ELECTIONS

1.

Enumerate other election laws. (Meanings and atleast 5.)

Batas Pambansa Blg. 881

The Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines
Republic Act. No. 6646
The Electoral Reform Law of 1987
o
Sec 2 re-enacted the OEC when it provided for the first local elections under the new consti and all subsequent elec and
plebiscites shall be governed by the provisions of the BP 881, and other laws not inconsistent with this Act.
Republic Act No. 7166
An Act which Provides for the Synchronization of the National and Local Elections of 1992
Republic Act 8295
Proclamation of Lone Candidate in Special Elections
Republic Act No. 8436
An Act Authorizing the Comelec to Use the Automated System in the May 11, 1998 National and Local Elections
and in Subsequent National and Local Electoral Exercises
Republic Act 9369
An Act Amending RA 8436, titles An Act Authorizing the Comelec to Use the Automated System in the May 11,
1998 National and Local Elections and in Subsequent National and Local Electoral Exercises
Republic Act No. 8189
Voters Registration Act of 1996
Republic Act No. 9006
Fair Election Act An act to enhance the holding of a FRECRE through fair election practices
Republic Act No. 9189
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003
Republic Act 9244
An Act Eliminating the PRA as a Mode of Instituting Recall of Elective Officials amended RA 7160 sec 70.
Republic Act 7160
The Local Government Code of 1991
Republic Act 9225
The Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003
Republic Act 6735
An act providing for the system of initiative and referendum and providing funds therefor.

CONSTI PROVISIONS:

Sec 1, Art 2 of Consti Source of Political Power or Underlying Principle The Phil is a republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and
all government authority emanates from them.

Art 9-C Comelec

Sec 4, Art 17 Initiative on the Constitution

Sec 10 Art 10 C, D, M, A, B, C of political units

2.

Stages of Election (Pre-election, election proper, post-election)

3.

Construction of Election Laws

According to sec 3 Rule 1 of CRP, election contests are REASONABLY and LIBERALLY construed as it is imbued with the public interest to give way to
the will of the electorate and ascertain by all means the real candidate elected by the people. The reason is to promote the effective and efficient
implementation of the objectives of ensuring a holding of a HOPE-FRECRE elections and to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination
and disposition of every action brought before the COMELEC.
Suliguin vs COMELEC Political laws must be so construed so as to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot.
Technicalities and procedural niceties in election cases should not be made to stand in the way of the true will of the electorate.
Bince vs COMELEC Liberally construed xxx to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical
objections.
Benito vs COMELEC Technicalities of the legal rules in election laws should not frustrate the determination of the popular will.
1.

In applying the rules of statcon, the election rules may be divided into 3 parts: (EOCCPR)
Those which refers to the conduct of elections required to be observed by the elective officials;
a. Mandatory before the elections
b. Directory after the elections, specially if INNOCENT voters will be disenfranchised by the negligence or omission of the election
officers
i. CASE: Fernandez vs COMELEC and PUNZALAN vs COMELEC failure to affix signature does not invalidate the ballot
although it may constitute an election offense imputable to the BEI chairman

2.

Provisions which candidates for public office are required to do and comply with;
a. MANDATORY and failure to comply with these would be FATAL to the said candidate. (ex. Age, citizenship, residency, deadling of
filing of COC, limitation to file election contests)

3.

Provisions which cover PROCEDURAL RULES designed to ascertain the actual winner in the elections in case of dispute.
a. LIBERALLY construed
i. MARUHOM vs COMELEC It would be far better to err in favor of the popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but
little understood legalisms.
ii. Pena vs HRET while election laws are to be liberally construed, the rule likewise stands that in an election protest, the
protestant must stand or fall upon the issues he had raised in his original or amended pleading filed prior to the lapse of
the stat. period for filing of the protest considering that compliance therewith are rendered MANDATORY for candidates.

LIMITATIONS to the LIBERAL CONSTRUCTIONS: (when not applicable) (SACCD)

1) When amendments to pleadings in an election contest will SUBSTANTIALLY change the cause of action, defense or theory of the case;
2) When the amendment will ALTER a final judgment on a substantial matter;
3) When the amendments will CONFER jurisdiction upon the courts when none existed before;
4) When it seeks to CURE a premature or non-existent cause of action;
5) When it its intended to DELAY the proceedings
4.

Pena vs COMELEC and HRET above ruling

5.

Distinguish Plebiscite, Referendum, Initiative

PLEBISCITE
Vote of the entire people or the aggregate of the
enfranchised individuals composing a STATE or
NATION expressing their choice for a proposed
measure.
Associated with the amending process of the
consti, particularly on the RATIFICATION aspects

INITIATIVE
Power of the people to PROPOSE
amendments to the Consti or propose and
enact legislation through an election called
for the purpose.
Process of law-making by the people
themselves without the participation and
against the wishes of their elected
representatives.
Process and voting are more COMPLEX

REFERNDUM
Power of the electorate to APPROVE or
REJECT legislation through an election
called for the purpose.
Consists of merely electorate approving
or rejecting what has been drawn up or
enacted by a legislative body
MERELY a YES or NO in the ballot

Required:
Sec 4, Art 17 of Consti amendments/revisions to
the Consti

Proposed by Congress upon votes of

all its members

Constitutional Convention
Sec 10, Art 10 of Consti creation, abolition,
merging, division or alternation of the boundaries
of any political unit.
CASES:

CASES:

6.

