election of public official revised

ELECTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS

PUBLIC OFFICIALS

HOW ELECTED DATE OF ELECTION

TERM OF OFFICE LIMITATIONS

PRESIDENT shall be elected by direct vote of the people…

2nd Monday of May every 6 years

6 years which shall officially commence “at noon on the 30th day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter

The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than 4 years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.

VICE - PRESIDENT

shall be elected by direct vote of the people…


6 years which shall officially commence “at noon on the 30th day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter

No Vice-President shall serve for more than 2 successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.

SENATORS elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law


6 years and shall commence unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the 30th day of June next following their election

No senator shall serve for more than 2 consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term of which he was elected

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law


term of 3 years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the 30th day of June next following their election.

No senator shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term of which he was elected.

LOCAL OFFICIALS

The governor, vice governor, city mayor, city vice – mayor, municipal mayor,

every 3 years on the 2nd Monday of May

3 years starting from noon of June 30, or such date as may be provided for by law, except that of elective barangay officials

No local elective official shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not

of 29

municipal vice – mayor, and punong barangay shall be elected at large in their respective units by the qualified voters therein.

be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term of which he was elected.

SANGGUNIANG KABATAAN

shall be elected by the registered voters of the katipunan ng kabataan as provided by the LGC

Disqualifications

THE FOLLOWING ARE DISQUALIFIED FROM RUNNIG FOR ANY ELECTIVE LOCAL POSITION

1. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by 1 year or more of imprisonment, within 2 years after serving sentence;

2. Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;

3. Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic;

4. Those with dual citizenship;

5. Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad;

6. Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of the LGC; and

7. The insane or feeble-minded.

Procedure for Canvassing of votes for President and Vice-President

1. Transmission of returns – the certificate of canvass for President and Vice-President duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city shall be electronically transmitted to the Congress, directed to the president of the senate.

2. Opening of certificates of canvass – upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session.

of 29

3. Canvass of the votes by Congress – upon determination of the authenticity and the due execution of the COCs in the manner provided by law, the Congress shall canvass all the results for president and vice president.

4. Proclamation – the person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected

5. In case of tie – in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by a vote of a majority of all the members of Congress.

Supreme Court as presidential electoral tribunal

“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.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members unless otherwise provided by law, consisting of:

a. District Representatives – not less than 200 members elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area.

b. Party – list Representatives – shall constitute 20% of the total number of representatives elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations.

QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES

PUBLIC OFFICIALS

CITIZENSHIP AGE REQUIREMENT

LITERACY REQUIREMENT

REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT

RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT

President and Vice – President

Natural born citizen;

At least 40 years old on the day of the election;

Able to read and write;

Registered voter

Resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding the day of the election

Senator Natural born citizen;

At least 35 years old on the day of the election;

Able to read and write;

Registered voter

Resident of the Philippines for at least 2 years immediately preceding the day of the election

Governor, Vice – Governor, Mayor, Vice

Citizen of the Philippines;

On election day, age must at least be:i. 23 years

Able to read and write Filipino or any other local

Registered voter in the barangay, municipality,

Resident therein for at least 1 year immediately preceding the

of 29

– Mayor, Punong Barangay, and Sanggunian Members

– governor, vice – governor, member of the SG panlalawigan, mayor, vice mayor, or member of the SG panlusgsod of HUCii. 21 years – mayor or vice mayor of ICC, CC or municipalities;iii. 18 years – member if the SG panlungsod or SG bayan, or punong barangay or member if the SG barangay 15 but not more than 18 years -SK

language or dialect;

city or province, or in the case of a member of the SG panlalawigan, panlungsod or bayan, the district where he intends to be elected;

election;

RULES OF SUCCESSION

IF the vacancy occurs BEFORE the beginning of the term of the President

death or permanent disability, of the president – elect

failure to elect the president (i.e. presidential election has not been held or non – completion of the canvass of the presidential elections)

no President and Vice – President shall have been chosen and qualified, or where both shall have died or become permanently disabled

EFFECT the Vice – President elect shall become the President.

the Vice – President shall act as the President until the president shall have been chosen and qualified

the Senate President, or in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as President until a President or a Vice President shall have been chosen and qualified. Congress shall by law provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected until a President or a Vice – President shall

of 29

have qualified, in case of death, permanent disability or inability of the officials mentioned herein.

If the vacancy occurs DURING the incumbency of the President

death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President

death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President, the Vice President, the Senate President, or in case of his inability

EFFECT Vice President shall become President to serve the unexpired term

the Speaker of the House shall act as President until a President or a Vice – President shall have been elected and qualified.

If there is presidential inability to discharge the powers and duties of the President

1. When the President transmits to the Senate President and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the powers and duties of his office, the powers and duties of the office shall be discharged by the Vice – President as Acting President.

2. When a majority of all the members of the Cabinet transmit to the Senate President and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

VACANCIES AND SUCCESSION

Section 44: Permanent vacancies in the office of the governor, vice - governor, mayor and vice- mayor

A permanent vacancy arises when an elective local official;

1. Fills a higher vacant office.

2. Refuses to assume office.

3. Fails to qualify.

4. Dies.

5. Removed from office.

6. Voluntarily resigns.

7. Permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office.

of 29

If Permanent vacancy occurs in the following;

1. Office of the Governor or Mayor - the vice-governor or the vice-mayor concerned shall be become the governor or mayor.

2. Office of the Governor, Vice-Governor , Mayor and Vice-Mayor - the highest ranking sanggunian member, in case of inability, the second highest ranking sanggunian member shall become the governor, vice-governor, mayor or vice-mayor as the case may be.

3. Punong Barangay - the highest ranking sanggunian member or in case of his permanent inability the second highest sanggunian member will become the punong barangay.

In case a tie between or among the highest ranking sanggunian member shall be resolved by the drawing of lots,and the successors shall served only for the unexpired terms of their predecessors.

SECTION 45 :Permanent Vacancies in the Sanggunian.

