ADEL: MIDTERMS GROUND 2:

PETITION TO DECLARE NUISANCE CANDIDATES

CHALLENGES UPON ONE’S CANDIDACY
25 PTS Petition to Declare Nuisance Candidates
One who filed COC to put the
DND-SM Who is a nuisance election process in mockery
1. Disqualification candidate? Causes confusion among
2. Declare Nuisance Candidate voters
3. Deny Due Course or Cancel COC [Mo-Con-Bo-Na] Does acts which clearly
4. Substitution Mockery demonstrate that he has no
5. Multiple COCs Confusion bona fide intention to run
Non- Bona Fide for office
GROUND 1: DISQUALIFICATION Non-Nationwide Cannot wage a nationwide
campaign
Law Provision
Sec 39, 1987 Constitution Rival candidate
Who may file?
Pres and VP: NAV10-40
Senators: NAV 2-35 COMELEC, motu proprio
Representatives: NAV 1-25

[Natural born Filipino, Form? Verified petition

Able to read and write, Registered
Voter, 5 days from the last day to
When?
10 years residence in PH, file COCs.
1987
At least 40 y.o.) on the day of Personally or through
Constitution How?
Election] representative
After filing, the respondent is
Violation of the term-limit rule given 3 days from receipt of
[a] the official concerned has been Procedure? summons within which to file
elected for 3 consecutive terms in the a Verified Answer.
same local government post; and
[b] he has served three consecutive
terms. (Ong v Alegre) PAMATONG VS COMELEC (Nuisance Candidate)
The question of whether a candidate is a nuisance
Insanity candidate or not is both legal and factual. The basis of
Incompetence the factual determination is not before this Court. Thus, the
Final Judgment for remand of this case for the reception of further evidence is in
 Treason order.
Omnibus  Rebellion
Election Code  Insurrection
II-TRICS-18-M  Coup d’etat GROUND 3:
 Sedition PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE OR CANCEL
Sentenced to a penalty of 18 mos CANDIDACY
Sentenced to a crime involving moral
torpitude
Any registered voter
FJ of moral torpitude
Who may file Duly registered Political Party
1 year or more of imporisonment
Coalition of Parties
Removed from office from an
Form? Verified Petition
Local Gov’t Code administrative case
5 days from the last day to
Convicted by FJ for violating oath of
When? file COC, but not later than
allegiance
25 days from filing of COC
Dual Citizenship
Exclusive Ground Material Misrepresentation
Accessory Penalty of Perpetual or
Temporary Absolute Disqualification
Revised Penal Duty of the Comelec. Subject to its authority over nuisance
for Public Office which deprives the
Code candidates and its power to deny due course to or cancel a
right to vote, or to be elected in such
certificate of candidacy under Sec. 78, B.P. 881
office.

TECSON VS COMELEC
Fornier sought to deny due course or to cancel his certificate
TRINIDAD VS COMELEC (Disqualification)
of candidacy upon the thesis that FPJ made a material
Expiration of the term of office contested in the election
misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by claiming
protest has the effect of rendering the same moot and
to be a natural-born Filipino citizen when in truth he is not.
academic.
Petitioner Fornier invoked Section 78 of the Omnibus Election
Code –
With the complaint for Disqualification of Sunga rendered
moot and academic by Trinidad’s term, COMELEC acted with
―Section 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a
GAD in disqualifying Trinidad from his reelected term office in
certificate of candidacy. --- A verified petition seeking to deny
its second resolution.
due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed
by any person exclusively on the ground that any material
representation contained therein as required under Section 74
hereof is false‖ –

1 / 10
But while the totality of the evidence may not establish petitioner did not file any certificate of candidacy. Contrary to
conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen of above respondent’s claim, the absence of a specific provision
the Philippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate governing substitution of candidates in barangay elections can
in his favor enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of not be inferred as a prohibition against said substitution.
having made a material misrepresentation in his His claim is refuted by the Memo of COMELEC LD wherein it
certificate of candidacy in violation of Section 78, in indubitably appears that petitioner’s letter request to be
relation to Section 74, of the Omnibus Election Code. allowed to run in lieu of her late husband was treated as a
Petitioner has utterly failed to substantiate his case before the COC.
Court, notwithstanding the ample opportunity given to the
parties to present their position and evidence, and to prove
whether or not there has been material misrepresentation, ONG VS ALEGRE
which, must not only be material, but also deliberate and There can be no valid substitution where a candidate is
willful. excluded not only by disqualification but also by denial of his
COC. A person without a valid certificate of candidacy cannot
SALCEDO be considered a candidate in much the same way as any
Aside from the requirement of materiality, a false person who has not filed any certificate of candidacy at all can
representation under section 78 must consist of a "deliberate not, by any stretch of the imagination, be a candidate at all.
attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would
otherwise render a candidate ineligible." In other words, it
must be made with an intention to deceive the electorate as
to one's qualifications for public office.

