election law jurisprudence-cd.doc

8/14/2019 ELECTION LAW JURISPRUDENCE-cd.doc

1/101

AD INTERIM APPOINTMENT

An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment

because it takes effect immediately and can no longer bewithdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualifiedinto office. The fact that it is subject to confirmation by theCommission on Appointments does not alter its permanentcharacter. The Constitution itself makes an ad interimappointment permanent in character by making it effectiveuntil disapproved by the Commission on Appointments oruntil the next adjournment of Congress. Matibag v.

Benipayo et al. G.R. No. 14903! Ap"il #! #00#An ad interimappointment that is bypassed because of lackof time or failure of the Commission on Appointments toorgani!e is another matter. A bypassed appointment is onethat has not been finally acted upon on the merits by theCommission on Appointments at the close of the session ofCongress. There is no final decision by the Commission onAppointments to give or withhold its consent to the

appointment as required by the Constitution. Absent suchdecision" the President is free to renew the ad interimappointment of a bypassed appointee. Matibag v.Benipayo et al. G.R. No. 14903! Ap"il #! #00#

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that the President can renew thead interim appointments of by-passed appointees. Matibag v.Benipayo et al. G.R. No. 14903! Ap"il #! #00#

ADMINI$TRATI%E &'N(TION! ()AIRMAN O& T)E(OME*E(

The Chairman" as the Chief #xecutive of the C$%#C" isexpressly empowered on his own authority to transfer orreassign C$%#C personnel in accordance with the Civil'ervice &aw. (n the exercise of this power" the Chairman isnot required by law to secure the approval of the C$%#Cen banc. Matibag v. Benipayo et al. G.R. No. 14903!Ap"il #! #00#

ADMINI$TRATI%E &'N(TION %$. +'A$I,-'DI(IA*

The denial of due course or cancellation of one)s certificateof candidacy is not it/in t/e aini2t"ative poe"2of


2/101

Election Jurisprudence Page 2

the Commission" but rather calls for the exercise of itsquasijudicial functions. (ip"iano v. (oele! et al.! G.R.No. 15530! A6g62t 10! #004

The term 7aini2t"ative8 connotes" or pertains" to*administration" especially management" as by managing orconducting" directing or superintending" the execution"application" or conduct of persons or things.+ (t does notentail an opportunity to be heard" the production andweighing of evidence" and a decision or resolution thereon.

,hile a 76a2i,:6iial ;6ntion8is a term which applies

to the action" discretion" etc." of public administrativeofficers or bodies" who are required to investigate facts" orascertain the existence of facts" hold hearings" and drawconclusions from them" as a basis for their official actionand to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. Ba6ti2ta v.(oele! G.R. No2. 14


3/101


$bviously" the evidence relied upon mainly by petitioners tosupport their charges of fraud and irregularities in theelection returns and in the canvassing consisted of Affidavitsprepared by their own representatives. The selfservingnature of the said Affidavits cannot be discounted. As thisCourt has pronounced" reliance should not be placed onmere affidavits. 12nderscoring ours.3O?)a"a v. (oele!4#5 P/il. 101! G.R. No2. 145941,4#Ma"/ 1#! #00#

(ndeed" as this Court pointedly observed in 4elayo v.C$%#C56 78.-. 9o. :;


4/101


The C$%#C likewise did not commit grave abuse ofdiscretion when it treated private respondent Co)s petitionas one for annulment of proclamation although it wasdenominated as also for correction of manifest errors. (nfact" it finds support in several cases decided by the Court.Dor example" in Mentang v. COMELEC" we held that wherethe relief sought is the correction of mathematical errorswhich are not attributable to incorrect entries in any of theelection returns" statement of votes and certificate ofcanvass but in the mere computation of the votes reflectedin those election documents" it is a petition for

annulmentFdeclaration of nullity of proclamation" not apetition to correct manifest errors. Ale:an"o v. (oele (o! G.R. No. 1


5/101


canvass and proclaim the winning candidate or candidateson the basis thereof. (a2t"oayo" v. (OME*E(!1# #0$(RA #95 199H a2 ite inAngelia vs. (oi22ionon Eletion2 an Tan! G.R. No. 1345. May 31! #000

APPEA*! PER&E(TION o;

The subsequent payment of the filing fee on 5? Ganuary566; did not relieve Hamoras of his mistake. A case is notdeemed duly registered and docketed until full payment ofthe filing fee. $therwise stated" the date of the payment of

the filing fee is deemed the actualdate of the filing of thenotice of appeal. >ao"a2 v. (oele! et al.! G.R. No.1510@ Novebe" 1#! #004

Perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementaryperiod is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional andfailure to do so renders the questioned decision final andexecutory" and deprives the appellate court or body of

jurisdiction to alter the final judgment much less to entertainthe appeal. >aate v. (oele et Balao ! G.R. No.144


6/101


wit"in t"e &rescribed &eriod. Antonio v. (oele! G.R.No. 1359! $eptebe" ##! 1999

APPEA*! RIG)T TO

The "ig/t to appeal i2 e"ely a 2tat6to"y p"ivilegeanda litigant may exercise such right to appeal only in themanner prescribed by law. The requirement of an appeal feeis by no means a mere technicality of law or procedure. (t isan essential requirement without which the decisionappealed from would become final and executory as if there

was no appeal filed at all. >ao"a2 v. (oele! et al.!G.R. No. 1510@ Novebe" 1#! #004

'uffice it to state that the period for filing an appeal is by nomeans a mere technicality of law or procedure. (t is anessential requirement without which the decision appealedfrom would become final and executory as if no appeal wasfiled at all. The right of appeal is merely a statutoryprivilege and may be exercised only in the manner

prescribed by" and in accordance with" the provisions of thelaw. Antonio v. (oele! G.R. No. 1359! $eptebe"##! 1999

APPRE(IATION O& BA**OT$

The appreciation of the contested ballots and electiondocuments involves a question of fact best left to thedetermination of the C$%#C" a speciali!ed agency taskedwith the supervision of elections all over the country" as it isthe constitutional commission vested with the exclusiveoriginal jurisdiction over election contests involving regional"provincial and city officials" as well as appellate jurisdictionover election protests involving elective municipal andbaranga officials. (n the absence of grave abuse ofdiscretion or any jurisdictional infirmity or error of law" thefactual findings" conclusions" rulings" and decisions rendered

by the said Commission on matters falling within itscompetence shall not be interfered with by this Court.Balingit v. (oele et al! G.R. No. 1


7/101


bore similarFidentical handwritings" the %inutes of 4oting innumerous precincts had no entries as to the names of theilliterate voters and their respective assistors" contrary tothe aforecited rule applied by I-#T. Abb6baa" v. )RETet al. G.R. No. 1

object in the appreciation of ballots is to ascertain and carryinto effect the intention of the voter" if it can be determinedwith reasonable certainty. Do:illo v. (oele! G.R. No.14#! -6ly #! #00,e relied on the descriptions of the ballots given by theparties" the trial court" and the C$%#C" and weighed theirassertions. Do:illo v. (oele! G.R. No. 14#! -6ly #!#00

%arked ballots" idem sonans" stray ballots. Do:illo v.(oele! G.R. No. 14#! -6ly #! #00

(t is well to remember the basic principle that the cardinalobjective of ballot appreciation is to discover and give effectto" rather than frustrate the intention of the voters" thus"every ballot shall be presumed valid unless clear and goodreasons justify its rejection. #xtreme caution should beobserved before any ballot is invalidated and doubts in theappreciation of ballots are resolved in favor of their validity.Thus" it is a wellfounded rule ensconced in ourjurisprudence that laws and statutes governing electioncontests especially appreciation of ballots must be liberallyconstrued to the end that the will of the electorate in thechoice of public officials may not be defeated by technical

infirmities. De G6Jan v. (oele P6lio G.R. No.19


8/101


better than well said. Corollarily" laws and statutesgoverning election contests especially the appreciation ofballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will ofthe electorate in the choice of public officials may not bedefeated by technical infirmities. De G6Jan v. (oele P6lio! G.R. No. 19,hile 'ection 5 of -epublic Act 9o. @:==" otherwise knownas *An Act Providing Dor 'ynchroni!ed 9ational and &ocal#lections and Dor #lectoral -eforms"+ requires the /#(chairman to affix his signature at the back of the ballot" themere failure to do so does not invalidate the same althoughit may constitute an election offense imputable to said /#(

chairman. 9owhere in said provision does it state that thevotes contained therein shall be nullified. P6nJalan v.(oele G.R. No. 1#9. Ap"il #

The appreciation of the contested ballots and electiondocuments involves a question of fact best left to thedetermination of the C$%#C" a speciali!ed agency taskedwith the supervision of elections all over the country. (t isthe constitutional commission vested with the exclusive

original jurisdiction over election contests involving regional"provincial and city officials" as well as appellate jurisdictionover election protests involving elective municipal andbarangay officials. P6nJalan v. (oele G.R. No.1#9. Ap"il #

(t is axiomatic that the C$%#C need not conduct anadversarial proceeding or a hearing to determine theauthenticity of ballots or the handwriting found thereon.