(a) Permanent vacancies in the sanggunian where automatic successions provided above do not apply shall be filled by appointment in the following manner:

(1) The President, through the Executive Secretary, in the case of the sangguniangpanlalawigan and the sangguniangpanlungsod of highly urbanized cities and independent component cities;

(2) The governor, in the case of the sangguniangpanlungsod of component cities and the sangguniangbayan;

(3) The city or municipal mayor, in the case of sangguniang barangay, upon recommendation of the sangguniang barangay concerned.

(b) Except for the sangguniang barangay, only the nominee of the political party under which the sanggunian member concerned had been elected and whose elevation to the position next higher in rank created the last vacancy in the sanggunian shall be appointed in the manner hereinabove provided.

The appointee shall come from the same political party as that of the sanggunian member who caused the vacancy and shall serve the unexpired term of the vacant office. In the appointment herein mentioned, a nomination and a certificate of membership of the appointee from the highest official of the political party concerned are conditions sine qua non, and any appointment without such nomination and certification shall be null and void ab initio and shall be a ground for administrative action against the official responsible therefore.

(c) In case or permanent vacancy is caused by a sanggunian member who does not belong to any political party, the local chief executive shall, upon recommendation of the sanggunian concerned, appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy.

(d) In case of vacancy in the representation of the youth and the barangay in the sanggunian, said vacancy shall be filled automatically by the official next in rank of the organization concerned.

of 29

SECTION 46.Temporary Vacancy in the Office of the Local Chief Executive.

(a) When the governor, city or municipal mayor, or punong barangay is temporarily incapacitated to perform his duties for physical or legal reasons such as;

1. Leave of absence2. Travel abroad3. Suspension from office

The vice-governor, city or municipal vice-mayor, or the highest ranking sangguniang barangay member shall automatically exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the local chief executive concerned.

EXCEPTION:It can only be exercised if the period of temporary incapacity exceeds thirty (30) working days.

A.The power to appointB.SuspendC. Dismiss employees

The temporary incapacity shall terminate upon submission to the appropriate sanggunian of a written declaration by the local chief executive concerned that he has reported back to office. In cases where the temporary incapacity is due to legal causes, the local chief executive concerned shall also submit necessary documents showing that said legal causes no longer exist.

When the incumbent local chief executive is traveling within the country but outside his territorial jurisdiction for a period not exceeding three (3) consecutive days;

He may designate in writing the officer-in-charge of the said office. Such authorization shall specify the powers and functions that the local official concerned shall exercise in the absence of the local chief executive except the power to appoint, suspend, or dismiss employees.

In the event, however, that the local chief executive concerned fails or refuses to issue such authorization, the vice-governor, the city or municipal vice-mayor, or the highest ranking sangguniang barangay member, as the case may be, shall have the right to assume the powers, duties, and functions of the said office on the fourth (4th) day of absence of the said local chief executive, subject to the limitations.

The local chief executive shall in no case authorize any local official to assume the powers, duties, and functions of the office, other than the vice-governor, the city or municipal vice-mayor, or the highest ranking sangguniang barangay member, as the case may be.

ELECTIONS FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS IN COMPONENT AND HIGHLY URBANIZED CITIES

Sec. 30. Component and highly urbanized cities

of 29

Unless their respective charters provide otherwise, the electorate of component cities shall be entitled to vote in the election for provincial officials of the province of which it is a part.The electorate of highly urbanized cities shall not vote in the election for provincial officials of the province in which it is located: Provided, however, that no component city shall be declared or be entitled to a highly urbanized city status within ninety days prior to any election.

ELECTION FOR MEMBERS OF THE REGIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE ARMM

Sec. 33. Election of members of SangguniangPampook. The candidates for the position of seventeen representatives to the Sangguniang Pampook of Region IX and of Region XII shall be voted at large by the registered voters of each province including the cities concerned.The candidates corresponding to the number of member or members to be elected in a constituency who receive the highest number of votes shall be declared elected.

Sec. 36. Term of office.The present members of the Sangguniang Pampook of each of Region IX and Region XII shall continue in office until June 30, 1986 or until their successors shall have been elected and qualified or appointed and qualified in the case of sectoral members. They may not be removed or replaced except in accordance with the internal rules of said assembly or provisions of pertinent laws.

The election of members of the Sangguniang Pampook of the two regions shall be held simultaneously with the local elections of 1986. Those elected in said elections shall have a term of four years starting June 30, 1986.

Those elected in the election of 1990 to be held simultaneously with the elections of Members of the Batasang Pambansa shall have a term of six years.

ELECTION FOR PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVESREPUBLIC ACT No. 7941

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR

The party-list system is a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Component parties or organizations of a coalition may participate independently provided the coalition of which they form part does not participate in the party-list system.

Section 5. Registration

Any organized group of persons may register as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as a national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations, attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information as the COMELEC may require.

of 29

Provided, That the sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.

The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

The COMELEC shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition within fifteen (15) days from the date it was submitted for decision but in no case not later than sixty (60) days before election.

Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration.

The COMELEC may, motupropio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:

(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association, organized for religious purposes;

(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;

(3) It is a foreign party or organization;

(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes;

(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;

(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or

(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.

Section 7. Certified List of Registered Parties.

The COMELEC shall, not later than sixty (60) days before election, prepare a certified list of national, regional, or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions which have applied or who have manifested their desire to participate under the party-list system and distribute copies thereof to all precincts for posting in the polling places on election day. The names of the part y-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list.

Section 8. Nomination of Party-List Representatives.

of 29

Each registered party, organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not later than forty-five (45) days before the election a list of names, not less than five (5), from which party-list representatives shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes.

A person may be nominated in one (1) list only. Only persons who have given their consent in writing may be named in the list. The list shall not include any candidate for any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the immediately preceding election. No change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where the nominee dies, or withdraws in writing his nomination, becomes incapacitated in which case the name of the substitute nominee shall be placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered resigned.

Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees.

No person shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a;

(1) Natural-born citizen of the Philippines,

(2) Registered voter

(3) Resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1)year immediately preceding the day of the election

(4) Able to read and write

(5) Bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election

(6) At least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.

In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term.

Section 10. Manner of Voting.

Every voter shall be entitled to two (2) votes.The first is a vote for candidate for member of the House of Representatives in his legislative district.

The second, a vote for the party, organizations, or coalition he wants represented in the House of Representatives.