GROUND 5: MULTIPLE COCs

Pet. To Deny Due Course vs Quo Warranto

PETITION TO DENY QUO WARRANTO

Filing for more than one
DUE COURSE OR
office is prohibited.
CANCEL COC
When to Before Election After Election (10 However, when the candidate
file? Sec 78, OEC days after Rule declares under oath the office
proclamation) he desires and cancels the
Sec 253 other prior to the expiration
Ground on Material Ineligibility and of period to file COC, it is
Misrepresentation Disloyalty allowed.
GROUND 4: SUBSTITUTION When he files for two COCs
for different offices, he
Effect
becomes ineligible for either
Dies
Instances: Candidate position.
Withdraws
either He may withdraw one of his
Disqualified
COCs by filing before the
Person belonging to same What to DO
Who may file? commission before the
party deadline of filing of COCs.
Not later than the midday of
When Form Sworn declaration
Election day.
Votes casted for the
substituted candidate shall be LONE CANDIDATE LAW (RA 8295)
considered votes for the
10 pts.
Effect substitute
Provided that the substitute
and the substituted share the 1. Special Elections: Lone candidate may be
same family name proclaimed winner without the special election
Independent Candidate conducted.
2. Regular Elections: At least 1 vote is needed.
a. Exception: For Presidential and V-
Presidential Elections, there should be a
special election.
RULLODA VS COMELEC (passed away and substituted
by his wife; allowed by her letter)
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS AND
Romeo N. Rulloda and Remegio L. Placido were the CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES
contending candidates for Barangay Chairman of Sto. 10 PTS
Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan. On June 22, 2002,
Romeo suffered a heart attack and passed away. Registration of Voters
Regular Elections:
His widow, petitioner Petronila "Betty" Rulloda, wrote a letter 120 days before RE
When?
to the Commission on Elections on June 25, 2002 seeking Special Elections:
permission to run as candidate for Barangay Chairman 90 days before SE
of Sto. Tomas in lieu of her late husband. This WAS Filipino
Allowed. At least 18 yo
Who?
Resident of PH 1 year
Placido argued that since the barangay election is non- F-18-1-6
immediately preceding the
partisan, substitution of candidates is not allowed. Moreover, elections

2 / 10
 Resident of the place where election.
he proposes to vote 6 Loss or destruction of
months prior to elections. election records
Terrorism
CAMPAIGN AND EXPENDITURES Force Majeure
Any interested party
Who may file?
Election Period 90 days before election, and COMELEC, motu proprio
90 ends 30 days after election.
30
Campaign Period Pres & VP: 90 days However, before the Comelec can act on a verified petition
90 Senate, HR, Local: 45 days seeking a declaration of failure of election, two conditions
45 Barangay: 15 days must concur, namely:
15 (i) no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on
the date fixed by law, or even if there was voting, the election
It shall be unlawful for any person or party to engage in nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect; and
election campaign, except during the campaign period. (ii) the votes cast would affect the results of the election

What are the elements of violation of Sec 80 above? A petition to declare a failure of election is neither an election
1. Person engages in election campaign protest nor a pre-proclamation controversy
2. The act is designed to promote election or defeat [Borja v. .Comelec, 260 SCRA 604].
of a particular candidate
3. Such is done outside the campaign period.
CASTING AND COUNTING OF VOTES
10 pts COUNTING OR APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS
Task of BEI, not BOC.
FAILURE OF ELECTIONS
1. Force Majeure, Violence person's identity is presumed
Terrorism, Fraud, Other known despite the
Idem Sonans
analogous causes (FVTFO) misspelling of his or her
2. Election is suspended name
before the hour fixed by law where the name of a
for the closing of the voting candidate is not written in
(So if voting closes at 3pm or the proper space in the
7pm, if precinct closes at ballot, but is preceded by the
Neighborhood Rule
1pm or 5pm, then it is name of the office for which
considered failure of he is a candidate, the vote
elections). should be counted as valid
3. After the voting and for said candidate.
during the preparation and It is a rule which counts the
Instances the transmission of the vote in favor of the
election returns or in the incumbent who shares the
custody or canvass thereof, same full name, first name or
such election results in a surname with 2 or more
Equity of Incumbent
failure to elect on account candidates and on the ballot
of FVTFO. is written only such full
(During the PTRCA- name, first name or
Preparation, Transmission, surname.
Receipt, Custody, and
Appreciation of ERs, there is
a failure to elect because of
FVTFO- force majeure, BEI AND BOC
violence, terrorism, fraud,
other analogous causes. Powers and Functions
The most important cause W/N the cause results in a Counting of Votes
of failure of elections/ failure to elect, and failure of Prepares the Certificates of
TEST of FAILURE OF which would affect the results Votes
ELECTIONS: of the election Prepares the Election Returns
In case of Failure, what CONTINUATION of election. Announces the total number
will COMELEC do? BEI
of votes received
At a date reasonably close to Acts as deputies of COMELEC
the date of the election not to assure the holding of a
When continued? held, but not later that 30 free, orderly, and honest
days after the cessation of elections.
the cause. Compiles and adds the
Who may file? Any interested party results as they appear in the
election returns transmitted
POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS to it by the BEI.
BOC
Violence
Instances Analogous causes that would Prepares the Statement of
[Vi-L-A-T-FM] make impossible the holding Votes, which forms basis of
of an orderly and honest the Certificate of Canvass

