
⊥
charging .erman Tiu /aurel with LFalsification of =u$lic 0ocumentsL and violation of USection D4V of the 5mni$us Election Code" t alleged that $oth his father and mother were Chinese citiOens $ut when
⊥
#etitioner filed a certificate of candidacy for the #osition of Senator he stated that his a natural'$orn Fili#ino citiOen An investigation was conducted $y the C5%E/EC /aw 0e#artment and a
' The com#laint in uestion in this case is one filed $y =ardo in his #ersonal ca#acity and not as chairman of the C5%E/EC"
⊥
+e#ort was made recommending the filing of nformation" 0uring en $anc2 C5%E/EC resolved to file the necessary information
' There is nothing nothing in the rules that reuire that only the C5%E/EC C5%E/EC en $anc may refer a com#laint to the /aw 0e#artment for investigation"
5n the other hand2 com#laints filed $y #arties other than the C5%E/EC must $e verified and su##orted $y affidavits and other evidence"
against res#ondent and to file a criminal com#laint against res#ondent for falsification
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
' There is no rule against the C5%E/EC chairman directing the conduct of a #reliminary investigation2 even if he himself were the com#lainant in his #rivate ca#acity" &. The o-rt o-rt of A''eal A''ealss erred erred in holdin holding g that that 'etitio 'etitioner ner9s 9s 'rotes 'rotestat tation ionss on ME8E9s ME8E9s having having acted acted as co)'lainan co)'lainant, t, investigato investigator, r, 'rosec-tor 'rosec-tor,, 2-dge and exec-tioner in the cond-ct of the 'reli)inary investigation ring hollo. '(o" the records show that there is $asis to at least find #ro$a$le cause to indict the #etitioner for violation of the 5mni$us Election Code and it a##ears from the records that Chairman =ardo had no other #artici#ation in the #roceedings which led to the filing of the nformation" 'The entire C5%E/EC C5%E/EC cannot cannot #ossi$ly #ossi$ly $e restrained restrained from investigati investigating ng the com#laint filed against #etitioner2 as the latter would li>e the courts to do" The C5%E/E C5%E/EC C is mandat mandated ed $y no less less than than the Consti Constitut tution ion to invest investiga igate te and #rosecute2 when necessary2 violations of election laws" This #ower is lodged e6clusively with the C5%E/EC" For the entire Commission to inhi$it itself from investigati investigating ng the com#laint com#laint against against #etitioner #etitioner would $e nothing short of an a$andonment of its mandate under the Constitution and the 5mni$us Election Code"
44
20
Comelec en $anc2 was immediately final and e6ecutory" And that /uy&s motion for reconsideration was a #rohi$ited #leading under Commission&s rules of #rocedure" .E/0: A %otion for +econsideration is allowed in election offense cases" Section 12 +ule 1 of Comelec&s +ules of =rocedure states2 3the following #leadings are not allowed2 G?d@ motion for reconsideration of an en $anc ruling2 resolution2 order or decision e6ce#t in election offense casesG t was also held that the Comelec en $anc is the one that determines the e6istence of #ro$a$le cause in an election offense" But it may also $e delegated to the State =rosecutor or to the =rovincial or City Fiscal $ut may still $e reviewed $y the Comelec"
4!
