Election Law Flashcards
Effect of filing certificate of candidacy of appointive officials:
[Sec. 66, B.P. 881]
Officials holding appointive offices, including AFP and officers of GOCC (even without original charter) shall be considered ipso facto resigned.
11268 Disqualifications to run for election
[Sec 68 B.P. 881]:
a) Declared as incompetent or insane by competent authority.
b) Sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than 18 months imprisonment.
c) Sentenced by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude.
i) In Villaber v. Comelec, it was held that violation of Batas Pambansa No. 22 is a crime involving moral turpitude, because of deceit, and certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of the person.
ii) Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law involves moral turpitude
d) Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country (unless he has waived his status as such)
See Caasi v. Comelec, 191 SCRA 229, where the Supreme Court said that a “green card” is ample proof that the holder thereof is a permanent resident of, or an immigrant to, the United States.
e) One who has violated the provisions of Sec. 80 (campaign period), Sec. 83 (removal, destruction of lawful election propaganda), Sec. 85 (prohibited forms of propaganda). Sec. 86 (regulation of propaganda through mass media).
In Pangkat Laguna v. Comelec, G.R. No. 148075, February 4, 2002, the Supreme Court held that the acts of Laguna .Governor Lazaro in ordering the purchase of trophies, basketballs, volleyballs, chessboard sets, and the distribution of medals and pins to various schools, did not constitute a violation of Sec. 80 on premature campaigning. Respondent Lazaro was not in any way directly or indirectly soliciting votes; she was merely performing the duties and tasks imposed upon her by law, which duties she had sworn to perform as Governor of Laguna.
75-77 Luna filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Vice-Mayor of Lagayan, Abra, as substitute for Hans Roger who withdrew his COC. Private respondents challenged the validity of the substitution, alleging that Hans Roger was only 20 years old and, therefore, disqualified to run for Vice Mayor; accordingly, he cannot be substituted by Luna. Is the contention correct?
[Sec. 75, B.P. 881]
Filing and distribution of certificate of candidacy. - The certificate of candidacy shall be filed on any day from the commencement of the election period but not later than the day before the beginning of the campaign period: Provided, That in cases of postponement or failure of election under Sections 5 and 6 hereof, no additional certificate of candidacy shall be accepted except in cases of substitution of candidates as provided under Section 77 hereof.
[Sec. 76, B.P. 881] Duty of the Comelec. Subject to its authority over nuisance candidates and its power to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Sec. 78, B.P. 881, the Comelec shall have only the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificates of candidacy.
[Sec. 77, B.P. 881] If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a registered political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to and certified by the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy for the office not later than mid-day of the day of the election
a) In Luna v. Comelec, The Supreme Court ruled that the substitution was valid. When a candidate files his COC, the Comelec has only a ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge its receipt pursuant to Sec. 76 of the Omnibus Election Code. Since Hans withdrew his COC, and the Comelec found that Luna complied with all the procedural requirements under Sec. 77 for a valid substitution, Luna could validly substitute for Hans Roger.
78 Procedure for Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy
[Sec. 78, B.P. 881]
A verified petition may be filed exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained in the certificate as required under Sec. 74 is false. The petition may be filed not later than 25 days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than 15 days before the election
78 can the court compel the comelec to cancel a certificate of candidacy?
Jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy lies with the Comelec in division, not with the Comelec en banc [Garvida v. Sales, G.R. No. 122872, September 10, 1997], To deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy entails the exercise by the Comelec of its quasi-judicial, not simply its administrative, powers. Hence, the Court may only compel the Comelec to exercise its discretion and resolve the matter but it may not control the manner of exercising such discretion [Quizon v. Comelec,G. R. No. 177927, February 15, 2008]
243 Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy
[Sec. 243, B.P. 881]
Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. - The following shall be proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy:
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;
(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates
243 A petition based on illegal composition of the board of canvassers was filed five days after proclamation. Should the petition be granted?
By participating in the proceedings, the petitioner is deemed to have acquiesced in the composition of the Board of Canvassers. A petition based on illegal composition of the board of canvassers should be filed immediately when the Board begins to act. A petition filed five days after proclamation is filed out of time [Laodeno v. Comelec
Requisites of Election Contest
a) Must be filed bv anv candidate who has filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted upon for the same office.