3 / 10
 and of the Proclamation 7166 to enter its rulings, particularly on those
Proclaims the Winning objections that have been reduced to writing, on the
Candidate prescribed form and authenticate the same by the
signatures of its members.

AGUJETAS VS CA
In re: “simultaneous” in Par “C” of Sec 20:
G.R. No. 106560. August 23, 1996
The word "simultaneous" must not be given a strict and
constricting meaning. Submission of the written objection
BOC’s erroneous proclamation is punishable under Sec. 262 in
within 24 hours from when the oral objection was made is
relation to Sec. 231 (2) of the Omnibus Election Code. It does
substantial compliance with the law. There was never any
not matter whether there was failure or there was mere error
discussion that the same shall be submitted at the
[of proclamation]. The results are the same, injustice being
same moment as the oral objection. Thus, as a rule,
the end result.
submission of written copies within twenty-four (24)
hours together with the evidence, may be considered
substantial compliance with the rule.
ESPIDOL v COMELEC
GR No. 164922, October 11, 2005
W/N THERE EXISTS A VALID PRE PROC CONTROVERSY
Tabag is correct. Espidol argues that the grounds invoked by Yes, there is a valid PPC.
private respondent Tabag, i.e., lack of inner paper seals, lack
of signature of BEI chairman, absence of thumbmarks on the
election returns, among others, are merely defects in form
and not proper subjects of a pre-proclamation A PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
controversy. This is incorrect. Such defects were material. IS DEFINED AS
 referring "to any question pertaining to or
TOPIC FROM SYLLABUS  affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers
Section 20 of R.A. No. 7166 OUTLINES THE PROCEDURE  which may be raised by any candidate or by any
for the DISPOSITION OF CONTESTED ELECTION registered political party or coalition of political
RETURNS, THUS: parties
 before the board or directly with the Commission,
(a) Any candidate, political party or coalition of political  or any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235
parties contesting the inclusion or exclusion in the canvass of and 236
any election returns on any of the grounds authorized under  in relation to the preparation, transmission,
Article XX or Section 234, 235 and 236 of Article XIX of the receipt, custody and appreciation of the
Omnibus Election Code shall submit their ORAL OBJECTION election returns." (PTRCA/CRAPT of ERs)
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS at
the time the questioned return is presented for inclusion in
the canvass. Such objection shall be recorded in the minutes
Thus,
of the canvass.
PRE-PROC CONTROVERSY
(b) Upon receipt of any such objection, the board of Any question pertaining to or
canvassers shall automatically DEFER THE CANVASS OF What is it? affecting the proceedings of
THE CONTESTED RETURNS and shall proceed to canvass the board of canvassers
the returns which are not contested by any party. 1. any candidate
2. by any registered
(c) SIMULTANEOUS with the oral objection, the objecting Who can file? political party
party shall also enter his objection in the form for 3. coalition of political
written objections to be prescribed by the Commission. parties
Within twenty-four (24) hours from and after the presentation 1. The BOC itself
Filed against who?
of such an objection, the objecting party shall submit the 2. COMELEC
evidence in support of the objection, which shall be attached (PTRCA)
to the form for written objections. Within the same period of 1. Preparation
twenty-four (24) hours after presentation of the objection, 2. Transmission
In relation to which
any party may file a written and verified opposition to the 3. Receipt
processes?
objection in the form also to be prescribed by the 4. Custody
Commission, attaching thereto supporting evidence, if any. 5. Appreciation of ERs

