Defensor-Santiago vs.

Ramos
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-
President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. (Sec. 4, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)

Facts: 

After Fidel Ramos was declared President, defeated candidate Miriam Defensor-Santiago

filed an election protest with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). Subsequently, while
the case is pending, she ran for the office of Senator and, having been declared elected,
assumed office as Senator.

Issue:

Was Santiago's election protest deemed abandoned with her election and assumption of
office as Senator?

Held:

Yes. In assuming the office of Senator then, the Protestant has effectively abandoned or

withdrawn this protest, or at the very least, abandoned her determination to protect and
pursue the public interest involved in the matter of who is the real choice of the  electorate.
Such abandonment or withdrawal operates to render moot the instant protest. Moreover,
the dismissal of this protest would serve public interest as it would dissipate the aura of
uncertainty as to the results of the 1992 presidential election, thereby enhancing the all-
to crucial political stability of the nation during this period of national recovery. It must also
be stressed that under the Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, an election protest
may be summarily dismissed, regardless of the public policy and public
interest implications thereof, on the following grounds: (1) The petition is insufficient in
form and substance; (2) The petition is filed beyond the periods provided in Rules 14 and 15
hereof; (3) The filing fee is not paid within the periods provided for in these Rules; (4) The
cash deposit, or the first P 100,000.00 thereof, is not paid within 10 days after the filing of
the protest; and (5) The petition or copies thereof and the annexes thereto filed with the
Tribunal are not clearly legible. Other grounds for a motion to dismiss, e.g., those provided
in the Rules of Court which apply in a suppletory character, may likewise be pleaded as
affirmative defenses in the answer. After which, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, hold a
preliminary hearing on such grounds. In sum, if an election be dismissed on technical
grounds, then it must be, for a decidedly stronger reason, if it has become moot due to its
abandonment by the Protestant. (Defensor-Santiago vs. Ramos, P.E.T. Case No. 001.
February 13, 1996)

Brillantes vs. COMELEC (2004)