Sanidad regulate media coverage is

unconsti
Tan Art x Sec x shall be subject to the
approval xxx in the political units affected.
The term political units affected means that
residents of the poilitical entity who would be
economically dislocated by the separation of
a portion thereof have a right to vote in the
plebiscite.
City of Pasig
Buac vs COMELEC admin vs QJ;
Cayetano argues that COMELEC has no
jurisdiction to rule on the issue regarding
plebiscite since it is a quasi judicial that is not
contemplated in Sec2(2) of Art 9C. SC said
no plaintiff or defendant in a plebiscite case
thus falls under the admin power of
COMELEC pursuant to sec 1 of Art 9C of
Consti xxx power to enforce and
administer all laws relating to the conduct of
EPIRR

Santiago
vs
COMELEC

MEMORIZE 5 ISSUES!
Lambino vs COMELEC Bicameral
to unicameral; did not follow the
requisites that there must be a full
text copy of the revision; merely
asked a question; no showing of draft
omission is fatal; initiative violates
Art 17 disallowing REVISION through
initiative. 2 MODES LANG AS TO
REVISION of consti. What may be
passed through an initiative is only an
amendment!; Lambinos initiative
constitute a revision.

Requisites of Plebiscite, Referendum, Initiative Page 4 of Sasha Go notes, please memo!

Requirements.
(a) To exercise the power of initiative or referendum, at least ten per centum (10%) of the total number of the registered voters, of which every legislative
district is represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters thereof, shall sign a petition for the purpose and register the same with
the Commission.
(b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as

signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative on the
Constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every five (5) years thereafter.
(c) The petition shall state the following:
c.1. contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be;
c.2. the proposition;
c.3. the reason or reasons therefor;
c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions provided herein;
c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
c.6. an abstract or summary in not more than one hundred (100) words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of every page of the petition.
(d) A referendum or initiative affecting a law, resolution or ordinance passed by the legislative assembly of an autonomous region, province or city is
deemed validly initiated if the petition thereof is signed by at least ten per centum (10%) of the registered voters in the province or city, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein; Provided, however, That if the province or city
is composed only of one (1) legislative district, then at least each municipality in a province or each barangay in a city should be represented by at least
three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.
(e) A referendum of initiative on an ordinance passed in a municipality shall be deemed validly initiated if the petition therefor is signed by at least ten
per centum (10%) of the registered voters in the municipality, of which every barangay is represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the
registered voters therein.
(f) A referendum or initiative on a barangay resolution or ordinance is deemed validly initiated if signed by at least ten per centum (10%) of the
registered voters in said barangay.
II. National Initiative and Referendum
Sec. 8. Conduct and Date of Initiative or Referendum. The Commission shall call and supervise the conduct of initiative or referendum.
Within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, the Commission shall, upon determining the sufficiency of the petition, publish the same in
Filipino and English at least twice in newspapers of general and local circulation and set the date of the initiative or referendum which shall not be earlier
than forty-five (45) days but not later than ninety (90) days from the determination by the Commission of the sufficiency of the petition.
Sec. 9. Effectivity of Initiative or Referendum Proposition.
(a) the Proposition of the enactment, approval, amendment or rejection of a national law shall be submitted to and approved by a majority of the votes
cast by all the registered voters of the Philippines.
If, as certified to by the Commission, the proposition is approved by a majority of the votes cast, the national law proposed for enactment, approval, or
amendment shall become effective fifteen (15) days following completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation
in the Philippines. If, as certified by the Commission, the proposition to reject a national law is approved by a majority of the votes cast, the said national
law shall be deemed repealed and the repeal shall become effective fifteen (15) days following the completion of publication of the proposition and the
certification by the Commission in the Official Gazette or in newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
However, if the majority vote is not obtained, the national law sought to be rejected or amended shall remain in full force and effect.
(b) The proposition in an initiative on the Constitution approved by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as to the day of
the plebiscite.
(c) A national or local initiative propositions approved by majority of the votes cast in an election called for the purpose shall become effective fifteen (15)
days after certification and proclamation by the Commission.
7.

5 issues in the Santiago/Lambino Cases

SANTIAGO:
On December 6, 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, founding member of the Movement for People's Initiative, filed with the COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the
Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" citing Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Acting on the petition, the
COMELEC set the case for hearing and directed Delfin to have the petition published. After the hearing the arguments between petitioners and opposing
parties, the COMELEC directed Delfin and the oppositors to file their "memoranda and/or oppositions/memoranda" within five days. On December 18,
1996, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed a special civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 raising the
following arguments, among others:
1.) That the Constitution can only be amended by peoples initiative if there is an enabling law passed by Congress, to which no such law has yet been
passed; and
2.) That R.A. 6735 does not suffice as an enabling law on peoples initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative.
ISSUE:
1. Whether R.A. No. 6735, entitled An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor, was intended to
include or cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution; and if so, whether the Act, as worded, adequately covers such initiative.
2. Whether that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 (In re: Rules and Regulations Governing the Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution, and
Initiative and Referendum on National and Local Laws) regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid, considering the
absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative.
3. Whether the lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials, as proposed in the draft "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution," would
constitute a revision of, or an amendment to, the Constitution.
4. Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over, a petition solely intended to obtain an order (a) fixing the time and dates for
signature gathering; (b) instructing municipal election officers to assist Delfin's movement and volunteers in establishing signature stations; and (c)