The board shall not entertain any objection or opposition

unless reduced to writing in the prescribed forms.
ISSUES THAT MAY BE RAISED IN A PREPROCLAMATION
(d) Upon receipt of the evidence, the board shall take up the CONTROVERSY are as follows:
contested returns, consider the written objections thereto and
opposition, if any, and summarily and IMMEDIATELY RULE (a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of
thereon. The board shall enter its ruling on the prescribed canvassers;
form and authenticate the same by the signatures of its (b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete,
members. contain material defects, appear to be tampered with
or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same
Here, In no single instance did the MBC make any written returns or in another authentic copies thereof as
ruling on the numerous petitions for exclusion filed by Tabag. mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this
Even those objections made in writing were not acted and Code;
ruled upon by the MBC; neither did it act on the several (c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats,
written notices of appeal. Clearly, the MBC violated its coercion or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured
duty under paragraph (d) of Section 20 of R.A. No. or not authentic; and

4 / 10
  Receipt
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controversy  Custody
polling places were canvassed, the results of which materially  Appreciation of
affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or ERs
candidates.

Admittedly, the Court had the occasion to state that lack of

inner paper seals in the election returns does not justify their ISSUES OF A PRE PROC
exclusion from canvassing and that such is not proper subject Illegal proceedings of the
of a pre-proclamation controversy. However, in the present BOC
case, aside from the lack of inner paper seals, private Canvassed ERs are
respondent Tabag raised other grounds for the incomplete, or contains
exclusion of certain election returns, including lack of material defects
signature of the Chairman of the BEI and absence of ERs were prepared under
thumbmarks of the members of the BEI. Included Issues duress, coercion, or
intimidation, or are obviously
Thus, because manufactured or not
 There are no inner paper seals authentic
 No signature of BEI Chairman ERs of National Candidates
 Absence of thumbmarks of BEI which are MANIFESTLY
The absence of these signatures and thumbmarks rendered ERRONEOUS.
the said election returns materially defective and, therefore, ERs of President
is a proper subject of a pre-proclamation controversy. ERs of Vice-President
Excluded Issues
ERs of Senators
It bears reiterating, at this point, that the COMELEC is given ERs of Members of HoR
the authority to annul any canvass and proclamation
ILLEGALLY MADE. The fact that a candidate illegally Distinguished from other Remedies
proclaimed has assumed office is not a bar to the exercise of PPC Election Protest
such power. Nature Summary Plenary (?)
Limited on the to pierce the veil
It is also true that as a general rule, the proper remedy after ―face‖
the proclamation of the winning candidate for the position Grounds During the PTRCA, fraud or terrorism
contested would be to file a regular election protest or quo the ERs were attendant to
warranto. This rule, however, admits of exceptions and one manufactured, election process
of those is where the proclamation was null and void. In altered or falsified
such a case, i.e., where the proclamation is null and void, the and not authentic
proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive
the COMELEC of the power to declare such
proclamation a nullity. JURISDICTION

(The ET only has jurisdiction to take cognizance if and BELAC v COMELEC

only if there was a valid proclamation. If the GR No. 145802, April 4, 2001
proclamation itself rooted from an illegal process, then
the COMELEC HAS AUTHORITY TO ANNUL THE SAME) Pre-Proclamation is summary in nature; Election
Protest is not.
COMELEC decision AFFIRMED. COMELEC is not to look beyond or behind election returns
which are on their face regular and authentic returns. A party
seeking to raise issues resolution of which would, compel or
WATCHERS necessitate COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns
which appear prima facie regular on their face, has his proper
Registered Political Parties
Who are entitled? remedy in a regular election protest.
Coalition of Political Parties
RIC
Independent Candidates By their very nature, and given the obvious public interest in
the speedy determination of the results of elections, pre-
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSIES proclamation controversies are to be resolved in summary
15 PTS. proceedings without the need to present evidence aliunde and
certainly without having to go through voluminous documents
and subjecting them to meticulous technical examinations
PRE-PROC CONTROVERSY which take up considerable time. As long as the returns
Any question pertaining to or appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face,
What is it? affecting the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers cannot look beyond or behind them
the board of canvassers to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting or the
 any candidate counting of the votes.
 by any registered
Who can file? political party
 coalition of political
parties SEBASTIAN VS COMELEC
 The BOC itself
Filed against who? In this case, the petitioner postulates for a full reception of
 COMELEC
evidence aliunde and the meticulous examination of the
(PTRCA)
In relation to which documents is a clear anathema to a pre-proclamation
 Preparation
processes? controversy, which, by its very nature, is to be heard
 Transmission
summarily and decided on as promptly as possible.