Provided, that a vote cast for a party, sectoral organization, or coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted: Provided, finally, that the first election under the party-list system shall be held in May 1998. The COMELEC shall undertake the necessary information campaign for purposes of educating the electorate on the matter of the party-list system.Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives.

of 29

The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the total number of the members of the House of Representatives including those under the party-list.For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list system.

In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the following procedure shall be observed:

(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.

(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each: Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes : Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.

Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List Representatives.

The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them according to the number of votes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization, or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list system.

Section 13. How Party-List Representatives are Chosen.

Party-list representatives shall be proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the list of names submitted by the respective parties, organizations, or coalitions to the COMELEC according to their ranking in said list.

Section 14. Term of Office.

Party-list representatives shall be elected for a term of three (3) years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No party-list representatives shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity his service for the full term for which he was elected.

Section 15. Change of Affiliation; Effect.

Any elected party-list representative who changes his political party or sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat: Provided, that if he changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within six (6) months before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list representative under his new party or organization.

Section 16. Vacancy.

of 29

In case of vacancy in the seats reserved for party-list representatives, the vacancy shall be automatically filled by the next representative from the list of nominees in the order submitted to the COMELEC by the same party, organization, or coalition, who shall serve for the unexpired term. If the list is exhausted, the party, organization coalition concerned shall submit additional nominees.

Section 17. Rights of Party-List Representatives.

Party-List Representatives shall be entitled to the same salaries and emoluments as regular members of the House of Representatives.

Election and Campaign Period

Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission, the election period for the May 11, 1992 regular elections shall commence ninety (90) days before the day of the election and shall end thirty (30) days thereafter.

The campaign periods are hereby fixed as follows:

A. For President, Vice-President and Senators, ninety (90) days before the day of the election; and

B. For Members of the House of Representatives and elective provincial, city and municipal officials, forty-five (45) days before the day of the election.

However, in the preparation of the election calendar, the Commission may exclude the day before the day of the election itself, Maundy Thursday and Good Friday.Any election campaign or partisan political activity for or against any candidate outside of the campaign period herein provided is prohibited and shall be considered as an election offense punishable under Section 263 and 264 of the Omnibus Election Code.

OTHER PERTINENT PROVISION OF THE CODE(OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE)

1. POLITICAL PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE VIII

2. ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES AND CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY UNDER ARTICLE IX

3. CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION PROPAGANDA UNDER ARTCILE X

4. ELECTORAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES UNDER ARTICLE XI

of 29

CASES

”In an election protest only real party in interest can substitute the protestant who has died during the pendency of the controversy case.”

RONALD ALLAN POE A.K.A. FERNANDO POE JR.(FPJ)

VS

GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO (GMA)

On June 24, 2004, the Congress as the representatives of the sovereign people and acting as the National Board of Canvassers, proclaimed Mrs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) the duly elected President of the Philippines. She took her Oath of Office before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on June 30, 2004.

Mr. FPJ, filed seasonably an election protest before this Electoral Tribunal on July 23, 2004. After the parties filed their respective pleadings and positions to the controversy, an act of God intervened on December 14, 2004, FPJ died.

Together with the formal Notice of the Death of FPJ, his counsel has submitted to the Tribunal, dated January 10, 2005, a "MANIFESTATION with URGENT PETITION/MOTION to INTERVENE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR DECEASED PROTESTANT FPJ," by the widow, Mrs. Jesusa Sonora Poe (Susan Roces).

In support of her assertion, she cites De Castro v. Commission on Elections, and Lomugdang v. Javier, to the effect that the death of the protestant does not constitute a ground for the dismissal of the contest nor oust the trial court of the jurisdiction to decide the election contest.

In her Comment, GMA relied on Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencia and subsequent cases including analogous cases decided by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), asserts that the widow of a deceased candidate is not the proper party to replace the deceased protestant since a public office is personal and not a property that passes on to the heirs. She points out that the widow has no legal right to substitute for her husband in an election protest, since no such right survives the husband, considering that the right to file an election protest is personal and non-transmissible.

Protestee also contends Mrs. FPJ cannot substitute for her deceased husband because under the Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, only the registered candidates who obtained the 2nd and 3rd highest votes for the presidency may contest the election of the president and patently, Mrs. FPJ did not receive the 2nd and 3rd highest votes for she was not even a candidate for the presidency in the election that is being contested.

of 29

ISSUE: May the widow substitute/intervene for the protestant who died during the pendency of the latter’s protest case?

RULING: The motion of movant/intervener JESUSA SONORA POE a.k.a. SUSAN ROCES to intervene and substitute for the deceased protestant is DENIED for lack of merit.

As previously held by the Supreme Court in Vda. deDe Mesa (1966) that while the right to a public office is personal and exclusive to the public officer, an election protest is not purely personal and exclusive to the protestant or to the protestee such that the death of either would oust the court of all authority to continue the protest proceedings. Hence, they have allowed substitution and intervention but only by a real party in interest. A real party in interest is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, and the party who is entitled to the avails of the suit. In Vda. deDe Mesa v. Mencias and Lomugdang v. Javier, Supreme Court has permitted substitution by the vice-mayor since the vice-mayor is a real party in interest considering that if the protest succeeds and the protestee is unseated, the vice-mayor succeeds to the office of the mayor that becomes vacant if the one duly elected cannot assume office. In contrast, herein movant/intervenor, Mrs. FPJ, herself denies any claim to the office of President. Thus, given the circumstances of this case, Supreme Court concluded that protestant’s widow is not a real party in interest to this election protest.

Acting on the protest and considering the Notice of the Death, submitted by counsel of protestant RONALD ALLAN POE, a.k.a. FERNANDO POE, JR., Supreme Court also resolved that Presidential Electoral Tribunal Case No. 002, entitled Ronald Allan Poe a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr. v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, should be as it is hereby DISMISSED on the ground that no real party in interest has come forward within the period allowed by law, to intervene in this case or be substituted for the deceased protestant.

“When must a winning candidate possess the citizenship qualification?”

LOREN B. LEGARDA, Protestant,

vs.

NOLI L. DE CASTRO, Protestee.