9either does it need to solicit the help of handwritingexperts in examining or comparing the handwriting. (n fact"even evidence aliunde is not necessary to enable theCommission to determine the authenticity of the ballots andthe genuineness of the handwriting on the ballots as anexamination of the ballots themselves is already sufficientP6nJalan v. (oele G.R. No. 1#9. Ap"il #


9/101


APPRE(IATION O& BA**OT$! MARED BA**OT$

There are ; marked ballots in the case at bar. Dourteen1:3 ballots are marked with the word *Goker+J six 1=3 ballotswith the word *Alas+J seven 1@3 ballots with the word*Kueen+J and" seven 1@3 ballots with the word *Lamatis.+These ballots were all deducted by the trial court from thevotes of petitioner. ,hile each of these words appears inmore than one ballot and may not identify a particularvoter" it is not necessary that the marks in a ballot should

be able to specifically identify a particular voter. ,e haveruled that the distinction should always be between marksthat were apparently carelessly or innocently made" whichdo not invalidate the ballot" and marks purposely placedthereon by the voter with a view to possible futureidentification" which invalidates it. The marks which shall beconsidered sufficient to invalidate the ballot are those whichthe voter himself deliberately placed on his ballot for thepurpose of identifying it thereafter. %illag"aia v.

(oele! G.R. No. 15#9! -an6a"y 31! #001a3" a candidate is one who *has filed acertificate of candidacy+ to an elective public office. 2nlessone has filed his certificate of candidacy" he is not a*candidate.+ *anot v. (oele E62ebio! G.R. No.1455! Novebe" 1! #00

(ANDIDATE AND PREMAT'RE (AMPAIGNING

2nder 'ection ;1b3 of the $mnibus #lection Code" the

applicable law prior to -A ?;=" the campaign period forlocal officials commences < days before election day. Dorthe 566 local elections" this puts the start of the campaignperiod on 5 %arch 566. This also puts the last day for thefiling of certificate of candidacy" under the law prior to -A?;=" on 5; %arch 566. #usebio is deemed to have filedhis certificate of candidacy on this date for purposes otherthan the printing of ballots because this is the interpretation

of 'ection ?6 of the $mnibus #lection Code most favorableto one charged of its violation. 'ince 'ection ?6 defines acriminal offense" its provisions must be construed liberally infavor of one charged of its violation. T/62! E62ebiobeae a 7aniate8 only on #3 Ma"/ #004 ;o"p6"po2e2 ot/e" t/an t/e p"inting o; ballot2.+*anot v.(oele E62ebio! G.R. No. 1455! Novebe" 1!#00

(A'$E O& A(TION

,hat determine a cause of action are the facts orcombination of facts alleged in a party)s pleading.$i2on v.(OME*E(! 304 $(RA 1


12/101


(t is therefore clear that the law mandates that thecandidate must be notified of the petition against him andhe should be given the opportunity to present evidence inhis behalf. This is the essence of due process. (ip"iano v.(oele! et al.! G.R. No. 15530! A6g62t 10! #004

As early as :>:?" this Court" has pronounced that the rulesand regulations for the conduct of elections are mandatorybefore the election but after the elections" they becomemerely directory. Corollarily" defects in the certificates of

candidacy should be questioned on or before the electionand not after the will of the people has been expressedthrough the ballot. The reason for this is because innocentvoters will be deprived of their votes without any fault ontheir part. Thus" after the termination of the election" publicinterest must prevail over that of the defeated candidate.GonJale2 v. )RET! G.R. No. 15001. -6ne 10! #003At the very outset" it must be made clear that the Comelechas jurisdiction to deny due course to or cancel a certificate

of candidacy. 'uch jurisdiction continues even after theelections" if for any reason no final judgment ofdisqualification is rendered before the elections" and thecandidate facing disqualification is voted for and receivesthe highest number of votes" and provided further that thewinning candidate has not been proclaimed or taken hisoath of office. $aya,ang v. (oele! G.R. No. 105@ -ules of Civil Procedure" as amended" governingpetitions for certiorari" prohibition and mandamus filed with

the 'upreme Court" only petitions which are accompaniedby or which comply strictly with the requirements specifiedtherein shall be entertained. $n the basis thereof" the Court-esolved to DI$MI$$ the instant petition for certiorari fornoncompliance therewith" particularly for failure to fully paythe legal fees in violation of -ule =" 'ection ; in relation to