COMELEC V. TAGLE 97 SCRA 618 (LIM)
FACTS: ⊥
FAELNAR V. 'EO'LE 1 SCRA 429 (CRU#)
⊥
FACTS: Eugenio Eugenio Faelnar Faelnar filed his certificate certificate of candidacy for the #osition #osition of $arangay $arangay chairman during the 199D $arangay elections in Ce$u" 5ne day after filing such certificate ?a#ril 9@2 a $as>et$all tournament was held in the s#orts com#le6 du$$ed as2 3nd *ing'*ing Faelnar&s Cu# which lasted until A#ril )2 199D" This gave rise to a com#laint for electioneering against #etitioner and Iillamac filed $y Antonio /uy" t was alleged that it was actually a form of cam#aign done outside the official cam#aign #eriod which should start on %ay 12 199D" 1" that there was a streamer $earing the name of #etitioner #laced at the faWade of the venue" " #etitioners name was re#eatedly mentioned over the micro#hone" " it was widely #u$lished in the local news #a#er" 4" a raffle s#onsored $y Iillamac was held with home a##liances as #riOe" t constituted an election offense" nitially2 Comelec en $anc in a +esolution resolved resolved to dismiss dismiss the filing of the case in the +TC" +TC" Antonio /uy moved for reconsideration #rom#ting the Comelec to #roceed with the filing of the case against #etitioner" =etitioner moved to uash on the $asis that the #revious dismissal of the
⊥ ⊥
⊥
Florentino Bautista ran for the position of Mayor in Kawit Caite !e "le# a $o%plaint a&ainst the in$u%'ent Mayor (o'lete an# an# othe others rs supp suppor orte te# # 'y a)#a a)#ai its ts of 44 witn witnes esse ses s attestin& to ote* 'uyin& a$tiities+ ,he $ase was han#le# 'y a prose$utor of the C-M./.Cs law #epart%ent+ separate $o%plaint was "le# 'y o#elas an# Ma$apa&al with the proin$ial prose$utor a&ainst the witnesses ote* sellin& C-M./.C en 'an$ #e$lare# the resolution of the proin$ial prose prose$ut $utor or to instit institute ute $ri%in $ri%inal al a$tion a$tions s a&ains a&ainstt the witnes witnesses ses as null null an# oi#+ C-M./ C-M./.C .C $ite# $ite# 6646 6646 otherwise nown as ,he .le$toral efor%s law of 1987 whi$h &rants i%%unity fro% $ri%inal prose$ution persons who olun oluntar tarily ily &ie &ie infor infor%at %ation ion an# willin willin&ly &ly testif testify y a&ainst those lia'le for ote*'uyin& or ote*sellin&+
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
⊥
⊥
/aw #epart%ent of C-M./.C "le# a %otion to #is%iss the $ase a&ainst the witnesses+ ,his was #enie# 'y respon#ent u#&e ,/.+ ,/.+ $$or#in& $$or#in& to ,a&le: for the witnesses witnesses to 'e e;e%pt e;e%pt to shou shoul# l# hae hae $o%% $o%%it itte te# # the the oer oertt a$t a$t of #iu #iul& l&in in& & infor%ation re&ar#in& the ote 'uyin&
.E/0: itnesses are e6em#t from criminal #rosecution" ⊥
A free2 orderly2 honest 2 #eaceful2 and credi$le election is indis#ensa$le in
⊥
a democratic society2 as without it democracy would not flourish and would $e a sham" 5ne of the effective ways of #reventing the commission of vote'$uying
⊥
and of #rosecuting those committing it is the grant of immunity from criminal lia$ility in favor of the #arty whose vote was $ought" The C5%E/EC has t he e6clusive #ower to conduct #reliminary
⊥
investigation of all election offenses #unisha$le under the election laws and to #rosecute the same2 as may $e otherwise #rovided $y law hen the C5%E/EC nullifies a resolution of the =rovincial =rosecutor
⊥
which is the $asis of the information for vote selling2 it in effect2 withdraws the de#utation granted to the #rosecutor" here certain voters have already e6ecuted sworn statements attesting to the corru#t #ractice of vote'$uying in a #ending case2 it cannot $e denied that they had already given information in the vote' $uying case"
FAILURE OF ELECTION 46
LOONG V. COMELEC 2!7 SCRA 1 (LAURENTE)
8nder the #resent state of our election laws2 the C5%E/EC has $een granted granted #recisely the #ower to annul elections" Section 4 of +e#u$lic Act (o" D1,,2 otherwise >nown as2 LThe SynchroniOed Elections /aw of 19912L #rovides that the C5%E/EC sitting En Banc $y a ma!ority vote of its mem$ers may decide2 among others2 the declaration of failure of election and the calling of s#ecial elections as #rovided in Section , of the 5mni$us Election Code" The C5%E/EC may e6ercise
21