In a Resolution dated January 18, 2005, the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) confirmed the jurisdiction over the protest of Loren B. Legarda and denied the motion of protesteeNoli L. de Castro for its outright dismissal. The Tribunal further ordered concerned officials to undertake measures for the protection and preservation of the ballot boxes and election documents subject of the protest.

of 29

On February 4, 2005, protestee filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the said resolution. He argued that:

Where the correctness of the number of votes is the issue, the best evidence are the ballots; The tribunal cannot correct the manifest errors on the statements of votes and certificates

of canvass.

Supreme Court agrees that the ballots are the best and most conclusive evidence in an election contest where the correctness of the number of votes of each candidate is involved. However, we do not find any reason to resort to revision in the first part of the protest, considering that the protestant concedes the correctness of the ballot results, concerning the number of votes obtained by both protestant and protestee, and reflected in the election returns. Protestant merely seeks the correction of manifest errors, that is, errors in the process of different levels of transposition and addition of votes. Revision of ballots in case of manifest errors, in these circumstances, might only cause unwarranted delay in the proceedings.

Protestee contends that the Tribunal cannot correct the manifest errors on the statements of votes (SOV) and certificates of canvass (COC). But it is not suggested by any of the parties that questions on the validity, authenticity and correctness of the SOVs and COCs are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The constitutional function as well as the power and the duty to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualification of the President and Vice-President is expressly vested in the PET, in Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution. Included therein is the duty to correct manifest errors in the SOVs and COCs.

Considering that we find the protest sufficient in form and substance, we must again stress that nothing as yet has been proved as to the veracity of the allegations. The protest is only sufficient for the Tribunal to proceed and give the protestant the opportunity to prove her case pursuant to Rule 61 of the PET Rules. Although said rule only pertains to revision of ballots, nothing herein prevents the Tribunal from allowing or including the correction of manifest errors, pursuant to the Tribunal’s rule-making power under Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution.

On a related matter, the protestant in her reiterating motion prays for ocular inspection and inventory-taking of ballot boxes, and appointment of watchers. However, the Tribunal has already ordered the protection and safeguarding of the subject ballot boxes; and it has issued also the appropriate directives to officials concerned. At this point, we find no showing of an imperative need for the relief prayed for, since protective and safeguard measures are already being undertaken by the custodians of the subject ballot boxes.

of 29

“The COMELEC has the ministerial duty to receive certificate of candidacy filed in due form”

CICERON P. ALTAREJOS, petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JOSE ALMIÑE and VERNON VERSOZA, respondents.

Petitioner Altarejos was a candidate for mayor in the Municipality of San Jacinto, Masbate in the May 10, 2004 national and local elections.

On January 15, 2004, private respondents Jose AlmiñeAltiche and Vernon Versoza, registered voters of San Jacinto, Masbate, filed with the COMELEC, a petition to disqualify and to deny due course or cancel the certificate of candidacy of petitioner on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen and that he made a false representation in his certificate of candidacy. That Altajeros was a holder of a permanent US resident visa, an Alien Certificate of Registration and an Immigration Certificate of Residence.

On January 26, 2004, petitioner filed an Answer stating, among others, that he did not commit false representation in his application for candidacy as mayor because as early as December 17, 1997, he was already issued a Certificate of Repatriation by the Special Committee on Naturalization, after he filed a petition for repatriation pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171. Thus, petitioner claimed that his Filipino citizenship was already restored, and he was qualified to run as mayor in the May 10, 2004 elections. Petitioner sought the dismissal of the petition.

The Regional Election Director for Region V and hearing officer of the case, recommended that Altajeros be disqualified from being a candidate and ruled that the Petitioner Altajeros was not able to prove that he has fully reacquired his Filipino citizenship after being naturalized as a citizen of the United States, it is clear that respondent is not qualified to be candidate for the position of Mayor of San Jacinto, Masbate, in the 10 May 2004 National and Local Elections, pursuant to the aforequoted Sections 39 and 40 of the Local Government Code of 1991.

As a further consequence of his not being a Filipino citizen, respondent has also committed false representation in his certificate of candidacy by stating therein that he is a natural-born Filipino citizen, when in fact, he has not yet even perfected the reacquisition of Filipino citizenship. Such false representation constitutes a material misrepresentation as it relates to his qualification as a candidate for public office, which could be a valid ground for the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code

In its Resolution promulgated on March 22, 2004, the COMELEC, First Division, adopted the findings and recommendation of Director Zaragoza.

of 29

On March 25, 2004, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and attached the following documents to prove that he had completed all the requirements for repatriation.

On May 7, 2004, the COMELEC en banc promulgated a resolution denying the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit and affirmed the Resolution of the First Division.

Hence this petition.

ISSUE: 1. Is the registration of petitioner's repatriation with the proper civil registry and with the Bureau of Immigration a prerequisite in effecting repatriation; and

2. Whether or not the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in affirming the Resolution of the COMELEC, First Division.

RULING: First Issue: Is the registration of petitioner's repatriation with the proper civil registry and with the Bureau of Immigration a prerequisite in effecting repatriation?

The provision of law applicable in this case is Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8171, 14 thus:

SEC. 2. Repatriation shall be effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of Immigration. The Bureau of Immigration shall thereupon cancel the pertinent alien certificate of registration and issue the certificate of identification as Filipino citizen to the repatriated citizen.

The law is clear that repatriation is effected "by taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of Immigration." Hence, in addition to taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, the registration of the Certificate of Repatriation in the proper civil registry and the Bureau of Immigration is a prerequisite in effecting the repatriation of a citizen.

In this case, petitioner took his Oath of Allegiance on December 17, 1997, but his Certificate of Repatriation was registered with the Civil Registry of Makati City only after six years or on February 18, 2004, and with the Bureau of Immigration on March 1, 2004. Petitioner, therefore, completed all the requirements of repatriation only after he filed his certificate of candidacy for a mayoralty position, but before the elections.

When does the citizenship qualification of a candidate for an elective office apply?

In Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, the Court ruled that the citizenship qualification must be construed as "applying to the time of proclamation of the elected official and at the start of his term

From the above, it will be noted that the law does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship, unlike that for residence (which must consist of at least one year's residency immediately preceding the day of election) and age (at least twenty three years of age on election day).