16/101


-ule

perform a duty enjoined by law. $an -6an v. )RET (e"ille2! G.R. No. 10939. -6ly ! #004

8enerally" a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite tothe viability of a special civil action for certiorari. Iowever"there are exceptions to the rule. The aggrieved party is notobliged to first file a motion for reconsideration of theassailed resolution before filing a petition under -ule =< of

the -ules of Court" as amended where" as in this case" 1:3the question is purely legal" 153 judicial intervention isurgentJ 1;3 its application may cause great and irreparabledamageJ and 13 the controverted acts violate due process.Nail! et al. v. (oele! et al.! G.R. No. 1040.Otobe" #5! #003

,e hold that petitioner acted correctly in filing the presentpetition because the resolution of the C$%#C in question

is not subject to reconsideration and" therefore" any partywho disagreed with it only had one recourse" and that wasto file a petition for certiorariunder -ule =< of the -ules ofCivil Procedure. Angelia v. (oele! G.R. No. 1345.May 31! #000! 355 P/il. 0!


17/101


The instant controversy involves resolutions issued by theC$%#C en banc which do not pertain to election offenses.Ience" a special civil action for certiorari is the properremedy in accordance with 'ection 5" -ule = of the -ulesof Court. Angelia v. (oele! G.R. No. 1345. May 31!#000! 355 P/il. 0!

#ven assuming that the respondent judge erred in theappreciation of the documentary evidence" theextraordinary writ of certiorari will not lie" as no grave abuseof discretion may be attributed to a court simply because of

its alleged wrongful appreciation of facts and evidence.Taena v. (oele! G.R. No. 1#55#. Ap"il #

(n accordance with -ule = and other related provisions ofthe :>>@ -ules of Civil Procedure" as amended" governingreview of judgments and final orders or resolutions of theCommission on #lections" only petitions which areaccompanied by or which comply strictly with therequirements specified therein shall be entertained. $n thebasis thereof" the Court -esolved to DI$MI$$ the instantpetition for certiorari for noncompliance therewith"particularly for late filing of the petition and late payment ofthe legal fees in violation of -ule =" 'ections ; and < 1 th

par.3 and -ule =" 'ection ; in relation to -ule


18/101


was pending before this Court" the main case which wasmeanwhile decided by the C$%#C En Bancwas likewiseelevated to this Court. Thus" we have a situation where thepetition for certiorari questioning the interlocutory orders ofthe C$%#C ivision and the petition for certiorari andprohibition assailing the -esolution of the C$%#C En Bancon the main case were consolidated. The issues raised in thepetition for certiorari were also raised in the main case andtherefore there was actually no need to resolve the petitionassailing the interlocutory orders. $o"iano et al. v.(oele et al.! G.R. No2. 1449,0! Ap"il #! #00


19/101


This Court has already ruled in Rees v. R+C o$ OrientalMindoro"that *it is the decision" order or ruling of theC$%#C En Bancthat" in accordance with 'ection @" Art.(NA of the Constitution" may be brought to the 'upremeCourt on certiorari.+ The exception provided in 2"o andRe&ol is unavailing in this case because unlike in 2"o andRe&ol" the assailed interlocutory orders of the C$%#CDirst ivision in this case are not a patent nullity. Theassailed orders in this case involve the interpretation of theC$%#C -ules of Procedure. 9either will the Rosal caseapply because in that case the petition for certiorari

questioning the interlocutory orders of the C$%#C 'econdivision and the petition for certiorari and prohibitionassailing the -esolution of the C$%#C En Banc on themain case were already consolidated. $o"iano et al. v.(oele et al.! G.R. No2. 1449,0! Ap"il #! #00


20/101


+"is Court' "owever' "as ruled in t"e &ast t"at t"is&rocedural requirement 3o$ $iling a motion $or reconsideration4ma be glossed over to &revent a miscarriage o$ 5ustice' w"en

t"e issue involves t"e &rinci&le o$ social 5ustice or t"e&rotection o$ labor' w"en t"e decision or resolution soug"t tobe set aside is a nullit' or w"en t"e need $or relie$ isextremel urgent and certiorari is t"e onl adequate ands&eed remed available.