such #ower motu #ro#rio or u#on a verified verified #etition" The hearing of the case shall $e summary in nature2 and the C5%E/EC may delegate to its lawyers the #ower to hear the case and to receive evidence" FACTS: ' This This case case stemmed from elections held in Sulu where /55(I and and #rivate res#ondent Tan Tan ran for the #osition of Iovernor while #et" Tulawie and #"r" Estino ran for Hice'Iovernor Hice'Iovernor J =rovincial =rovincial Board of Canvassers Canvassers ?=BC@ recommended recommended to the C5%E/EC a re' canvass of the election returns of =arang and Tali#ao" J C5%E/EC2 accordingly2 relieved all the regular mem$ers of the %unici#al Board of Canvassers ?%BC@ and ordered such recanvass $y senior lawyers from the C5%E/EC office in %anila" 0uring the re'canvass2 #rivate res#ondents res#ondents o$!ected to the inclusion in the canvass of the election returns of =arang" J The reconstituted %BC2 however2 merely noted said o$!ections and forwarded the same to res#ondent =BC for resolution" J =BC denied the o$!ections of #rivate res#ondents res#ondents and still included the election returns of =arang munici#ality" munici#ality" The canvass of res#ondent =BC showed showed #etitioners to have overwhelmingly won in the munici#ality of =arang" ' The #rivate #rivate res#onden res#ondents ts filed #etition #etitionss with the C5%E/EC C5%E/EC regarding regarding the inclusion of the uestioned certificates of canvass and that there was failure of election in said munici#ality due to massive fraud =etitioners2 li>ewise filed for failure of elections in - other munici#alities C5%E/EC ruled annulling the results of the elections in =arang as well as holding in a$eyance a$eyance the #roclamatio #roclamation n of the winning candidates candidates for Iovernor Iovernor and Hice' Hice' Iovernor until further orders from the Commission $ut dismissed other #etitions for other munici#alities where it was all eged that there were also $adges of fraud .E/0: C5%E/EC was incorrect in annulling elections of =arang2 Sulu $ut not ordering for s#ecial elections in the same munici#ality" munici#ality" t was also incorrect in dismissing other #etitions for failure of elections in other munici#alities munici#alities where there were also $adges of fraud" e hold that2 $efore the C5%E/EC can act on a verified verified #etition see>ing to declare a failure of election2 two ?@ conditions must concur: concur: first2 no voting has ta>en #lace in the #recincts concerned on the date fi6ed $y law or2 even if there were
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
voting2 the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to electK and2 second2 the votes not cast would affect affect the result of the election" election" e must must add2 however2 however2 that the cause of such failure of election election should have $een any of the following: force ma!eure2 violence2 terrorism2 fraud or other analogous analogous causes" This is an im#ortant consideration for2 where the #ro#riety of a #re'#roclamation controversy ends2 there may $egin the realm of a s#ecial action for declaration of failure of elections" hile the C5%E/EC is restricted2 in #re'#roclamation cases2 to an e6amination of the election returns on their face and is without !urisdiction to go $eyond or $ehind them and investigate election irregularities2 the C5%E/EC is duty $ound to investigate allegations of fraud2 terrorism2 violence and other analogous causes in actions for annulment of election results or for declaration of failure of elections2 as the 5mni$us Election Code denominates the same" Thus2 the C5%E/EC2 in the case of actions for annulment of election results or declaration of failure of elections2 may conduct technical e6amination of election documents and com#are and analyOe votersR signatures and finger#rints in order to determine determine whether or not the elections elections had indeed indeed $een free2 honest and clean" (eedless to say2 a #re'#roclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of election results or declaration of failure of elections The C5%E/EC C5%E/EC is .E+EB .E+EB 5+0E+E0 5+0E+E0 T5 C5(08CT C5(08CT S=ECA/ S=ECA/ E/ECT5(S ( T.E %8(C=A/T 5F =A+A(I2 S8/82 and is 0+ECTE0 T5 S8=E+HSE T.E C58(T(I 5F T.E H5TES A(0 T.E CA(HASS(I 5F T.E +ES8/TS T5 T.E E(0 T.AT T.E (((I CA(00ATES F5+ I5HE+(5+ I5HE+(5+ A(0 HCE'I5HE+(5+ HCE'I5HE+(5+ F5+ T.E =+5H(CE 5F S8/8 BE =+5C/A%E0 AS S55( AS =5SSB/E" The C5%E/EC is .E+EB 5+0E+E0 T5 +E(STATE S=A 9-';9 A(0 T5 C5(08CT T.E (ECESSA+ TEC.(CA/ EA%(AT5(2 F A(2 5F =E+T(E(T =E+T(E(T E/ECT5( 05C8%E(TS T.E+E( A(0 T5 .5/0 S=ECA/ S=ECA/ E/ECT5(S E/ECT5(S ( T.E %8(C=A/T %8(C=A/TES ES 0S=8TE0 0S=8TE0 ( S=A 9-';9 9-';9 ( T.E EHE(T the C5%E/EC A((8/S T.E E/ECT5( E/ECT5( +ES8/TS +ES8/TS T.E+E( 5+ 0EC/A+ES T.E+EAT FA/8+E 5F E/ECT5(S"