directing or causing the publication of, inter alia, the unsigned proposed Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution.
5. Whether it is proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the petition when there is a pending case before the COMELEC.
HELD:
For a more logical discussion of the formulated issues, we shall first take up the fifth issue which appears to pose a prejudicial procedural question.
I
THE INSTANT PETITION IS VIABLE DESPITE THE PENDENCY IN THE COMELEC OF THE DELFIN PETITION.
In any event, as correctly pointed out by intervenor Roco in his Memorandum, this Court may brush aside technicalities of procedure in
cases of transcendental importance. As we stated in Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, Jr. 28
A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view of the importance of issues
raised. In the landmark Emergency Powers Cases, this Court brushed aside this technicality because the transcendental importance to the public of
these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure.
II
R.A. NO. 6735 INTENDED TO INCLUDE THE SYSTEM OF INITIATIVE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IS, UNFORTUNATELY,
INADEQUATE TO COVER THAT SYSTEM.
Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution provides:
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum
of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters
therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every
five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. This provision is not self-executory.
While the Constitution has recognized or granted that right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its
implementation.
We agree that R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Act is a
consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 and Senate Bill No. 17. The former was prepared by the Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms of the
House of Representatives on the basis of two House Bills referred to it, viz., (a) House Bill No. 497, 47 which dealt with the initiative and referendum
mentioned in Sections 1 and 32 of Article VI of the Constitution; and (b) House Bill No. 988, 48 which dealt with the subject matter of House Bill No. 497,
as well as with initiative and referendum under Section 3 of Article X (Local Government) and initiative provided for in Section 2 of Article XVII of the
Constitution. Senate Bill No. 17 49 solely dealt with initiative and referendum concerning ordinances or resolutions of local government units. The
Bicameral Conference Committee consolidated Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505 into a draft bill, which was subsequently approved on 8
June 1989 by the Senate 50 and by the House of Representatives. 51 This approved bill is now R.A. No. 6735.
But is R.A. No. 6735 a full compliance with the power and duty of Congress to "provide for the implementation of the exercise of the right?"
A careful scrutiny of the Act yields a negative answer.
The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative
on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by "empowering" the COMELEC
"to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of [the] Act.
Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned, R.A. No. 6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate
legislation. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid.
III
COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300, INSOFAR AS IT PRESCRIBES RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF INITIATIVE ON
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, IS VOID.
It logically follows that the COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly
propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative. It does not have that power under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELEC's
power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution is misplaced, for the laws and regulations referred to therein are those promulgated by the
COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a law where subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies the
"completeness" and the "sufficient standard" tests.
IV
COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN PETITION.
Even if it be conceded ex gratia that R.A. No. 6735 is a full compliance with the power of Congress to implement the right to initiate constitutional
amendments, or that it has validly vested upon the COMELEC the power of subordinate legislation and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid, the
COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition.
Under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution and Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 6735, a petition for initiative on the Constitution must be signed by at
least 12% of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. The
Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required number of voters. Delfin himself admits that he has not yet gathered signatures and that the
purpose of his petition is primarily to obtain assistance in his drive to gather signatures. Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be deemed
validly initiated.
The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing. The petition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing before its filing is
cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en banc. The only participation of the COMELEC or its personnel before the filing of such petition are (1) to
prescribe the form of the petition; 63 (2) to issue through its Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate on the total number of registered voters in
each legislative district; 64 (3) to assist, through its election registrars, in the establishment of signature stations; 65 and (4) to verify, through its election
registrars, the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits, and voters' identification cards used in the immediately preceding
election. 66

Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under R.A. No. 6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or given
cognizance of by the COMELEC. The respondent Commission must have known that the petition does not fall under any of the actions or proceedings
under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure or under Resolution No. 2300, for which reason it did not assign to the petition a docket number. Hence, the
said petition was merely entered as UND, meaning, undocketed. That petition was nothing more than a mere scrap of paper, which should not have
been dignified by the Order of 6 December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996, and the order directing Delfin and the oppositors to file their
memoranda or oppositions. In so dignifying it, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and merely wasted its time,
energy, and resources.
The foregoing considered, further discussion on the issue of whether the proposal to lift the term limits of elective national and local officials is an
amendment to, and not a revision of, the Constitution is rendered unnecessary, if not academic.
CONCLUSION
This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for
initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system.
We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be given flesh
and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry any longer in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for the implementation of
the right of the people under that system.
SUMMARY:
NO. R.A. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
Under the said law, initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The people are not accorded the power to "directly propose,
enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution" through the system of initiative. They can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or
resolutions." The use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed" denotes that R.A. No. 6735
excludes initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
Also, while the law provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum and for Local Initiative and Referendum, no subtitle is provided for initiative
on the Constitution. This means that the main thrust of the law is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. If R.A. No. 6735 were intended to
fully provide for the implementation of the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in
the order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far more
important than the initiative on national and local laws.
While R.A. No. 6735 specially detailed the process in implementing initiative and referendum on national and local laws, it intentionally did not do so on
the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is hereby declared void and orders the respondent to forthwith dismiss the Delfin Petition . TRO issued on 18
December 1996 is made permanent.
LAMBINO: refer to page 4 of SASHA GO NOTES
8.

What may not be the subject of plebiscite or referendum?

Sec. 10. Prohibited Measures. The following cannot be the subject of an initiative or referendum petition:
(a) No petition embracing more than one (1) subject shall be submitted to the electorate; and
(b) Statutes involving emergency measures, the enactment of which are specifically vested in Congress by the Constitution, cannot be subject to
referendum until ninety (90) days after its effectivity.
-------------------------------**Generally associated with the AMENDING process of the Constitution, particularly on the ratification aspects and is required under the following:
Sec 4, Art 17 of Consti amendments/revisions to the Consti

Proposed by Congress upon votes of all its members

Constitutional Convention
ARTICLE XVIIAMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
1
The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
2
A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve
per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the
registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution
nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its
Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.
Section 4.Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier
than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.

Sec 10, Art 10 of Consti creation, abolition, merging, division or alternation of the boundaries of any political unit.
9.

COMELEC overview, purpose, powers. (Usually, what is the COMELEC for?)