The Court further pointed out inA!"#$that an exceptionwas warranted under the peculiar circumstances of the casesince there was hardly enough opportunity to move for a

reconsideration and to obtain a swift resolution in time forthe :: %ay :>>? elections. The same can be said in -epol)scase. ,e rule that direct resort to this Court through aspecial civil action for certiorari is justified under thecircumstances obtaining in the present case. Repol v.(oele! et al.! G.R. No. 11415. Ap"il #5! #004

The 'upreme Court has no power to review viacertiorari" aninterlocutory order or even a final resolution of the ivisionof the Commission on #lections. E2t"ella v. (oele! G.R.No. 14041. $eptebe" 1! #003@ Abil! -". v.(oi22ion on Eletion2! 344 $(RA 35 #000H.

(t is settled that the 'upreme Court can review on certiorarithe decisions" orders" and ruling of the C$%#C en banc./ut what is being assailed in the instant case are theresolution and orders of the 'econd ivision of the

Commission on #lections.

Petitioner admits that his motion for reconsideration of theorder dated 9ovember :


21/101


(oele et al.! G.R. No2. 1449,0! Ap"il #! #00 (ITI>EN$)IP! +'A*I&I(ATION

(n Drivaldo v. Commission on #lections"the Court ruled thatthe citi!enship qualification must be construed as *applyingto the time of proclamation of the elected official and at thestart of his term.+ Alta"e:o2 v. (oele! G.R. No.13#. Novebe" 10! #004
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/120295.htmhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/120295.htm


22/101


(n applying election laws" it would be far better to err infavor of the popular choice than be embroiled in complexlegal issues involving private international law which maywell be settled before the highest court 1Cf. Drivaldo vs.Commission on #lections" 5


23/101


DE(I$ION! (OMP*ETENE$$

The Court rules that a resolution or decision of the C$%#Cis considered complete and validly rendered or issued whenthere is on6""ene by t/e "e6i"e a:o"ity of theCommissioners.x x x x x

Put otherwise" with the required majority vote" the majorityopinion embodied in a decision or resolution dulypromulgated is validly rendered and issued despite dissent

or inhibition of the minority" and even if the reason for thedissent or inhibition is submitted much later than itspromulgation. Tan B6"a/an v. (oele et al.! G.R.No2. 1143,4

9onetheless" it has to be made clear that ei2ion2!"e2ol6tion2 o" o"e"2 o; ollegiate o6"t2 62t /ave2epa"ate on6""ing o" i22enting opinion2 appene

to t/e a:o"ity opinion be;o"e t/e2e a"ep"o6lgate. And it is the responsibility of the clerk ofcourt to ensure that these separate opinions are submittedwithin the required period so that the decision" resolution ororder is timely promulgated. Tan B6"a/an v. (oeleet al.! G.R. No2. 1143,4

DE(I$ION! $EPARATE OPINION$

'eparate opinions not approved by the required majority ofthe court members" whether they be concurring ordissenting opinions" must be distinguished from the opinionof the court. 4erily" the joint resolution is the ruling beingassailed and not the dissenting opinion. (t is clear that" notbeing essential to the assailed joint resolution" thedissenting opinion merely serves to comply with theconstitutional proviso that any member who dissented from

a decision or resolution must state the reason therefore.Tan B6"a/an v. (oele et al.! G. R. No2. 1143,4

DEM'RRER TO E%IDEN(E@ E&&E(T O& DENIA*


24/101


(n #lection contests" the denial of a demurrer to evidenceamounts to a waiver of right to present evidence.GeentiJa v. (oele! G.R. No. 140554! Ma"/ !#001! 33 $(RA


25/101


(ndeed" the electorate cannot amend or waive thequalifications prescribed by law for elective office. The willof the people as expressed through the ballot cannot curethe vice of ineligibility. Ba6ti2ta v. (oele! G.R. No2.14


26/101


*anot v. (oele E62ebio! G.R. No. 1455!Novebe" 1! #00

DI$+'A*I&I(ATION! E*E(TORA* (RIMINA*A$PE(T$! $e. 5 OE(

-elevant to this case isCodilla v. 6e #enecia" which heldthat t/e :6"i2ition o; t/e (OME*E( to i26ali;yaniate2 i2 liite to t/o2e en6e"ate in $e. 5o; t/e Onib62 Eletion (oe. Blano v. (oele Ala"illa! G.R. No. 15014! -6ne 1

(n Blanco v. COMELEC" 8.-. 9o. :555


27/101


an election offense. The prosecutor is the C$%#C"through its &aw epartment" which determines whetherprobable cause exists. (f there is probable cause" theC$%#C" through its &aw epartment" files the criminalinformation before the proper court. Proceedings before theproper court demand a fullblown hearing and require proofbeyond reasonable doubt to convict. A criminal convictionshall result in the disqualification of the offender" which mayeven include disqualification from holding a future publicoffice.