47
FACTS:
HASSAN V. COMELEC 264 SCRA 12! (LABAGUIS 'OGI)
22
⊥
=etitio =etitioner ner22 .ad!i .ad!i (or Basher Basher /" .assan .assan22 and =riva =rivate te +es#on +es#onden dent2 t2
⊥
%angondaya =" .assan Buatan2 were candidates for Hice'%ayor Hice'%ayor in /anao del Sur .owever2 due to threats of violence and terrorism in the area2 there was a
⊥
failure of elections in si6 ?,@ out of twenty'four ?4@ #recincts" n one of the #recincts2 the $allot $o6es were $urned2 while in the other - #recincts2 the mem$ers of the Board of Election ns#ectors ?BE@ failed to re#ort to their res#ective #olling #laces The C5%E/EC team2 headed $y Iarcillano2 recommended the holding of
⊥
s#ecial elections in said #recincts and scheduled it The mem$ers of the BE again failed to re#ort The C5%E/EC team rescheduled rescheduled the elections in /iangan /iangan Elementary Elementary
⊥
School2 which was 1- >ilometers away from the designated #olling #laces The mem$ers mem$ers of the BE once once more more did not re#ort re#ort for duty duty" This This
⊥
constrained the C5%E/EC team to a##oint #olicemilitary #ersonnel to su$stitute for the BE The result of the s#ecial election was in favor of the =rivate +es#ondent:
⊥
=etitioner P ;D92 +es#ondent P 12)9; =etitioner filed a #etition with the C5%E/EC assailing the validity of the
⊥
re'scheduled s#ecial election C5%E/EC en $anc denied the #etition for a declaration of failure of the
⊥
elections elections and ordered ordered the Board of Canvassers Canvassers to #roclaim #roclaim =rivate +es#ondent as the winning vice'mayoralty candidate Thus2 the #etition for certiorari
⊥
.E/0: There was failure of elections" ⊥
The concurrence of the following #reconditions is necessary for declaring
⊥
a failure of election: ?1@ that no voting has $een held in any #recinct or #recincts $ecause of force ma!eure2 violence or terrorism2 and ?@ that the votes not cast therein suffice to affect the results of the elections" The C5%E/EC can not turn a $lind eye to the fact that terrorism was so
⊥
#revalent in the area" Elections had to $e set for the third time $ecause no mem$ers of the BE re#orted for duty due to im#ending threats of violence in the area" This in
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
⊥
fact #rom#ted C5%E/EC to de#loy military men to act as su$stitute mem$ers !ust so elections could $e heldK and to thwart these threats of violence2 the C5%E/EC team2 moreover2 decided to transfer the #olling #laces to /iangan Elementary School which was 1- >ilometers away from the #olling #lace" The #eculiar situation of this case cannot $e overstated" The notice given
⊥
on the afternoon of the day $efore the scheduled s#ecial elections and transferring transferring the venue of the elections elections 1- >ilometers >ilometers away from the farthest $arangayschool was too short resulting to the disenfranchisement of voters" 5ut of the 12-4, registered voters in the five ?-@ #recincts2 only ; actually voted" t was uite swee#ing and illogical for the C5%E/EC to state that the
23
⊥
.E/0: C5%E/EC didnRt commit grave a$use of discretion in annulling electionm"
votes votes uncast uncast would not have have in any way affect affected ed the results results of the elections" hile the difference $etween the two candidates is only 19 out of the votes actually cast2 the C5%E/EC totally ignored the fact that there were more than a thousand registered voters who failed to vote"
48
'ASAN"ALAN V. COMELEC 84 SCRA 69! (MACASAET)
⊥
The irregularities alleged should have $een raised as an election #rotest
⊥
and not in a #etition to declare the nullity of an election" nstances to declare a failure of election does not e6ist ?1@ the election in a
⊥
#olling #lace has not $een held on the date fi6ed on account of force ma!eure2 terrorism2 violence or fraud2 ?@ the election was sus#ended on the same grounds grounds in the 1 st and ?@ there was failure failure to elect still on the same grounds" The election was held in the #recincts #rotested as scheduled2 neither was
⊥