Composition

7 members = 1 Chairman and six commissioners, each with a term of seven years and without reappointment
First appointed shall

Qualification of
Commissioner
s

Powers and
functions

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Natural-born citizens of the Philippines

At least 35 years of age at the time of their appointment
Holders of a college degree
Must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections
Members of the Philippine bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten (10) years - for Chairman
and a majority of the commissioners
Executive function/Administrative: EPIRR (Certiorari not a property remedy for ADMIN MATTERS; RTC as ordinary
civil action except if ground is for GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum
and recall
Exercise direct and immediate supervision and control over election officials. Deputize, with the concurrence of the
President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections
Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition, to other
requirements, must present their platform or program and government; and accredit citizens arms of the Commission
on Elections
Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, including limitation of place where
propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices
and nuisance candidates
Recommend administrative disciplinary actions. Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee
it has deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its
directive, order, or decision
Submit to the President and the Congress a comprehensive report on the conduct of each elections, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum, or recall
Act as board of canvassers for senators (section 2, EO 144)

NOTE: MR first to EN BANC. Pre req for a certiorari under rule 65. THIS IS THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
ADMIN. REMEDIES.
EXCEPTION: LUDVFAM (6 kabuok)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Question is purely LEGAL

Where judicial intervention is URGENT
Applicability may cause great and irreparable DAMAGE
Controverted acts VIOLATE due process
FAILURE of high govt official from whom relief is sought to act on the matter
Issue for non-exhaustion of admin remedies had been rendered MOOT

Quasi-judicial function
1. Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all
elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal
officials decided by the RTC, or involving elective barangay officials decided by the MTC
2. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including determination of the
number and location of polling place, appointment of election officials and inspectors, and registration of voters
3. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters,
investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses and malpractices
4. Writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in aid of its appellate juris.
Quasi-legislative:
Prescribe rules to govern procedure;
Promulgation of rules and regulations relative to the conduct of elections to insure a HOPE-FRECRE conduct of election.
Media and advertisements regulation unconsti Brillantes et al vs COMELEC
10. Basics of COMELEC Jurisdiction (Filipinas Case, etc)
En Banc & Division Cases: The COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions. All election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that
motions for reconsideration shall be decided en banc. (Sec. 3, Art. IX-C)
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
The Commission is hereby vested with exclusive authority to hear and decide petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus involving election cases.
Art 9C - (2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective
regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts
of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.

Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final,
executory, and not appealable.

Under Section 2 of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC exercises both administrative and quasi-judicial powers. The COMELEC
administrative powers are found in Section 2 (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9). of Article IX-C. The 1987 Constitution does not prescribe how the
COMELEC should exercise its administrative powers, whether en banc or in division.

The Constitution merely vests the COMELECs administrative powers in the Commission on Elections, while providing that the COMELEC may
sit en banc or in two divisions. Clearly, the COMELEC en banc can act directly on matters falling within its administrative powers. Indeed, this has
been the practice of the COMELEC both under the 1973 and 1987 Constitution.

En Banc & Division Cases

Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite
disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division,
provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc (Sec. 3, Art. IX-C)

The COMELEC exercise of its quasi judicial powers is subject to Section 3 of Article IX-C which expressly require that all election cases,
including pre-proclamation cases shall be decided by the COMELEC in division, and the motion for reconsideration shall be decided by the
COMELEC en banc. It follows that the COMELEC is mandated to decide cases first in the division and then upon motion for reconsideration
en banc only when the COMELEC exercises quasi-judicial powers.

Quasi-judicial Functions: where the COMELEC exercises quasi-judicial functions, must be decided in Division before they may be heard en banc on
motion for reconsideration:

Petition to deny or cancel a certificate of candidacy

Cases appealed from the RTC or MTC

Petition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protest.

Election protests and quo warranto cases.

Pre-proclamation controversies.
Exceptions.
1) The COMELEC en banc, however, may directly assume jurisdiction over petitions for correction of manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of
results (Statement of Votes) by the Board of Canvassers, notwithstanding that the same is a pre-proclamation controversy. Sec. 5, Rule 27 of the 1993
Rules of the COMELEC expressly provides that pre-proclamation controversies involving correction of manifest errors in the tabulation of results
may be filed directly with the COMELEC en banc, provided that such error could not have been discovered during the canvassing despite the
exercise of due diligence and proclamation of the winning candidates had already been made.
Likewise, the COMELEC, although performing quasi-judicial function, shall meet en banc when deciding a motion for reconsideration of a decision of a
division.
Jurisdictio
n of
COMELE
C in
division,
en banc

Election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, shall be heard and decided by divisions provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc

Any decision by the Commission en banc as regards election cases decided by it in the first instance is null and void,
EXCEPT in the following cases:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

When what is involved in the case is purely administrative, and not quasi-judicial in nature
When the required number of votes to reach a decision, resolution, order or ruling is not obtained in the division
When the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc, participated in its proceedings and sought reliefs
therefrom, in which case he is stopped to subsequently question the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc
In petitions for postponement, declaration of failure of election and the calling of special elections
In the prosecution of election cases, when it conducts preliminary investigation, decides whether or not there exists a
probable cause and files the corresponding information in court

Administrative Functions
The following are among the administrative functions of the COMELEC and therefore, the Commission must meet en banc:

When promulgating its rules of procedure;

When exercising the exclusive power to postpone, to declare a failure of election, or to call a special election. - A petition to declare a failure of
election is neither a pre-proclamation controversy nor an election case.
When it determines the existence of probable cause. (Faelnar vs. COMELEC, 331 SCRA 429) This includes the approval of the findings in a
preliminary investigation by the COMELEC Law Department.
When deciding a motion for reconsideration of a decision of a division. NOTE: This is, however, a quasi-judicial power judicial power of the
COMELEC, but the Commission has to meet en banc for this purpose.