The two aspects account for the variance of the rules ondisposition and resolution of disqualification cases filedbefore or after an election. C/en t/e i26ali;iationa2e i2 ;ile be;o"e t/e eletion2! t/e 6e2tion o;i26ali;iation i2 "ai2e be;o"e t/e voting p6bli. I;t/e aniate i2 i26ali;ie a;te" t/e eletion! t/o2e/o vote ;o" /i a226e t/e "i2 t/at t/ei" vote2ay be ela"e 2t"ay o" invali.There is no such risk ifthe petition is filed after the elections. The C$%#C #n/anc erred when it ignored the electoral aspect of thedisqualification case by setting aside the C$%#C Dirstivision)s resolution and referring the entire case to theC$%#C &aw epartment for the criminal aspect. *anot v.(oele E62ebio! G.R. No. 1455! Novebe" 1!#00

DI$+'A*I&I(ATION! $E(OND P*A(ER! E(EPTION

The disqualification of the elected candidate does not entitlethe candidate who obtained the second highest number ofvotes to occupy the office vacated because of thedisqualification. 4otes cast in favor of a candidate whoobtained the highest number of votes" against whom apetition for disqualification was filed before the election" arepresumed to have been cast in the belief that he wasqualified. Dor this reason" the second placer cannot be

declared elected.

The eLeption to t/i2 "6le "e2t2 on to a226ption2.Dirst" the one who obtained the highest number of votes isdisqualified. 'econd" the voters are so fully aware in factand in law of a candidate)s disqualification to bring suchawareness within the realm of notoriety but nonetheless the


28/101


voters still cast their votes in favor of the ineligiblecandidate. &anot and /enavides failed to prove that theexception applies in the present case. Thus" assuming forthe sake of argument that #usebio is disqualified" the ruleon succession provides that the duly elected 4ice%ayor ofPasig City shall succeed in #usebio)s place. *anot v.(oele E62ebio! G.R. No. 1455! Novebe" 1!#00

DOMI(I*E

-esidence not a requirement for domicile. (o v2. )RET 199

$(RA 9#Doino v. (oele! G.R. No. 13401! -6ly 19! 199D6pit,Mi/elena v. Boao! G.R. No2. 1319,#0!

Novebe" 1

DO'B*E REGI$TRATION Eletion O;;en2eH

Baytan! et al.! vs. (oele! G.R. No. 1394.&eb"6a"y 4! #003F

D'E PRO(E$$

(n administrative proceedings" the essence of due process issimply an opportunity to be heard" or an opportunity toexplain one)s side or opportunity to seek a reconsiderationof the action or ruling complained of. A formal trialtypehearing is not at all times and in all situations essential todue process. 4erily" *to be heard+ does not only mean

presentation of testimonial evidence. $ne may also beheard through pleadings and where opportunity to be heardthrough pleadings is accorded" there is no denial of dueprocess. Ale:an"o v. (oele (o! G.R. No. 1


29/101


The right to due process is a cardinal and primary rightwhich must be respected in all proceedings. (t is theembodiment of the sporting idea of fair play" thecornerstone of every democratic society. (n any proceeding"the essence of procedural due process is embodied in thebasic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to beheard. $aya,ang v. (oele! G.R. No. 105BJLasco vs. nited =ations Revolving Fund $or =ationalResources Ex&loration' 5: 'C-A =?: 7:>>


63/101


reglementary period to file the same" the filing fee thereforewas paid way beyond the said period. Iis motion shouldhave been dismissed outright for failure to pay the filing feeon time. Dailure to pay filing fees will not vest the electiontribunal jurisdiction over the case and such procedural lapsewarrants the outright dismissal of the action.Ale:an"o v.(oele et al.! G.R. No. 1


64/101


NEIG)BOR)OOD R'*E

,e agree with the C$%#C En Banc. (n each of these

ballots 1#xhibits *:"+ *5"+ *


65/101


NON,&OR'M $)OPPING (ERTI&I(ATION! &AI*'RETO (OMP*=

Applying the -ules of Civil Procedure suppletorily" the failureto comply with the nonforum shopping requirements of'ection < of -ule @ does not automatically warrant thedismissal of the case with prejudice as petitioner insists. The-ule states that the dismissal is without prejudice. Thedismissal may be with prejudice but only upon motion andafter hearing. Ba""o2o v. Apig! et al. G.R. No.135#15. Ma"/ 1