it sus#ended ?as #roved $y the testimony of one of the election officers@ nor was there failure to elect" The alleged terrorism was not of that scale to !ustify declaration of failure of elections" elections" Credi$ility of the affidavits uestioned: ?1@ it was #re'ty#ed2 all that the #oll watchers have to do is to fill it u# and sign it" ?@ identical statements' human #erce#tion is different for each" =ersons when as>ed a$out a same incident2 although #resent in the incident2 mat have different o$servations"
FACTS: ⊥
=etitioner =etitioner =asandalan =asandalan and res#ondent res#ondent Bai salamona salamona /" Asum were
⊥
candidates for mayor in the munici#ality of /um$ayanague2 /anao del sur' %ay 142 ))1 elections 5n %ay 2 =asandalan filed for nullification of election results in certain
⊥
$arangays ?0eromoyod2 /agin2 Bualan etc@ on the ground that2 ?1@ while the election was ongoing2 ongoing2 some Cafgu&s Cafgu&s stationed stationed near the schools schools indiscriminately fired their firearms causing the voters to #anic and leave the voting centers without casting their votes2 ?@ failure to sign of BEs to sign their initials on certain $allots and ?@ ta>ing advantage of the fist fights2 the su##orters of Asum too> the $allots and filled them u# with the name of Asum" Comelec&s ruling: (o credence given to the allegations of =asandalan" The instances wherein a failure of election could $e declared is not #resent ?1@ The election is not held Q ?election was still held@2 ?@ the election is sus#ended' ?it was not@2 and ?@ the election results in the failure to elect
?Asum was elected through the #lurality of votes@" The evidence #resented $y =asandalan were only affidavits made $y his own #ollwatchers' thus considered as self serving and insufficient to annul the results" .ence the #etition in this court
49
AM'ATUAN V. COMELEC 7! SCRA !& (MARTINE#)
FACTS: ⊥ ⊥
⊥
=etitioner Am#atuan and +es#ondent Candao were candidates for the #osition of Iovernor of %aguindanao %aguindanao during the ))1 elections %ay ))1: res#ondents filed a #etition with the comelec for the annulment of election results andor declaration of failure of elections in several munici#alities" They claimed that the elections were 3com#letely sham and farcical" The $allots were filled'u# en masse $y a few #ersons the night $efore the election day2 and in some #recincts2 the $allot $o6es2 official $allots and other election #ara#hernalia were not delivered at all" Comelec sus#ended #roclamation of winning candidates
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
⊥ ⊥
⊥ ⊥
⊥
⊥ ⊥
=etitioners filed a motion to lift sus#ension of #roclamation" Comelec granted and #roclaimed the #etitioners s winners" *une ))1: +es#ondents filed with SC a #etition to set aside Comelec order and #relim in!unction to sus#end effects of the #roclamation of #etitioners" *uly ))1: Comelec ordered the consolidation of the res#ondents& #etition for declaration of failure of elections" Se#t ))1: =etitioners filed the #resent #etition and claimed that $y virtue of the #roclamation2 the #ro#er remedy availa$le to the res#ondents was not #etition for declaration of failure of elections $ut an election #rotest" The former is heard summarily while the latter involves a full'$lown trial" 5ct ))1: Comelec ordered the sus#ension of t he assailed orders ?with regard to res#ondents& #etition fro failure of elections and directing t he continuation of hearing and dis#osition of the consolidated S=As on the failure of elections and other incidents related thereto@ (ov ))1: Comelec lifts the sus#ension sus#ension order SC issues T+5 en!oining Comelec from lifting sus#ension
SS8E: ( The Comelec was divested of its !urisdiction to hear and decide res#ondents& #etition for declaration for failure of elections elections after #etitioners had $een #roclaimed #roclaimed .E/0: (o" =etition dismissed The fact that a candidate #roclaimed has assumed office does not de#rive ⊥ comelec of its authority to annul any canvas and illegal #roclamation" Halidity of the #roclamation may $e challenged even after the irregularly ⊥ #roclaimed candidate has assumed assumed office" n the case at $ar2 the Comelec is duty'$ound to conduct an investigation ⊥ as to the veracity of res#onden res#ondents& ts& allegations allegations of massive massive fraud and terrorism that attended the conduct of the %ay ))1 election" t is well to stress that the Comelec has started conducting conducting the technical ⊥ e6amination on (ov ))1" .owever2 $y an urgent motion for a T+5 filed $y the #etitioners2 in virtue of which we issued a T+52 the technical e6amination was held in a$eyance until the #resent" n order not to frustrate the ends of !ustice2 we lift the T+5 and allow ⊥ technical e6amination to #roceed with deli$erate dis#atch" ;issent: 1-stice Melo