Moreover, in the case of Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, the Court ruled that "the repatriation of Frivaldo RETROACTED to the date of the filing of his application." In said case, the repatriation of

of 29

Frivaldo was by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 725, which took effect on June 5, 1975. The Court therein declared that Presidential Decree No. 725 was a curative statute, which is retroactive in nature.

Accordingly, petitioner's repatriation retroacted to the date he filed his application in 1997. Petitioner was, therefore, qualified to run for a mayoralty position in the government in the May 10, 2004 elections. Apparently, the COMELEC was cognizant of this fact since it did not implement the assailed Resolutions disqualifying petitioner to run as mayor of San Jacinto, Masbate.

Second Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC en banc gravely abused its discretion in affirming the Resolution of the COMELEC, First Division?

The Court cannot fault the COMELEC en banc for affirming the decision of the COMELEC, First Division, considering that petitioner failed to prove before the COMELEC that he had complied with the requirements of repatriation. Petitioner submitted the necessary documents proving compliance with the requirements of repatriation only during his motion for reconsideration, when the COMELEC en banc could no longer consider said evidence.

It is, therefore, incumbent upon candidates for an elective office, who are repatriated citizens, to be ready with sufficient evidence of their repatriation in case their Filipino citizenship is questioned to prevent a repetition of this case. Petition DENIED.

“Where a candidate accused of an election offense has already been proclaimed, the COMELEC's duty is to dismiss the complaint.”

ELLAN MARIE CIPRIANO (REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER) VS. COMELEC

On June 7, 2002, petitioner filed with the COMELEC her certificate of candidacy as Chairman of the SangguniangKabataan (SK) for the SK elections held on July 15, 2002.

On the date of the elections, July 15, 2002, the COMELEC issued Resolutionadopting the recommendation of the Commission’s Law Department to deny due course to or cancel the certificates of candidacy of several candidates for the SK elections, including petitioners. The ruling was based on the findings of the Law Department that petitioner and all the other candidates affected by said resolution were not registered voters in the barangay where they intended to run.

Petitioner, nonetheless, was allowed to vote in the July 15 SK elections and after the canvassing of votes, petitioner was proclaimed by the Barangay Board of Canvassers the duly elected SK Chairman of Barangay 38, Pasay City and took her oath of office on August 14, 2002.

of 29

On August 19, 2002, petitioner, after learning of Resolution filed with the COMELEC a motion for reconsideration of said resolution. She argued that a certificate of candidacy may only be denied due course or cancelled via an appropriate petition filed by any registered candidate for the same position under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to Sections 5 and 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6646. According to petitioner, the report of the Election Officer of Pasay City cannot be considered a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, and the COMELEC cannot, by itself, deny due course to or cancel one’s certificate of candidacy. Petitioner also claimed that she was denied due process when her certificate of candidacy was cancelled by the Commission without notice and hearing. Petitioner further argued that the COMELEC en banc did not have jurisdiction to act on the cancellation of her certificate of candidacy on the first instance because it is the Division of the Commission that has authority to decide election-related cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. Finally, she contended that she may only be removed by a petition for quo warranto after her proclamation as duly-elected SK Chairman.

In this petition, petitioner argues that she was deprived of due process when the COMELEC issued Resolution cancelling her certificate of candidacy. She claims that the resolution was intended to oust her from her position as SK Chairman without any appropriate action and proceedings.

The COMELEC, on the other hand, defends its resolution by invoking its administrative power to enforce and administer election laws. Thus, in the exercise of such power, it may motuproprio deny or cancel the certificates of candidacy of candidates who are found to be unqualified for the position they are seeking.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC can motuproprio deny or cancel the certificates of candidacy of candidates who are found to be unqualified for the position they are seeking

RULING: the petition is with merit.

The Court has ruled that the Commission has no discretion to give or not to give due course to petitioner’s certificate of candidacy. The duty of the COMELEC to give due course to certificates of candidacy filed in due form is ministerial in character. While the Commission may look into patent defects in the certificates, it may not go into matters not appearing on their face. The question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and proper cognizance of said body.

Under Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the petition shall be heard summarily after due notice.

It is therefore clear that the law mandates that the candidate must be notified of the petition against him and he should be given the opportunity to present evidence in his behalf. This is the essence of due process. Due process demands prior notice and hearing. Then after the hearing, it is also necessary that the tribunal shows substantial evidence to support its ruling. In other words, due process requires that a party be given an opportunity to adduce his evidence to support his side of the case and that the evidence should be considered in the adjudication of the case.16 In a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy, since the proceedings are required to be summary, the parties may, after due notice, be required to submit their position papers together with affidavits, counter-affidavits, and other documentary evidence in lieu of oral testimony. When

of 29

there is a need for clarification of certain matters, at the discretion of the Commission en banc or Division, the parties may be allowed to cross-examine the affiants.

“What constitutes "involuntary interruption" for purposes of determining if an elected official has complied with the rule on three consecutive terms?”

ROBERTO ALBAÑA, KATHERINE BELO, GENEROSO DERRAMAS, VICENTE DURAN, RICARDO ARAQUE, LILIA ARANAS, MERLINDA DEGALA, GABRIEL ARANAS, ERNESTO BITO-ON AND JUVIC

DESLATE, petitioners,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PIO JUDE S. BELO, RODOLFO DEOCAMPO AND LORENCITO B. DIAZ, respondents.

During the May 14, 2001 elections, the petitioners and private respondents ran for the positions of Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of the Sangguniang Bayan in the Municipality of Panitan, Capiz. On May 18, 2001, the petitioners were duly elected and proclaimed winners

On June 23, 2001, the private respondents filed a complaint against the petitioners with the COMELEC Law Department, alleging that the latter committed acts of terrorism punishable by Section 261(e) of the Omnibus Election Code, and engaged in vote-buying, punishable under Section 261(a) of the Omnibus Election Code. The private respondents prayed that the petitioners be charged of the said crimes and disqualified from holding office under Section 684 of the said Code, and Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6646.

The Law Department of the COMELEC found a prima facie case and issued a Resolution on January 15, 2002, recommending the filing of an Information against the petitioners for violation of Section 261(e) of the Omnibus Election Code, in relation to Section 28 of Republic Act No. 6648. It, likewise, recommended the disqualification of all the petitioners from further holding office, and the reconvening of the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) in order to proclaim the qualified candidates who obtained the highest number of votes.

