I.

THE COMELEC

CASE #7: REYES vs RTC of ORIENTAL MINDORO [G.R. No. 108886 May 5, 1995]

FACTS: Reyes and Comia were candidates for the position of SB in the 1992 election. During the
proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers [MBC], Comia moved for the exclusion of certain election
returns on the ground of serious irregularity in counting the votes for Reyes as there was 2 candidates with
the same surname. Without resolving this petition, the MBC proclaimed Reyes as the winning candidate.

Comia filed an election protest before the Trial Court [TC] which then annulled petitioner’s
proclamation; Reyes appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC dismissed petitioner’s appeal for
nonpayment of appeal fees within the prescribed period.

Hence, this petition.

Issue: Validity of the Dismissal

HELD: The COMELEC properly dismissed the appeal.

Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the appeal may be dismissed – upon motion of either
party, or at the instance of the Commission [CMSN] on the ground of failure of the appellant to pay
the appeal fee x x x [Rule 22, sxn 9 (a)].

The appeal must be paid within the period to perfect the appeal, which is understood to be the
period within which to file a notice of appeal [COMELEC Resolution 2108-A]. A notice of appeal is filed
within 5days after the promulgation of the decision of the court [Rule 22, sxn 3]

Reyes received the TC decision on June 26 and paid the appeal fee only on August 6. He was
40days late from paying.

Petition DISMISSED for Lack of Merit.

CASE # 8: MONTEJO vs COMELEC [G.R. No. 118702 March 16, 1995]

FACTS: Prior to the effectivity of the LOCGOV Code, Biliran was a mere municipality under the 3rd DST of
Leyte, however, SXN 462 of LOCGOV converted it into a regular province which reduced the 3rd DST to 5
municipalities with a population of 145,067. To remedy this unequal distribution of inhabitant/voters, the
COMELEC issued Resolution 2736 where, under SXN 1, it transferred 2 municipalities from the 2nd and the
4th DST to the 3rd.

Montejo, representative of 1st DST, filed a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC
questioning said SXN on the ground of inequitable distribution of inhabitants/voters between the 1st and
the 2nd DST which has a difference of 22,226 voters. He wants 1 municipality from his DST to be transfer
to the 2nd DST.

The COMELEC denied the motion. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Validity of SXN 1 of COMELEC RESOLUTION 2736 - Is COMELEC empowered to transfer

municipalities from 1 DST to another?

HELD: NO. The COMELEC relies on an Ordinance made pursuant to a Proclamation 3 of Pres. Cory Aquino,
the relevant provision of which are as follows:

Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections is hereby empowered to make minor adjustments of the
reapportionment herein made.

Sec. 3. x x x The number of Members apportioned to the province out of which such new province
was created or where the city, whose population has so increased, is geographically
located shall be correspondingly adjusted by the Commission on Elections x x x(Emphasis supplied)

The minor adjustments, as explained in the debates of the CMSN, refers only to minor corrections
or amendments, say a municipality which ought to be included in 1 DST has been forgotten. Minor
adjustments, meaning that there should be no change in the allocations per DST.

Consistent with the limits of its power to make minor adjustments, Section 3 of the Ordinance did
not also give the respondent COMELEC any authority to transfer municipalities from one legislative district
to another district. The power granted by Section 3 to the respondent COMELEC is to adjust the number
of members (not municipalities) "apportioned to the province out of which such new province was created.

COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it

transferred the municipality of Capoocan of the 2nd DST and the municipality of Palompon of the 4th DST
to the 3rd DST of Leyte.

SXN 1 of the Resolution is annulled.

CASE #9: LOONG vs COMELEC [G.R. Nos. 107814-15 May 16, 1996]

FACTS: During the 1995 elections in the Province of SULU, petitioners Loong and Tulawie and private
respondents Tan and Estino, were candidates for Governor – Vice Governor. Despite private respondents’
objections, a recanvass of the election returns of the municipality of Parang was made by PBC and it showed
an overwhelming win for petitioners. 2 petitions to declare failure of election were filed, (1) SPA 95-284 –
the petition to annul the election in Parang on the ground of failure of election due to massive fraud, filed
by private respondents, wherein the COMELEC ordered a technical examination of the voting records and
registration forms; and, (2) SPA 95-289 – the petition to declare failure of election in 5 municipalities due
to rampant fraud of private respondents, filed by petitioners.