24
⊥ ⊥
⊥
⊥
!&
ssue: ssue: is the decla declarat ration ion of failur failuree of electi elections ons $y the Comele Comelecc an e6ecutive'administrative function or a !udicial functionM .eld The authority given to Comelec to declare a failure of elections and to call for the holding and continuation of the failed election falls under its admin f6n" There are only instances where a failure of elections may $e declared: 1@ the election in any #olling #lace has not $een declared @ election in any #olling #lace had not $een sus#ended @ after voting and during transmission of E+2 such election results in a failure to elect on the ground of force ma!eure2 violence2 terrorism2 fraud or other analogous cause 8nder the circumstances of the #resent case and $ased on a##lica$le law2 an election #rotest is the a##ro#riate a##ro#riate remedy" remedy" Com#le6 matters which necessarily entail the #resentation of conflicting testimony should not $e resolved in random2 technical and summary #roceedings
BASHER V. COMELEC & SCRA 76 (GON#ALES)
FACTS: Failure of elections in Barangay %aidan2 /anao del Sur was held twice ?%ay and *une 199D@2 and a s#ecial elections was scheduled for August )" 0uring the said election2 voting started only around 9:)) #m $ecause of the #revailing tension in the said locality" Election 5fficer 0iana 0atu'mam claimed that the town mayor was too hysterical2 yelled and threatened her to declare failure of election in %aidan as the armed followers #ointed their guns at her and her military escorts res#onded in the same manner" ith the arrival of additional troo#s2 the election officer #roceeded to %aidan to conduct the election starting at 9:)) #m until the early morning of the following day at the residence of the former mayor" The tally sheet showed that res#ondent Am#atua got -) votesK #etitioner Basher got 1- votes and +aOul got 1) votes" +es#ondent was #roclaimed winner" =etitioner now assails the validity of the C5%E/EC +esolution dismissing the =etition to 0eclare Failure Failure o Election Election and to Call S#ecial S#ecial Election in =recinct =recinct (o" 1 Baranggay Baranggay %aidan" .E/0: There was a failure of election" This notwithstanding2 there was an invalid #ost#onement of election"
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
25
First2 the #lace where the voting was conducted was illegal" 5mni$us Election Code #rovides that election tellers shall designate the #u$lic school or ay #u$lic $uilding within the Barangay to $e used as #olling #lace2 election was held in the residence of the former mayor which is located in Barangay =andarianao" Second2 the law #rovides that the casting of votes start at D am and end at #m e6ce#t when there are voters #resent within ) meters in front of the #olling #lace who have nor yet cast their votes" Election was held after 9:)) #m until the wee hours the following day2 certainly such was not in accordance with the law" Third2 Election 0ay was invalid $ecause sus#ension of #ost#onement of election is governed $y law and it #rovides that when for any serious cause such as re$ellion2 insurrection2 violence2 terrorism2 loss or destruction of election #ara#hernalia and any analogous causes such nature that the free2 orderly and honest election should $ecome im#ossi$le the C5%E/EC moto #ro#rio or u#on written #etition $y 1) regist registere ered d voter voter after after summar summary y #rocee #roceedin dings gs shall shall sus#en sus#end d or #ost#o #ost#one ne the #roceedings" The election officer is without authority to declare a failure of election for it is only the C5%E/EC itself has legal authority to e6ercise such awesome #ower" Election 5fficer did not follow the #rocedure for he #ost#onement or sus#ension or declaration of failure of election" She did not conduct any #roceeding summar summary y or otherw otherwise ise to find find out any legal legal ground groundss for the sus#en sus#ensio sion n or #ost#onement or declaration of of failure of election" Finally2 the electorate was not given am#le notice of the e6act schedule and venue of the election2 mere announcement over the mosue is i nsufficient"
+esearch =a#er hel# htt#s:www"homewor>#ing"com
Through the joint eforts o the stuents o Ateneo L!" #D A$%&'%
View more...
Comments