GR 163193 • June 15, 2004
Constitutional Law | Executive Department | Canvassing of Votes for President and Vice-
President | Art. VII, Sec. 4
COMELEC may not conduct an unofficial advanced tabulation of the votes for President and
Vice-President because Congress has the sole and exclusive authority to canvass the votes for
the election of President and VicePresident.
FACTS:
Pursuant to RA 8436,* respondent COMELEC adopted an Automated Election System (AES)
modernization program for the 2004 elections consisting of 3 phases.** Phases I and II failed,
but COMELEC nevertheless pursued Phase III through advanced electronic transmission of
“unofficial” results of the 2004 elections for provincial, municipal and also national positions
including that of the President and Vice-President (a.k.a the “unofficial quick count” project).
COMELEC issued Res. No. 6712 for the purpose.*** Petitioners assail the constitutionality of
Res. No. 6712 for, among others, effectively pre-empting the sole and exclusive authority of
Congress under Art VII, Sec 4 of the Constitution to canvass the votes for President and Vice-
President. COMELEC argues that its advanced quick count of the votes for the President and
Vice-President is not prohibited by the Constitution because it is “unofficial”.
ISSUE:
Does Res. No. 6712 violate Art VII, Sec 4?
RULING:
Yes. Res. No. 6712 usurps, under the guise of an “unofficial” tabulation of election results based
on a copy of the election returns, the sole and exclusive authority of Congress to canvass the
votes for the election of President and Vice-President. COMELEC’s above-stated argument is
puerile and totally unacceptable. If the COMELEC is proscribed from conducting an official
canvass of the votes cast for the President and Vice-President, the COMELEC is, with more
reason, prohibited from making an “unofficial” canvass of said votes.
* RA 8436 authorized COMELEC to use AES for the process of voting, counting of votes and
canvassing/consolidating the results of the national and local elections.
** The AES modernization program: Phase I. Computerized system of registration and voters
validation Phase II. Computerized voting and counting of votes Phase III. Electronic transmission
of results. N.B. Phase III was functionally intended to be an interface of Phases I and II.
*** Res. No. 6712 instructed that the votes for the President and Vice-President, among others,
shall be encoded (based on the copies for the election returns intended for COMELEC) in
Electronic Transmission Centers (ETCs) to be located in every city and municipality. The ETCs
shall then transmit the data to a National Consolidation Center. The consolidated and per-
precinct results shall then be made available via the Internet, text messaging, and electronic
billboards in designated locations.
Lopez v. Senate of the PhilippinesG.R.No. 163556June 8, 2004
FACTS:
●Ruy Elias Lopez, Representative of the 3rdLegislative District of Davao City, filed a
petition for prohibition and mandamus to ask the Court to declare unconstitutional the
Canvassing Rules, which was approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives in a
joint session.
●Lopez argued that the power and authority to open all certificates of canvass of votes for
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates are solely and exclusively vested by the
Constitution upon the Senate President. While, the power and authority to determine the
authenticity and due execution of all certificates of canvass and to canvass the votes
cast for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates are solely and exclusively vested by the
Constitution upon the Congress as one whole body.
●He alleged that the Canvassing Rules are unconstitutional because:○It constitutes a
delegation of legislative power to a Joint Committee of Congress;○It constitutes an
amendment of Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution;○It deprives him of his rights and
prerogatives as a Member of Congress; and○By the passage of the Canvassing Rules,
Congress has neglected to perform an act which the Constitution specifically enjoins as a
duty resulting from office.
●The OSG, the Senate and the House of Representatives similarly argued that the
adoption of the Canvassing Rules is beyond the scope of judicial inquiry as it is an internal
matter of Congress. They also argued that there hasbeen no invalid delegation to the Joint
Committee of the duties of Congress.
ISSUES and RULING:
1)Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Yes, the SC has jurisdiction
over the subject matter because the petition contains sufficient allegations claiming
violations of the Constitution. However, the SC dismissed the petition on the ground
that it failed to show that Congress gravely abused its discretion in creating the Joint
Committee.
2)Whether the Canvassing Rules is unconstitutional.No, Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution
expressly empowers Congress to promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.
3)Whether the creation of the Joint Committee constituted an invalid delegation of
the constitutional duties of Congress.No, the decisions and final report of the Joint
Committee are still subject to the approval of the joint session of both Houses of Congress,
voting separately.
Separate Opinions:
1)The Court has jurisdiction over the issue raised based on Art. VIII, Sec. 1 of the Constitution,
which provides that judicial power includes the duty to determine whether or not there has
been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the government. It falls within the judicial power to determine
for itself whether the legality and the limits of the exercise of a power have been
observed and respected. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter because the
issue raised by Lopez calls for the proper interpretation of Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution.
2)The authority of Congress to adopt its own rules of procedure is a right that has
been recognized to apply regardless of whether Congress is exercising its legislative power
or its other duties, suchas in this case when it acts as the National Board of Canvassers.
Congress remains the body exercising its canvassing duties and delegating preliminary
determinations to expedite proceedings. Where the rules of Congress have thus been
passed within the limits of constitutional and legal boundaries, everything else remains
internal and procedural.The Canvassing Rules did not violate Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the
Constitution. The Constitution grants Congress the power to promulgate its own rules for
the canvassing of election certificates. The Rules enjoy the presumption of legality and
Lopez has miserably failed to overcome such presumption.
3)The creation of the Joint Committee did not constitute an undue delegation of legislative
power. As a canvassing board, Congress exercises no legislative power and therefore did not
delegate any.
The principle of potestas delegate non delegari potest (a delegated power cannot again be
delegated) does not apply in this case insofar as no other branch of government has been
tasked with the duties of Congress as a National Board of Canvassers. There has been no
delegation or abdication of any Constitutional authority, even within Congress itself. Since
the Canvassing Rules subjects the acts of the Joint Committee to the affirmation of
Congress, the Committee’s report is preliminary and recommendatory in nature. The Rules
leaves to both Houses, as an entire body, the final act of determining the authenticity
and due execution of the certificates of canvass, and the proclamation of the President-
elect and the Vice-President-elect.There is no deprivation of the rights and prerogatives of
the Members of Congress. The fact that the findings of the Committee are subject to a
final act of Congress, then, by casting his vote anddeclaring his approval or
disapproval of the final report, Lopez exercises his prerogatives as a Member of Congress.
CASE DIGEST: Atty. Evillo C. Pormento v. Joseph "Erap"
Estrada and Commission on Elections.

FACTS: Atty. Pormento filed a petition for disqualification against

former President Joseph Estrada for being a presidential candidate in
the May 2010 elections. The petition was denied by COMELEC second
division and subsequently by COMELEC en banc.

ISSUE: Is Joseph Estrada disqualified to run for presidency in the May

2010 elections according to the phrase in the Constitution which states:
"[t]he President shall not be eligible for any reelection"?

HELD: There is no actual controversy in the case at bar. The respondent

did not win the second time he ran. The issue on the proper
interpretation of the phrase "any reelection" will be premised on a
person second election asPresident.

Assuming an actual case or controversy existed prior to the proclamation

of a President who has been duly elected in the May 10, 2010 elections,
the same is no longer true today. Following the results of that elections,
private respondent was not elected President for the second time. Thus,
any discussion of his "reelection" will simply be hypothetical and
speculative. It will serve no useful or practical purpose.