NOTI(E! (AN%A$$ING

$abeniano v. (oele! 101 $(RA #59@ +6ilala v.(oele! 155 $(RA 0#

N'I$AN(E (ANDIDATE$

The rationale for the prohibition against nuisance candidatesand the disqualification of candidates who have not

demonstrated a bond fide intention to run for office is the'tate0s compelling interest in ensuring that its electoralexercises are rational" objective" and orderly. (/aveJ vs.(oele@ G.R. No. 1#


66/101


involving #lection -eturn 9o. >=6:=== which the %/C foundto be fraudulent" tampered" and statistically improbable" is apreproclamation case requiring the C$%#C)s exercise ofquasijudicial powers. The same should have been decidedat the first instance by a division of the C$%#C" especiallyso that petitioner filed his appeal not with the en bancbutwith a division of the C$%#C. Dailing to comply with theconstitutional and jurisprudential requirements" Re2ol6tionNo. 5#1# 62t t/e"e;o"e be ela"e voi in2o;a" a2t/e in2tant a2e i2 one"ne. (abe v. (oele etal.! G.R. No. 1


67/101


The law defines *political party+ as *an organi!ed group ofciti!ens advocating an ideology or platform" principles andpolicies for the general conduct of government and which"as the most immediate means of securing their adoption"regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders andmembers as candidates for public office.+ Ang BagongBayani et al. v. (oele G.R. No. 14


68/101


hearing wherein the members of the /$C were required toshed light on the two proclamations made. /esides" it is asettled rule that the C$%#C)s judgment cannot beoverturned by this Court unless it is clearly tainted withgrave abuse of discretion. A"aai2 vs. (oi22ion onEletion2! G.R. No. 1. GalveJ Tan! &"anlinM. D"ilon! &"i2o $an -6an! No"be"to M. GonJale2!)one2to M. I2leta! an -o2e a. Be"na2! v. (oi22ionon Eletion2! G.R. No. 13193. -6ne 1! #004F

Iowever" the duties of the C$%#C under the Constitution"-ep. Act 9o. @:==" and other election laws are carried out"at all tie2! in it2 o++icial capacit-. There is noconstitutional and statutory basis for the respondentC$%#C to undertake a separate and an *unofficial+tabulation of results" whether manually or electronically.(ndeed" by conducting such *unofficial+ tabulation of theresults of the election" the C$%#C descends to the levelof a private organi!ation" s&ending &ublic $unds $or t"e&ur&ose. B"illante2! -". v.-o2e (onepion! -".! -o2e e%eneia! Ega"o -. Anga"a! D". -aie >. GalveJ Tan!

&"anlin M. D"ilon! &"i2o $an -6an! No"be"to M.GonJale2! )one2to M. I2leta! an -o2e a. Be"na2! v.(oi22ion on Eletion2! G.R. No. 13193. -6ne 1!#004F

As an independent Constitutional Commission" it is clothedwith the three powers of government executive oradministrative" legislative" and quasijudicial powers.(ip"iano v. (oele! et al.! G.R. No. 15530! A6g62t

10! #004

Power of Comelec to promulgate rules and regulations.Galla"o v. Tabao! #15 $(RA #3 1993H


69/101


Power of the Commission to investigate and prosecuteelection offenses. Galla"o v. Tabao! #15 $(RA #31993H

/eing merely an implementing rule" the same must notoverride" but instead remain consistent and in harmony withthe law it seeks to apply and implement. Administrativerules and regulations are intended to carry out" neither tosupplant nor to modify" the law. G"ego v. (oele! #


70/101


proclamation to give the other party an opportunity toquestion the ruling by filing a notice of appeal with theboard within ? hours from the suspension of theproceedings" and of an appeal with the C$%#C" withinfive days from the same suspension. Dailure to comply withthese requirements renders the proclamation void ab initio.(abe v. (oele et al.! G.R. No. 1>; C$%#C -ules of Procedureprovides that matters raised under 'ections 5;; 1when theelection returns are delayed" lost" or destroyed3" 5; 1whenthere are omissions on the election returns3" 8?) (w"en t"eelection returns a&&ear to be tam&ered wit" or $alsi$ied*"and 5;= 1when there are discrepancies in the electionreturns3 of the $mnibus #lection Code s"all be broug"t int"e $irst instance be$ore t"e Board o$ Canvassers onl. This

provision is mandatory. Thus" petitioner)s failure to raisethese matters before the %/$C of Taytay" -i!al barred herfrom questioning the same before the C$%#C. Taayo,Reye2 v. (oele (abita!G.R. No. 1