The COMELEC en banc shall decide motion for reconsideration only of a decision of a division, meaning those acts of final character. Also, under, Rule
13 Section 1 (d) of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, order or decision of the COMELEC is not
allowed.
Section 2 of Article IX-C of the Constitution mandates that motions for reconsideration of final decisions shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc.
Thus, interlocutory orders issued by a division of the COMELEC cannot be elevated to the COMELEC en banc.
Exception: Interlocutory order of a COMELEC Division should be challenged at the first instance through a proper motion, such as motion for
reconsideration, filed with the division that rendered the order. If that fails and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy, (such as recourse to

COMELEC En Banc, because it is not permissible by its rules) the party aggrieved by the interlocutory order may elevate the matter to the Supreme
Court by means of petition for certiorari on the ground that the order was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion.
Filipinas Case:
It has been consistently held that it is the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review on certiorari; final decisions, orders or rulings of the
COMELEC relative to the conduct of elections and enforcement of election laws.
The COMELEC resolution awarding the contract in favor of Acme was not issued pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions but merely as an incident of its
inherent administrative functions over the conduct of elections, and hence, the said resolution may not be deemed as a "final order" reviewable
by certiorari by the Supreme Court. Being non-judicial in character, no contempt may be imposed by the COMELEC from said order, and no direct
and exclusive appeal by certiorari to this Tribunal lie from such order. Any question arising from said order may be well taken in an ordinary civil action
before the trial courts.
What is contemplated by the term "final orders, rulings and decisions" of the COMELEC reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court as
provided by law are those rendered in actions or proceedings before the COMELEC and taken cognizance of by the said body in the exercise
of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.
11. Basic under the adjudicatory/quasi-judicial powers. (Usually How does the comelec decide cases? What is the procedure under
the division if equally divided? Mendoza case)
En Banc & Division Cases
Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite
disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division,
provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc (Sec. 3, Art. IX-C)

The COMELEC exercise of its quasi judicial powers is subject to Section 3 of Article IX-C which expressly require that all election cases,
including pre-proclamation cases shall be decided by the COMELEC in division, and the motion for reconsideration shall be decided by the
COMELEC en banc. It follows that the COMELEC is mandated to decide cases first in the division and then upon motion for reconsideration
en banc only when the COMELEC exercises quasi-judicial powers.

Quasi-judicial Functions: where the COMELEC exercises quasi-judicial functions, must be decided in Division before they may be heard en banc on
motion for reconsideration:

Petition to deny or cancel a certificate of candidacy

Cases appealed from the RTC or MTC

Petition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protest.

Election protests and quo warranto cases.

Pre-proclamation controversies.
Exceptions.
1) The COMELEC en banc, however, may directly assume jurisdiction over petitions for correction of manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of
results (Statement of Votes) by the Board of Canvassers, notwithstanding that the same is a pre-proclamation controversy. Sec. 5, Rule 27 of the 1993
Rules of the COMELEC expressly provides that pre-proclamation controversies involving correction of manifest errors in the tabulation of results
may be filed directly with the COMELEC en banc, provided that such error could not have been discovered during the canvassing despite the
exercise of due diligence and proclamation of the winning candidates had already been made.
Likewise, the COMELEC, although performing quasi-judicial function, shall meet en banc when deciding a motion for reconsideration of a decision of a
division.
Jurisdictio
n of
COMELE
C in
division,
en banc

Election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, shall be heard and decided by divisions provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc

Any decision by the Commission en banc as regards election cases decided by it in the first instance is null and void,
EXCEPT in the following cases:
6.
7.
8.

When what is involved in the case is purely administrative, and not quasi-judicial in nature
When the required number of votes to reach a decision, resolution, order or ruling is not obtained in the division
When the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc, participated in its proceedings and sought reliefs
therefrom, in which case he is stopped to subsequently question the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc
9. In petitions for postponement, declaration of failure of election and the calling of special elections
10. In the prosecution of election cases, when it conducts preliminary investigation, decides whether or not there exists a
probable cause and files the corresponding information in court
12. What are the prohibited pleadings? (Rule 13, 7 kabuok) (DBERRRS) Faelnar v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 140850-51, May 4, 2000.
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
6.)
7.)

Motion to DISMISS
Motion for a BILL OF PARTICULARS
Motion for EXTENTION TO FILE MEMORANDUM or BRIEF
Motion for RECONSIDERATION of a decision, order, ruling of COMELEC EN BANC, except ELECTION OFFENSE CASES
Motion for re-opening or re-hearing of case
Reply on special actions and special cases
Supplemental pleadings in special actions and special cases.

13. Coquilla ruling, when is a pleading pro-forma?

Sec. 2 Rule 19 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division shall be filed within five
(5) days from the promulgation thereof. Such motion, if not pro-forma, suspends the execution for implementation of the decision, resolution, order or
ruling and would in effect, suspend the running of the period to elevate the matter to the SC (Sec.4).

Coquilla vs. Comelec, et. al. G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002, the SC resolved the issue on whether the 30-day period for appealing the resolution of
the Comelec was suspended by the filing of a motion for reconsideration by petitioner. Private respondent in this case contends that the petition should
be dismissed because it was filed late considering that the Comelec en banc denied petitioners motion for reconsideration for being pro-forma and
conformably with Sec. 4 of Rule 19 of the CRP, the said motion did not suspend the running of the 30-day period for the filing of the petition for
certiorari under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the Constitution.
The Comelec en banc ruled that the motion for reconsideration was pro-forma on the ground that the motion was a mere rehash of petitioners
averments contained in his Verified Answer and Memorandum, neither were new matters raised that would sufficiently warrant a reversal of the assailed
resolution of the Second Division.
The SC ruled however that the mere reiteration in a motion for reconsideration of the issues raised by the parties and passed upon by the court does not
make a motion pro-forma; otherwise, the movants remedy would not be a reconsideration of the decision but a new trial or some other remedy.
In explaining the purpose/objective of a motion for reconsideration , the SC referred to its decision in Guerra Enterprises Company Inc., v. CFI of Lanao
del Sur 32 SCRA 314 (1970), where it held that the ends sought to be achieved in the filing of a motion for reconsideration is precisely to convince the
court that its ruling is erroneous and improper, contrary to the law or the evidence, and in doing so, the movant has to dwell of necessity upon the issues
passed upon by the court. If a motion for reconsideration may not discuss these issues, the consequence would be that after a decision is rendered, the
losing party would be confined to filing only motions for reopening and new trial.
The SC further enumerated cases where a motion for reconsideration was held to be pro forma: (SMSFFSMADN)
it was a second motion for reconsideration;
it did not comply with the rule that the motion must specify the findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not supported by the
evidence;
it failed to substantiate the alleged errors;
it merely alleged that the decision in question was contrary to law
or the adverse party was not given due notice thereof.
Under Rule 13, (1) of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, a Motion for Reconsideration of an En Banc Resolution is a prohibited pleading, except
in election offense cases (Sec. 261 of the OEC).