These were consolidated and was resolved by now assailed DEC 13 Resolution, whereby the
COMELEC granted the (1) and dismissed the (2).

Issues: Propriety of the Resolution – Does the COMELEC have the power to annul an election?

HELD: YES. Under the present election law, the COMELEC has been granted the power to annul elections.
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166, otherwise known as, "The Synchronized Elections Law of 1991,"
provides that the COMELEC sitting En Banc by a majority vote of its members may decide, among others,
the declaration of failure of election and the calling of special elections as provided in Section 6 of the
Omnibus Election Code.

Sec. 6. Failure of election. — If, on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other
analogous causes the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or had been
suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during
the preparation and the transmission of the election returns or in the custody or 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 days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect.

Can the COMELEC conduct technical examination of election documents in pre-

proclamation controversies? YES. The prevailing doctrine in this jurisdiction is that “as long as the
returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished, the BOC cannot look beyond or behind them to
verify allegations of irregularities in the casting or the counting of votes. Corollarily, technical examination
of voting paraphernalia involving analysis and comparison of voters' signatures and thumbprints thereon is
prohibited in pre-proclamation cases which are mandated by law to be expeditiously resolved x x x

However, the COMELEC is duty bound to investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence and
other analogous causes in actions for annulment of election results or for declaration of failure of elections,
as the Omnibus Election Code denominates the same.

Thus, the COMELEC, in the case of actions for annulment of election results or declaration of
failure of elections, may conduct technical examination of election documents and compare and analyze
voters' signatures and fingerprints in order to determine whether or not the elections had indeed been free,
honest and clean.

The granting of the (1) is valid. The COMELEC’s decision to annul the election results in
Parang is based on the 2 examination conducted: one, the count of the registration record in comparison
with the votes garnered by petitioners, there is a 171 excess votes. Also, 822 non-registered voters voted;
second, the thumbprints found in Computerized list of voters do not tally with the prints on the registration
record, meaning the persons who voted were impostors and a total 10,780 came from the same person.
Undoubtedly, all casted in favor of petitioners.

The dismissal of the (2) petition is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The
COMELEC arbitrarily and without valid ground dismissed petitioners’ petition to declare failure of election.
The COMELEC itself noted that the same badges of fraud were evident in the election results of the assailed
5 municipalities by petitioners. Both parties are similarly situated, hence both must be accorder equal favor
before the law, and if the contrary so warrants, to suffer equally the brunt of said law.
CASE #10: CANICOSA vs COMELEC [G.R. No. 120318 December 5, 1997]

FACTS: Petitioner Canicosa and private respondent Lajara were Mayoral candidates in Calamba, Laguna
during the 1995 elections. After canvassing, Lajara was proclaimed winner by the BOC. Canicosa filed a
petition to declare failure of election and to declare null and void the canvass and proclamation of Lajara
because of alleged widespread anomalies and fraud in the casting and accounting of votes, preparation of
election returns, violence, threats, intimidation, vote buying, unregistered voters voting and delay in the
delivery of the election documents and paraphernalia. The COMELEC dismissed the petition on the ground
that the allegations therein did not justify a declaration of failure of election.

Issue: Does the grounds invoked justify a declaration of failure of election?

HELD: NO. 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.

None of the grounds invoked by Canicosa falls under any of those enumerated.

THAT the names of the registered voters in the various precincts did not appear in their
respective lists of voters 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 R.A.
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 vote3 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.

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.

THAT the election returns were delivered late and the ballot boxes brought to the Office
of the Municipal Treasurer unsecured, i.e., without padlocks nor self-locking metal seals. These bare
allegations cannot impel us to declare failure of election. Assuming that the election returns were delivered
late, we still cannot see why we should declare a failure to elect. The late deliveries did not convert the
election held in Calamba into a mockery or farce to make us conclude that there was indeed a failure of
election.

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. In Mitmug v. Commission on Elections6 we ruled that before
COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, at least two (2)
conditions must concur: (a) no voting has taken place in the precincts on the date fixed by
law, or even if there was voting, the election nevertheless resulted in failure to elect; and, (b)
the votes that were not cast would affect the result of the election. From the face of the instant
petition, it is readily apparent than an election took place and that it did not result in a failure to elect