Acting on the said resolution, the COMELEC En Banc issued, on February 28, 2003, a Resolution directing its Law Department to file the appropriate Information against the petitioners for violation of Section 261(e) of the Omnibus Election Code and directing the Clerk of the Commission to docket the electoral aspect of the complaint as a disqualification case.

The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration thereon, alleging that the COMELEC did not make any findings of fact in its resolution, and that there was even no disquisition as to the merits of the

of 29

affidavits of their witnesses and the evidence presented by them but said Motion was denied for lack of merit and having been filed out of time

On October 21, 2003, the COMELEC First Division rendered the resolution in SPA No. 03-006 annulling the petitioners' proclamation on the ground that they violated Section 261(a) and (e) of the Omnibus Election Code, and directing the election officer of Panitan to constitute a new municipal board of canvassers

The petitioners' motion for reconsideration and supplement to the motion for reconsideration were denied by the COMELEC En Banc in the Resolution of May 5, 2004, declaring that the disqualification case was the result of the findings of the Commission En Banc. It also held that as an aftermath of petitioners' violation of Section 261(e) in relation to Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, they are considered disqualified candidates and, therefore, the votes they received are deemed stray votes.

Hence this petition

ISSUES: (a) whether the petition was mooted by the election and proclamation of the new set of municipal officials after the May 10, 2004 elections; and

(b) if in the negative, whether the COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolutions.

RULING: On the first issue, we agree with the COMELEC that the petition for the nullification of its October 21, 2003 and May 5, 2004 Resolutions and the proclamation of the private respondents on June 10, 2004 was mooted by the election and proclamation of a new set of municipal officials after the May 10, 2004 elections. Where the issues have become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value. Nonetheless, courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is capable of repetition, yet evading review. In this case, we find it necessary to resolve the issues raised in the petition in order to prevent a repetition thereof and, thus, enhance free, orderly, and peaceful elections. For this reason, we resolve to grant the petition.

On the second issue, Supreme Court ruled for the petitioners.

Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2050 is as clear as day: the COMELEC is mandated to dismiss a complaint for the disqualification of a candidate who has been charged with an election offense but who has already been proclaimed as winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. COMELEC Resolution No. 2050 specifically mandates a definite policy and procedure for disqualification cases; hence, should be applied and given effect.

Second, as laid down in paragraph 2, a complaint for disqualification filed after the election against a candidate (a) who has not yet been proclaimed as winner, or (b) who has already been proclaimed as winner. In both cases, the complaint shall be dismissed as a disqualification case but shall be referred to the Law Department of the COMELEC for preliminary investigation.

of 29

Under the said resolution, if a complaint is filed with the COMELEC against a candidate who has already been proclaimed winner, charging an election offense under Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended by Rep. Act Nos. 6646 and 8436, and praying for the disqualification of the said candidate, the COMELEC shall determine the existence of probable cause for the filing of an Information against the candidate for the election offense charged. However, if the COMELEC finds no probable cause, it is mandated to dismiss the complaint for the disqualification of the candidate.

If the COMELEC finds that there is probable cause, it shall order its Law Department to file the appropriate Information with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which has territorial jurisdiction over the offense, but shall, nonetheless, order the dismissal of the complaint for disqualification, without prejudice to the outcome of the criminal case. If the trial court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged, it shall also order his disqualification pursuant to Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended by Section 46 of Rep. Act No. 8189

The COMELEC, likewise, committed a grave abuse of its discretion when it ordered the Municipal Election Officers to convene a new Board of Canvassers and proclaim the winners after the petitioners were declared disqualified.

It is well-settled that the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. A minority or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office. The votes intended for the disqualified candidate should not be considered null and void, as it would amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty resides.

“Guidelines on allowing organization to participate in electoral exercises as party-list groups.”

VICTORINO DENNIS M. SOCRATES, Mayor of Puerto Princesa City, petitioner,

vs.

THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE PREPARATORY RECALL ASSEMBLY (PRA) of Puerto Princesa City, PRA Interim Chairman PunongBgy. MARK DAVID HAGEDORN, PRA Interim

Secretary PunongBgy. BENJAMIN JARILLA, PRA Chairman and Presiding Officer PunongBgy. EARL S. BUENVIAJE and PRA Secretary PunongBgy. CARLOS ABALLA, JR. respondents.

On July 2, 2002, 312 out of 528 members of the then incumbent barangay officials of the Puerto Princesa convened themselves into a Preparatory Recall Assembly ("PRA" for brevity). The PRA was convened to initiate the recall of Victorino Dennis M. Socrates ("Socrates" for brevity) who assumed office as Puerto Princesa's mayor on June 30, 2001. The members of the PRA designated Mark David M. Hagedorn, president of the Association of Barangay Captains, as interim chair of the PRA.

of 29

On the same date, the PRA passed Resolution No. 01-02 ("Recall Resolution" for brevity) which declared its loss of confidence in Socrates and called for his recall. The PRA requested the COMELEC to schedule the recall election for mayor within 30 days from receipt of the Recall Resolution.

On July 16, 2002, Socrates filed with the COMELEC a petition, to nullify and deny due course to the Recall Resolution.

On August 14, 2002, the COMELEC en banc promulgated a resolution dismissing for lack of merit Socrates' petition. The COMELEC gave due course to the Recall Resolution and scheduled the recall election on September 7, 2002.

On August 21, 2002, the COMELEC en banc promulgated Resolution prescribing the calendar of activities and periods of certain prohibited acts in connection with the recall election. The COMELEC fixed the campaign period from August 27, 2002 to September 5, 2002 or a period of 10 days.

On August 23, 2002, Edward M. Hagedorn ("Hagedorn" for brevity) filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor in the recall election.