CASE:
Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides in pertinent parts:
Sec. 2. Period for Filing Motions for Reconsideration. A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling of a Division shall be filed
within five days from the promulgation thereof. Such motion, if not pro-forma, suspends the execution for implementation of the decision,
resolution, order, or ruling.
Sec. 4. Effect of Motion for Reconsideration on Period to Appeal. A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling, when not proforma, suspends the running of the period to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.
The five-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration under Rule 19, Sec. 2 should be counted from the receipt of the decision, resolution,
order, or ruling of the COMELEC Division. In this case, petitioner received a copy of the resolution of July 19, 2001 of the COMELECs Second
Division on July 28, 2001. Five days later, on August 2, 2001, he filed his motion for reconsideration. On February 6, 2002, he received a copy of
the order, dated January 30, 2002, of the COMELEC en banc denying his motion for reconsideration. Five days later, on February 11, 2002, he
filed this petition for certiorari. There is no question, therefore, that petitioners motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the COMELEC
Second Division, as well as his petition for certiorari to set aside of the order of the COMELEC en banc, was filed within the period provided for in
Rule 19, Sec. 2 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and in Art. IX(A), Sec. 7 of the Constitution.
On the contention that said motion was pro-forma, the Court held that the motion for reconsideration was not pro forma and its filing did suspend
the period for filing the petition for certiorari in this case. The mere reiteration in a motion for reconsideration of the issues raised by the parties and
passed upon by the court does not make a motion pro forma; otherwise, the movants remedy would not be a reconsideration of the decision but a
new trial or some other remedy.
In the cases where a motion for reconsideration was held to be pro forma, the motion was so held because (1) it was a second motion for
reconsideration, or (2) it did not comply with the rule that the motion must specify the findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not
supported by the evidence, or (3) it failed to substantiate the alleged errors, or (4) it merely alleged that the decision in question was contrary to
law, or (5) the adverse party was not given notice thereof. The 16-page motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner in the COMELEC en banc
suffers from none of the foregoing defects, and it was error for the COMELEC en banc to rule that petitioners motion for reconsideration was pro
forma because the allegations raised therein are a mere "rehash" of his earlier pleadings or did not raise "new matters." Hence, the filing of the
motion suspended the running of the 30-day period to file the petition in this case, which, as earlier shown, was done within the reglementary
period provided by law.
Additionally, COMELEC still has jurisdiction over the case even if Coquilla was successfully elected. According to RA 6646, the rule is that
candidates who are disqualified by final judgment before the election shall not be voted for and the votes cast for them shall not be counted. But
those against whom no final judgment of disqualification had been rendered may be voted for and proclaimed, unless, on motion of the
complainant, the COMELEC suspends their proclamation because the grounds for their disqualification or cancellation of their certificates of
candidacy were strong.
Meanwhile, the proceedings for disqualification of candidates or for the cancellation or denial of certificates of candidacy, which have been begun
before the elections, should continue even after such elections and proclamation of the winners.
The SC however found that the cancellation of Coquillas COC by the 2nd Div was justified since he misrepresented a material fact on his COC.
14. Know the codes for the dockets of cases (EPC, EAC, SPA, etc)
CRP: Sec. 4. Rule 7:
Docket and Assignment of Numbers. - Upon the Filing of a protest or petition, the Clerk of Court of the Commission concerned shall docket the same
and assign to it a docket number. The numbering must be consecutive according to the date it is filed, must bear the year, and prefixed as follows:
(a) EPC - for Ordinary Actions
(b) EAC - for Appealed Cases
(c) SPA - for Special Actions
(d) SPC - for Special Cases
(e) SPR - for Special Reliefs
(f) SPP - for Special Proceedings
(g) EO - for Election Offenses
15. Original and Appellate jurisdiction of comelec. Sec 2(2) Art 9 (SAME QUESTION WITH NUMBER 10) (Mendoza parin ang case)
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city
officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective
barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and
not appealable.
16. Procedure in Faelnar vs PP (How Comelec conducts prosecutorial powers, or PI)
PROSECUTION OF ELECTION CASES
Article IX-C Section 2(6) of the Constitution vests in the Comelec the power and function to investigate and where appropriate, prosecute cases of
violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses and malpractices. This prosecutorial power of the Comelec
is reflected in Section 265 of BP 881. It is well settled that the finding of probable cause in the prosecution of election offenses rests in the Comelecs
sound discretion.
Faelnar v. People 331 SCRA 429, (a) where the State Prosecutor, or Provincial or City Prosecutor exercises the power to conduct preliminary