Thus, in Tan v. Comelec (June 1898), it was held that the Gubernatorial candidate is not the proper party to institute election protest regarding the election of the Vice Governor, Board members and Municipal Mayors.
b) On grounds of fraud, terrorism, irregularities or illegal acts committed before, during or after the casting and counting of votes.
c) Within ten 101 davs from proclamation of the results of the election.
Exhaustively Discuss all legal vehicles to challenge the results of an election.
The results of an election may be challenged through different legal vehicles: first, failure of election cases; second, pre-proclamation petitions; and third, election contests.
- a failure of election may be declared if, “on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or . . . such election results in a failure to elect, [or] in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election[.]”186 For its declaration, the alleged illegality must have affected more than 50% of the votes cast.
- A pre-proclamation controversy concerns questions affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers xxx Further, only the issues provided in Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy.
Under the Automated Election System, 191 pre-proclamation controversies cover only two issues, both concerning the Board of Canvassers: (a) its illegal composition; and (b) its illegal proceedings.
- Finally, election contests, which only contemplate post-election scenarios, 193 take the form of either an election protest or a petition for quo warranto. a)An election protest involves “a contest between the defeated and winning candidates on the grounds of fraud or irregularities in the casting and counting of ballots, or in the preparation of the returns.” 196 It is centered on the issue of who actually and validly obtained the plurality ofvotes. b)A petition for quo warranto is defined as “an action against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office.” 198 It is appropriate only “for the purpose of questioning the election of a candidate on the ground of disloyalty or ineligibility.” These have substantive and procedural differences, with varying remedies, but what remains consistent across all modalities is the requirement of specificity. Particularity on one’s allegations, grounds, and bases cuts across all mechanisms for challenging election outcomes and must be present in all actions, regardless of the mode. Bongbong vs Leni
Three-Term Limit Rule
The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.
For the three-term limit rule for elective local government officials to apply, two conditions or requisites must concur, to wit: 1) that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post, and 2) that he has fully served three consecutive terms. (Lonzanida v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135150, July 28, 1999)
Rationale: To prevent the establishment of political dynasties and to enhance the freedom of choice of the people. (Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133495, Sept. 3, 1998)
Election Contest Discussion
Can a case of quo warranto be filed pending a pre-proclamation controversy?
As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to an abandonment of one earlier filed [Laodeno v. Comelec, 276 SCRA 706], thus depriving the Comelec of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. The reason for this is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction over an election protest or a petition for quo warranto, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding. This procedure will prevent confusion and conflict of authority [Villamor v. Comelec,
Election Protest Discussion:
Exception to the General Rule: the filing of an election protest or quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to an abandonment of one earlier filed
This rule, however, admits of the following exceptions: [a] The Board of Canvassers was improperly constituted; [b] Quo warranto is not the proper remedy; [c] What was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but a petition to annul a proclamation; [d] The filing of an election contest was expressly made without prejudice to the preproclamation controversy, or was made ad cautelam; or [e] The proclamation was null and void [Samad v. Comelec
Election Contest Discussion:
Can simultaneous prosecution or adjudication of pre-proclamation controversies and election protest be allowed in elective provincial offices?
But in Tan v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 166143-47, November 20, 2006, the Supreme Court said that there is no law or rule prohibiting the simultaneous prosecution or adjudication of pre-proclamation controversies and election protests. Allowing the simultaneous prosecution scenario may be explained by the fact that pre-proclamation controversies and election protests differ in terms of the issues involved and the evidence admissible in each case, and the objective each seeks to achieve. [NOTE: As these cases involve elective provincial offices, the Comelec has original exclusive jurisdiction over both preproclamation controversies and election contests. Obviously, there can be no conflict of authority, and thus the cases can be simultaneously prosecuted before, and adjudicated by, the same tribunal
Requisites of Quo Warranto
a) Filed by any registered voter in the constituency.
b) On grounds of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.
c) Within ten (10) days from proclamation of the results of the election
Distinctions between Quo Warranto in elective and in appointive office.
- In an elective office: the issue is eligibility of the officer-elect; the court or tribunal cannot declare the protestant (or the candidate who the second highest number of votes) as having been elected.
- In an apppointive office: the issue is the legality of the appointment; the court determines who of the parties has legal title to the office.