On August 17, 2002, Ma. Flores F. Adovo ("Adovo" for brevity) and Merly E. Gilo ("Gilo" for brevity) filed a petition before the COMELEC, to disqualify Hagedorn from running in the recall election and to cancel his certificate of candidacy. On August 30, 2002, a certain BienvenidoOllave, Sr. ("Ollave" for brevity) filed a petition-in-intervention also seeking to disqualify Hagedorn. On the same date, a certain Genaro V. Manaay filed another petition, docketed as SPA No. 02-539, against Hagedorn alleging substantially the same facts and involving the same issues. The petitions were all anchored on the ground that "Hagedorn is disqualified from running for a fourth consecutive term, having been elected and having served as mayor of the city for three (3) consecutive full terms immediately prior to the instant recall election for the same post."

In a resolution promulgated on September 20, 2002, the COMELEC's First Division declared Hagedorn qualified to run in the recall election. The COMELEC also reset the recall election from September 7, 2002 to September 24, 2002.

On September 23, 2002, the COMELEC en banc promulgated a resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of Adovo and Gilo. The COMELEC affirmed the resolution declaring Hagedorn qualified to run in the recall election.

Hence, the instant consolidated petitions.

ISSUE/S: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the Recall Resolution and scheduling the recall election for mayor of Puerto Princesa.

Whether Hagedorn is qualified to run for mayor in the recall election of Puerto Princesa on September 24, 2002.

RULING: First Issue: Validity of the Recall Resolution.

of 29

In the instant case, the Supreme Court do not find any valid reason to hold that the COMELEC's findings of fact are patently erroneous and tahtc the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the validity of the Recall Resolution and in scheduling the recall election on September 24, 2002.

Second Issue: Hagedorn's qualification to run for mayor in the recall election of September 24, 2002.

The three-term limit rule for elective local officials is found in Section 8, Article X of the Constitution, which states:

"Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected."

This three-term limit rule is reiterated in Section 43 (b) of RA No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, which provides:

"Section 43. Term of Office. – (a) x xx

(b) No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official was elected."

These constitutional and statutory provisions have two parts. The first part provides that an elective local official cannot serve for more than three consecutive terms. The clear intent is that only consecutive terms count in determining the three-term limit rule. The second part states that voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time does not interrupt the continuity of service. The clear intent is that involuntary severance from office for any length of time interrupts continuity of service and prevents the service before and after the interruption from being joined together to form a continuous service or consecutive terms.

After three consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot seek immediate reelection for a fourth term. The prohibited election refers to the next regular election for the same office following the end of the third consecutive term. Any subsequent election, like a recall election, is no longer covered by the prohibition for two reasons. First, a subsequent election like a recall election is no longer an immediate reelection after three consecutive terms. Second, the intervening period constitutes an involuntary interruption in the continuity of service.

of 29

“The COMELEC has jurisdiction to act on matters petaining to the ascertainment of the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers”

ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY (under the acronym OFW), represented herein by its secretary-general, MOHAMMAD OMAR FAJARDO, petitioner,

vs.

COMELEC

With the onset of the 2001 elections, the Comelec received several Petitions for registration filed by sectoral parties, organizations and political parties. According to the Comelec, "verifications were made as to the status and capacity of these parties and organizations and hearings were scheduled day and night until the last party was heard. With the number of these petitions and the observance of the legal and procedural requirements, review of these petitions as well as deliberations takes a longer process in order to arrive at a decision and as a result the two (2) divisions promulgated a separate Omnibus Resolution and individual resolution on political parties. These numerous petitions and processes observed in the disposition of these petition[s] hinder the early release of the Omnibus Resolutions of the Divisions which were promulgated only on 10 February 2001."

Thereafter, before the February 12, 2001 deadline prescribed under Comelec Resolution No. 3426 dated December 22, 2000, the registered parties and organizations filed their respective Manifestations, stating their intention to participate in the party-list elections. Other sectoral and political parties and organizations whose registrations were denied also filed Motions for Reconsideration, together with Manifestations of their intent to participate in the party-list elections. Still other registered parties filed their Manifestations beyond the deadline.

The Comelec gave due course or approved the Manifestations (or accreditations) of 154 parties and organizations, but denied those of several others in its assailed March 26, 2001 Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 which states that “in the course of our review of the matters at bar, we must recognize the fact that there is a need to keep the number of sectoral parties, organizations and coalitions, down to a manageable level, keeping only those who substantially comply with the rules and regulations and more importantly the sufficiency of the Manifestations or evidence on the Motions for Reconsiderations or Oppositions."

RULING: The cases are remanded to the Comelec which will determine, after summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and organizations enumerated in the assailed Omnibus Resolution satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941, as specified in this Decision.

That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not mean, however, that any political party -- or any organization or group for that matter -- may do so. The requisite character of these parties or organizations must be consistent with the purpose of the party-list system, as laid down in the Constitution and RA 7941. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution.

of 29

However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim representation of the marginalized and underrepresented, because representation is easy to claim and to feign. The party-list organization or party must factually and truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section 5. Concurrently, the persons nominated by the party-list candidate-organization must be "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties."

Finally, "lack of well-defined constituency" refers to the absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral group, like voters of a congressional district or territorial unit of government. Rather, it points again to those with disparate interests identified with the "marginalized or underrepresented."

In the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that only those Filipinos who are "marginalized and underrepresented" become members of Congress under the party-list system, Filipino-style.

The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine power to the people, not only by giving more law to those who have less in life, but more so by enabling them to become veritable lawmakers themselves. Consistent with this intent, the policy of the implementing law, we repeat, is likewise clear: "to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, x xx, to become members of the House of Representatives." Where the language of the law is clear, it must be applied according to its express terms.

The marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be represented under the party-list system are enumerated in Section 5 of RA 7941.

While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it demonstrates the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be represented under the party-list system. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that words employed in a statute are interpreted in connection with, and their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the words and the phrases with which they are associated or related. Thus, the meaning of a term in a statute may be limited, qualified or specialized by those in immediate association.

of 29

“Jurisdiction of the electoral tribunals to correct manifest errors in election returns or certificates of canvass”

LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO, represented by its Chairman EDGARDO J. ANGARA

vs.

THE COMMISION ON ELECTIONS and AGAPITO A. AQUINO

On December 8, 2003, the General Counsel of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), a registered political party, informed the COMELEC by way of Manifestation that only the Party Chairman, Senator Edgardo J. Angara, or his authorized representative may endorse the certificate of candidacy of the party’s official candidates. The same Manifestation stated that Sen. Angara had placed the LDP Secretary General, Representative Agapito A. Aquino, on "indefinite forced leave." In the meantime, Ambassador Enrique A. Zaldivar was designated Acting Secretary General.