investigation of election offense cases and after the investigation submits its recommendation to the Comelec, the issue of probable cause is already
resolved. The proper remedy to question the said resolution is to file an appeal with the COMELEC and the ruling of the Comelec on the appeal
would be immediately final and executory.
(b) If the preliminary investigation of the complaint for an election offence is conducted by the Comelec, the investigation officer prepares its
recommendation to the Law Department which department in turn makes its recommendation to the Comelec en banc on whether there is probable
cause to prosecute. It is the Comelec en banc which determines the existence of probable cause. The proper remedy of the aggrieved party is to
file a Motion for Reconsideration of such resolution. This effectively allows for a review of the original resolution, in the same manner that the Comelec
on appeal, or motu propio, may review the resolution of the State prosecutor, or Provincial or city fiscal. (Take note that since this is an election offense a
Motion for Reconsideration of an En Banc resolution is allowed.)
Held:
1. The first resolution of COMELEC (dismissing the case against Faelnar) was not final and may be subject to a Motion for Reconsideration.
Rule 13, Section 1(d) of the 1988 COMELEC Rules of Procedure provide for an exception in what pleadings are not allowed:
o motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or decision, except in election offense cases
An MR of a ruling, resolution or decision of the COMELEC en banc is allowed in cases involving election offenses. There is no question that what is
involved in this case is a resolution in an election offense. Therefore, an MR is allowed under the Rules.
Faelnar, likewise, invokes Rule 34, Section 10 of the same Rules which states that:
SEC. 10. Appeals from the Action of the State Prosecutor, Provincial or City Fiscal. Appeals from the resolution of the State Prosecutor, or Provincial
or City Fiscal on the recommendation or resolution of investigating officers may be made only to the Commission within ten (10) days from receipt of
the resolution of said officials, provided, however that this shall not divest the Commission of its power to motu proprio review, revise, modify or
reverse the resolution of the chief state prosecutor and/or provincial/city prosecutors. The decision of the Commission on said appeals shall be
immediately executory and final. (Emphasis added)
However, this section does not apply to investigations conducted by COMELEC, but to the resolutions of the State Prosecutor, or Provincial or City
Fiscal, who has the delegated power to conduct preliminary investigation of election offense cases. But if COMELEC conducts the investigation
through its own investigating officer, the section does not apply.
2. However, even if it was final, Faelnars motion to quash was not the proper remedy as it was an attempt to circumvent a final resolution of the
COMELEC. The proper remedy would have been a petition for certiorari under Rule 64, which must be filed within 30 days from notice of judgment.
In this case, Faelnar filed his motion to quash more than a year after.
17. How are complaints initiated? Herman Tiu Laurel case
Herman Tiu Laurel vs. RTC Judge of Manila Br. 10 and Comelec, the SC upheld the power of Comelec to prosecute cases of violations of election
laws and further explained that there are two (2) ways through which a complaint for election offenses may be initiated.
(1) it may be filed by the Comelec motu propio or
(2) it may be filed via written complaint by any citizen of the Philippines, candidate, registered political party, coalition of political parties or organizations
under the party-list system or any accredited citizen arms of the commission.
Motu propio complaints may be signed by the Chairman of the Comelec and need not be verified. But those complaints filed by parties other than the
Comelec must be verified and supported by affidavits and other evidence.
The complaint shall be filed with the Comelec Law Department or with the offices of the EO, PES or RED, or the State Prosecutors, provincial or city
prosecutors. Whether initiated motu propio or filed with the Comelec by any party, the complaint shall be referred to the Comelec Law Department for
investigation. Upon the direction of the Chairman, the PI may be delegated to any lawyer of the Department, any RED or PES, or any Comelec lawyer.
CASE:
1. It was error for the Court of Appeals to hold there was no flaw in the procedure followed by the COMELEC in the conduct of the preliminary
investigation.
There are two ways through which a complaint for election offenses may be initiated. It may be filed by the COMELEC motu proprio, or it may be filed
via written complaint by any citizen of the Philippines, candidate, registered political party, coalition of political parties or organizations under the
partylist system or any accredited citizens arms of the Commission.
- Motu proprio complaints may be signed by the Chairman of the COMELEC and need not be verified.
On the other hand, complaints filed by parties other than the COMELEC must be verified and supported by affidavits and other evidence. The
complaint in question in this case is one filed by Pardo in his personal capacity and not as chairman of the COMELEC. There is nothing in the rules
that require that only the COMELEC en banc may refer a complaint to the Law Department for investigation. There is no rule against the COMELEC
chairman directing the conduct of a preliminary investigation, even if he himself were the complainant in his private capacity.
2. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner's protestations on COMELEC's having acted as complainant, investigator, prosecutor, judge
and executioner in the conduct of the preliminary investigation ring hollow.
-No. the records show that there is basis to at least find probable cause to indict the petitioner for violation of the Omnibus Election Code and it
appears from the records that Chairman Pardo had no other participation in the proceedings which led to the filing of the Information.
-The entire COMELEC cannot possibly be restrained from investigating the complaint filed against petitioner, as the latter would like the courts to do.
The COMELEC is mandated by no less than the Constitution to investigate and prosecute, when necessary, violations of election laws. This power is