71/101


'ection 5;< of the $mnibus #lection Code provides theprocedure which enables the C$%#C to ascertain the willof the electorate. Daglo v. (oele! $aa Dilangalen G.R. No2. 1444#,4


72/101


,ellsettled is the rule that issues relative to theappreciation of ballots cannot be raised in a preproclamation controversy. Appreciation of ballots is the taskof the board of election inspectors" not the board ofcanvassers" and questions related thereto are proper only ineletion p"ote2t2. $in26at v. (oele! G.R. No.1910! -6ne #3! #00

Anent the allegation that the C$%#C abused its discretionwhen it excluded @5 election returns without looking atother available evidence and without strictly following theprocedure laid down in 'ection 5;< of the $mnibus #lectionCode" suffice it to state that resort to the Commission)shandwriting experts is not indispensable" as the Commissioncan undertake the examination of each and everyquestioned return by itself" using only common sense andperception" especially in the instant case where theirregularities are clearly discernible from the face of thedocumentary exhibits of record. They must be excluded forthey were found by Commission to be indeed obviously

manufactured and fabricated returns 1%ratuc vs.Commission on Elections' 9os. &>@6" Debruary ?":>@>" ?? 'C-A 5


73/101


also reckoned five 1Parenthetically" the absence of the required signatures andthumbmarks rendered the election returns concernedmaterially defective. The crucial circumstance also servedas a proper subject of a preproclamation controversy"particularly falling under paragraph 1b3 of 'ection 5; of the$mnibus #lection Code" which the C$%#C resolved in the

assailed issuances. -ainal v. (oele! Talib A/a:an!G.R. NO. 13

(n %atalam vs. C$%#C"7B this Court held that *in a preproclamation controversy" the C$%#C" as a rule" is

restricted to an examination of the election returns and iswithout jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them andinvestigate election irregularities. (ndeed" in the case of&oong vs. C$%#C"7


74/101


exceeding its authority" contrary to the mandate of &oong"reiterated in %atalam and 'ebastian. Bela v. (oele!G.R. No. 1450#. Ap"il 4! #001 1;


75/101


t/en t/ey /ave been oitte. Ab2ent 26/eLplanation! o6bt a"i2e2 a2 to t/ea6t/entiity o; t/e "et6"n2 an t/e anne"o; t/ei" p"epa"ation" specially in this casewhere a party watcher was allowed to take partin the preparation of the election return.

/ut precisely" the unexplained omission appears on the faceof the election return. Ba2a"te v. (oele! G.R. No.19413! May 9! #00alivia v. Reye2! GR No. 10#34#! -6ly 3! 199#

PRE$'MPTION O& REG'*ARIT=


80/101


As stated by I-#T" the presumption of regularity in thepublic official)s performance of his duty holds true only

when it is not found to be inconsistent with the facts.Abb6baa" v. )RET et al. G.R. No. 1

Eletion2 G. R. No. 1394. &eb"6a"y 4! #003F

PRO(ED'RA* R'*E$

Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderlyadministration of justice" namely" to ensure the effectiveenforcement of substantive rights by providing for a systemthat obviates arbitrariness" caprice" despotism or

whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. The enforcementof procedural rules is not antithetical to the substantiverights of the litigants. The policy of the courts is to giveeffect to both procedural and substantive laws" ascomplementing each other" in the just and speedyresolution of the dispute between the parties.Balinong etal. v. (o6"t o; Appeal2! GR No. 199#! Deebe" 1!#004.

/ecause of the special and expeditious nature of electioncases" the early resolution of the same should not behampered by any unnecessary observance of proceduralrules. GeentiJa v. (oele! G.R. No. 140554! Ma"/! #001! 33 $(RA


81/101


,ith respect to petitioner Cerbo who ran for the position ofcongressman" the C$%#C indeed had no jurisdiction overhis petition" his opponent respondent 'uharto T.%angudadatu having been proclaimed as such. (t is wellsettled that once a candidate is proclaimed as representative"the opponent)s recourse is to file an election protest with theIouse of -epresentatives #lectoral Tribunal which has thesole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to theelection" returns and qualifications of members of the Iouseof -epresentatives" and this holds true even if there is an

allegation of nullity of proclamation. (e"bo et al. v.(oele Mang6aat6! G.R. No. 15411! &eb"6a"y1! #00>

election law jurisprudence-cd.doc

Documents