On December 16, 2003, Rep. Aquino filed his Comment, contending that the Party Chairman does not have the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions on the Secretary General. As the Manifestation filed by the LDP General Counsel has no basis, Rep. Aquino asked the COMELEC to disregard the same.

On December 17, 2003, the parties agreed to file a joint manifestation pending which the proceedings were deemed suspended. On December 22, 2003, however, only the LDP General Counsel filed an Urgent Manifestation reiterating the contents of the December 8, 2003 Manifestation. The COMELEC also received a Letter from Rep. Aquino stating that the parties were unable to arrive at a joint manifestation.

The next day, the LDP General Counsel filed a Second Urgent Manifestation disputing newspaper accounts that Rep. Aquino had suspended Sen. Angara as Party Chairman.

On December 26, 2003, the COMELEC issued an Order requiring the parties to file a verified petition. It turned out that, two days before, Sen. Angara had submitted a verified Petition, in essence, reiterating the contents of its previous Manifestations.

Rep. Aquino filed his Answer to the Petition on December 30, 2003. The COMELEC heard the parties on oral arguments on the same day, after which the case was submitted for resolution.

Pending resolution, a Certificate of Nomination of Sen. PanfiloLacson as LDP candidate for President was filed with the COMELEC. The Certificate of Nomination was signed by Rep. Aquino as LDP Secretary General.

On January 6, 2004, the COMELEC came to a decision.

of 29

The Commission identified the sole issue as "who among the LDP officers are authorized to authenticate before the Commission that the person filing the certificate of candidacy as party nominee for a certain position is the official candidate of the party chosen in accordance with its Constitution."

The petition is GRANTED with LEGAL EQUITY for both Petitioner and Oppositor. The candidates for President down to the last Sangguniang Bayan Kagawad nominated and endorsed by LDP Chairman Edgardo J. Angara are recognized by the Commission as official candidates of LDP "Angara Wing". The candidates from President down to the last Sangguniang Bayan Kagawad as nominated and endorsed by LDP Secretary General Agapito "Butz" Aquino are recognized as official candidates of LDP "Aquino Wing".

Hence this petition.

ISSUE: Wether or not COMELEC has jurisdiction to act on matters pertaining to ascertainment of identity of the political parties and its officers

RULING: The COMELEC correctly stated that "the ascertainment of the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers" is a matter that is well within its authority. The source of this authority is no other than the fundamental law itself, which vests upon the COMELEC the power and function to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. In the exercise of such power and in the discharge of such function, the Commission is endowed with ample "wherewithal" and "considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that will ensure the accomplishment of the great objectives for which it was created to promote free, orderly and honest elections."

… that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over the issue of leadership in a political party. Under the Constitution, the COMELEC is empowered to register political parties [Sec. 2(5), Article IX-C.] Necessarily, the power to act on behalf of a party and the responsibility for the acts of such political party must be fixed in certain persons acting as its officers. In the exercise of the power to register political parties, the COMELEC must determine who these officers are. Consequently, if there is any controversy as to leadership, the COMELEC may, in a proper case brought before it, resolve the issue incidental to its power to register political parties.

A political party has the right to identify the people who constitute the association and to select a standard bearer who best represents the party’s ideologies and preference. Political parties are generally free to conduct their internal affairs free from judicial supervision; this common-law principle of judicial restraint, rooted in the constitutionally protected right of free association, serves the public interest by allowing the political processes to operate without undue interference. Thus, the rule is that the determination of disputes as to party nominations rests with the party, in the absence of statutes giving the court’s [sic] jurisdiction.

In the case at bar, the Party Chairman, purporting to represent the LDP, contends that under the Party Constitution only he or his representative, to the exclusion of the Secretary General, has the authority to endorse and sign party nominations. The Secretary General vigorously disputes this claim and maintains his own authority. Clearly, the question of party identity or leadership has to

of 29

be resolved if the COMELEC is to ascertain whether the candidates are legitimate party standard bearers or not.

Having revisited and clarified the jurisdiction of COMELEC to rule upon questions of party identity and leadership as an incident to its enforcement powers, the Supreme Court cannot help but be baffled by the COMELEC’s ruling declining to inquire into which party officer has the authority to sign and endorse certificates of candidacy of the party’s nominees.

The only issue in this case, as defined by the COMELEC itself, is who as between the Party Chairman and the Secretary General has the authority to sign certificates of candidacy of the official candidates of the party. Indeed, the petitioners’ Manifestation and Petition before the COMELEC merely asked the Commission to recognize only those certificates of candidacy signed by petitioner Sen. Angara or his authorized representative, and no other.

To resolve this simple issue, the COMELEC need only to turn to the Party Constitution. It need not go so far as to resolve the root of the conflict between the party officials. It need only resolve such questions as may be necessary in the exercise of its enforcement powers.

The LDP has a set of national officers composed of, among others, the Party Chairman and the Secretary General. The Party Chairman is the Chief Executive Officer of the Party.

Assuming that Rep. Aquino previously had such authority, this Court cannot share the COMELEC’s finding that the same "has not been revoked or recalled." No revocation of such authority can be more explicit than the totality of Sen. Angara’s Manifestations and Petition before the COMELEC, through which he informed the Commission that Rep. Aquino’s had been placed on indefinite forced leave and that Ambassador Zaldivar has been designated Acting Secretary General, who "shall henceforth exercise all the powers and functions of the Secretary General under the Constitution and By-Laws of the LDP." As the prerogative to empower Rep. Aquino to sign documents devolves upon Sen. Angara, so he may choose, at his discretion, to withhold or revoke such power.

WHEREFORE, the assailed COMELEC Resolution is ANNULLED and the Petition is GRANTED IN PART. Respondent Commission on Elections is directed to recognize as official candidates of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino only those who’s Certificates of Candidacy are signed by LDP Party Chairman Senator Edgardo J. Angara or his duly authorized representative/s.

of 29

election of public official revised

Documents