lodged exclusively with the COMELEC. For the entire Commission to inhibit itself from investigating the complaint against petitioner would be nothing
short of an abandonment of its mandate under the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code
18. How do you remove a Comelec official? impeachment ONLY
They can only be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, other high crimes, or
graft and corruption
19. What is the procedure when cases are brought under orig juris? Appellate juris? Mendoza Doctrine
Mendoza v. Comelec 616 SCRA 443 There is a difference in the result of the exercise of jurisdiction by the Comelec over election contests. The
difference inheres in the kind of jurisdiction invoked, which in turn, is determined by the case brought before the Comelec. When a decision of a trial
court is brought before the Comelec for it to exercise appellate jurisdiction, the division decides the appeal but, if there is a motion for reconsideration,
the appeal proceeds to the banc where the majority is needed for a decision. If the process ends without the required majority at the banc, the appealed
decision stands affirmed.
Upon the other hand, and this is what happened in the instant case, if what is brought before the Comelec is an original protest involving the original
jurisdiction of the Commission, the protest, as one whole process, is first decided by the division, which process is continued in the banc if there is a
motion for reconsideration of the division ruling. If no majority decision is reach in the banc, the protest, which is an original, shall be dismissed. There is
no first instance decision that can be deemed affirmed.
Hence, if no decision is reached after the case is reheard, there are two different remedies available to the Comelec, to wit (1) dismiss the action or
proceeding, if the case was originally commenced in the Comelec; or (2) consider as affirmed the judgment or order appealed from, in appealed cases.
This rule adheres to the constitutional provision that the Comelec must decide by a majority of all its members.
---------------------Sec. 6. Procedure if Opinion is Equally Divided. - When the Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had,
the case shall be reheard, and if on rehearing no decision is reached, the action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the
Commission; in appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and in all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be
denied.
20. Failure of Election Sec 5, 6, and 7 of CRP.
Canicosa vs COMELEC 3 instances where a failure of Elec may be declared; plus 2 more conditions that must further concur to declare a failure of
elections (page 15)
Rule 26 - Postponement or Suspension of Elections
Section 1. Postponement of Election. - When for any serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election paraphernalia
or records, force majeure, and other analogous causes of such nature that the holding of a free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
election should become impossible in any political subdivision, the Commission, motu proprio, or upon a verified petition by any interested
party, and after due notice and hearing whereby all interested parties are afforded equal opportunity to be heard, may postpone the election
therein to a date which should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended, or which resulted in a failure of election,
but not later than thirty (30) days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Sec. 2. Failure of Election. - If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes the election in any precinct
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 after the voting and
during the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody of canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to
elect, and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis
of a verified petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted
in a failure to elect but not later than thirty (30) days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of the election or
failure to elect.
Clearly, there are only three (3) instances where a failure of election may be declared, namely:
(a) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
causes;
(b) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or
(c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a
failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes.
Based on the foregoing provisions, two (2) conditions must concur to declare a failure of elections

no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date fixed by law or, even if there was voting the election nevertheless resulted in
a failure to elect and
the votes not cast would affect the results of the elections (Carlos. V. Angeles)

None of the grounds invoked by Canicosa falls under any of those enumerated.
Canicosa bewails that the names of the registered voters in the various precincts did not appear in their respective lists of voters. But this is not a ground
to declare a failure of election. The filing of a petition for declaration of failure of election therefore is not the proper remedy.
Fifteen (15) days before the regular elections on 8 May 1995 the final list of voters was posted in each precinct pursuant to Sec. 148 of RA No. 7166.

Based on the lists thus posted Canicosa could have filed a petition for inclusion of registered voters with the regular courts. The question of inclusion or
exclusion from the list of voters involves the right to vote which is not within the power and authority of COMELEC to rule upon. The determination of
whether one has the right to vote is a justiciable issue properly cognizable by our regular courts.
On the other hand, Canicosa could have also filed with the COMELEC a verified complaint seeking the annulment of the book of voters pursuant to Sec.
10, of RA No. 7166.
Canicosa also avers that more than one-half (1/2) of the legitimate registered voters were not able to vote, instead, strangers voted in their behalf. Again,
this is not a ground which warrants a declaration of failure of election. Canicosa was allowed to appoint a watcher in every precinct. The watcher is
empowered by law to challenge any illegal voter. In fine, the grounds cited by Canicosa in his petition do not fall under any of the instances enumerated
in Sec. 6 of the Omnibus Election Code.
ALSO:
Canicosa v. Comelec 282 SCRA 512, Canicosa filed with the Comelec a Petition to declare failure of elections and to declare null and void the canvass
and proclamation based on the following grounds (names of the RV did not appear on the list, padlocks were not self locking among other) which was
dismissed by the Comelec en banc on the ground that the allegations therein did not justify the declaration of failure of elections.
Canicosa insists that itswas error on the part of Comelec sitting en banc to rule on his petition as it should have first been heard by a division. The SC
held that the matter relating to the declaration of failure of elections or the allegations raised by Canicosa did not involve an exercise of QJ or
adjudicatory functions. It involves an administrative function which pertains to the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of elections.

Sanchez decided by COMELEC EN BANC by a majority of votes of its members;

Loong no reglementary period to file a petition for annulment of elections if there is no proclamation yet.
Pena vs HRET power should be exercised with greatest care as it involves the free and fair expression of the popular will. Petitioner must be able to
show proof that:
a.
b.

The illegality has affected more than 50% of the votes cast; and
The good votes cannot be distinguished from the bad votes.

Pasandalan it is an extraordinary remedy; petition must specifically allege the essential grounds that would justify the same. Comelec not mandated to
conduct a technical examination before dismissing the petition when the same is ON ITS FACE without merit.
Basher exception: even if there was proclamation, COMELEC can annul an election if it finds that election is attended with a patent and massive
irregularities and illegalities.
Ampatuan TAKE NOTE OF THIS CASE the fact that candidate proclaimed has assumed office does not deprive the COMELEC of its authority to
annul any canvass and illegal proclamation.
Lucero vs COMELEC and POLALA SAMBARANI vs COMELEC in fixing the date of the special elections, the comelec should ascertain that:
1.)
2.)

it should not be later than 30 days after cessation of the cause of the postponement or suspension or failure to elect;
should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or resulted in failure to elect. (#2 is not absolute as stated in
sambarani vs comelec; merely directory since comelec possess RESIDUAL powers to conduct special elections even beyond the deadline
prescribed by law. The deadline cannot defeat the right of suffrage of the people as guaranteed by the Constitution.)

All contests relating to the

elections, returns and qualification
of all elective regional, provincial,
and city officials
Petition for disqualification filed
before the election, quo warranto
and election protest involving
barangay election officials
Petitions for disqualification of
municipal, provincial, city,
congressional, senatorial, vice
residential and presidential officials
........ filed before the election
....... filed after the election

Original jurisdiction
COMELEC in division

MTC

COMELEC
COMELEC has no
jurisdiction and shall
dismiss the petition

Motion for Reconsideration

COMELEC en banc

Appellate jurisdiction
Supreme Court
(certiorari under Rules 64 and
65 of the Rules of Court)
COMELEC