5 / 10
 Distinguish an election protest from a pre-proclamation
What is then the proper remedy if the petitioner wants controversy.
to pierce the veil of election returns?
ELECTION PROTEST. Where the resolution of the issues raised ELECTION CONTEST PRE-PROC CONTROVERSY
would require the COMELEC to "pierce the veil" of election The parties may litigate all This is limited to incomplete,
returns that appear prima facie regular, the remedy is a the legal and factual issues falsified or materially
regular election protest, ". . . wherein the parties may litigate raised by them in as much defective returns which
all the legal and factual issues raised by them in as much detail as they may deem appear as such on their face.
detail as they may deem necessary or appropriate. necessary or appropriate

(The previous concept talked about not going beyond

the face of ELECTION RETURNS. How about a However, once proclaimed and duly sworn in office, a public
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY? officer is entitled to assume office and to exercise the
functions thereof. The pendency of an election protest is not
The same holds true. sufficient basis to enjoin him from assuming office or from
discharging his functions [Mendoza v. Laxina]
COMMISSION TO NOT GO BEYOND THE FACE OF THE
COC OCAMPO VS COMELEC
As early as in Abcede v. Imperial, 103 Phil 136, the Supreme
Court said that the Commission has no discretion to give or Presumption of Regularity of Bona Fide ERs
not to give due course to a certificate of candidacy filed in due In the absence of a strong evidence establishing spuriousness
form. While the Commission may look into patent defects in of the returns, the basic rule that the election returns shall be
the certificate, it may not go into matters not appearing on accorded prima facie status as bona fide reports of the results
their face. of the count of the votes for canvassing and proclamation
purposes must perforce prevail.
General Rule: COMELEC may not go beyond the face of
certificate of candidacy. ITCAB, the omitted data are merely formal defects and not so
Exceptions: material as to affect the votes the candidates obtained in the
Instances when the Comelec may go beyond the face of the election.
certificate of candidacy:

a) Nuisance candidates [R.A. 6646]. SANDOVAL VS COMELEC

The Comelec may, motu propio, or upon verified petition of COMELEC has jurisdiction to correct manifest errors
an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a even in the National Elections.
certificate of candidacy if it is shown that the said certificate The second sentence of Section 15 ALLOWS the filing of
was filed: petitions for correction before the COMELEC of manifest
o To put the election process in mockery or errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns
disrepute; even in [national] elections for president, vice-
o To cause confusion among the voters by the president and members of the house of representatives
similarity of the names of the registered for the simple reason that the correction of manifest error will
candidates; or not prolong the process of canvassing nor delay the
o By other circumstances or acts which clearly proclamation of the winner in the election.
demonstrate that the candidate has no bona
fide intention to run for the office for which
the certificate has been filed, and thus LUCMAN v COMELEC
prevent a faithful determination of the true GR No. 166229, June 29, 2005
will of the electorate.
The enumeration in Section 243 is restrictive and
b) Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate exclusive. (PPC involving PTRCA of ERs)
of candidacy. Issues such as fraud or terrorism attendant to the election
A verified petition may be filed exclusively on the ground that process, the resolution of which would compel or necessitate
any material representation contained in the certificate as the COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns are
required under Sec. 74 is false. The petition may be filed not anathema to a pre-proclamation controversy. Such issues
later than 25 days from the time of the filing of the certificate should be posed and resolved in a regular election protest,
of candidacy, and shall be decided, after due notice and which is within the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
hearing, not later than 15 days before the election [Sec. 78, Court.
B.P. 881]

c) Filing of a disqualification case on any of the

MILLA VS COMELEC
grounds enumerated in Sec. 68, B.P. 881.
JURISDICTION: Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit
en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of
The jurisdiction of the Comelec to disqualify candidates is
procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases,
limited to those enumerated in Sec. 68, B.P. 881. All other
including pre-proclamation controversies.
election offenses are beyond the ambit of the Comelec
jurisdiction. They are criminal and not administrative in
All such election cases shall be heard and decided in
nature, and the power of the Comelec over such cases is
division, provided that motions for reconsideration of
confined to the conduct of preliminary investigation on the
decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
alleged election offense for the purpose of prosecuting the
alleged offenders before the courts of justice [Codilla v.
DIVISION: Election cases
Comelec,]
EN BANC: Motions for Reconsideration

6 / 10
ITCAB, it should have first been heard and decided by a in his answer a counterprotest. It has been said that a
division of the COMELEC, and then En Banc if a MR of the counterprotest is tantamount to a counterclaim in a civil
decision of the division were filed. action and may be presented as a part of the answer within
the time he is required to answer the protest, unless a motion
for extension is granted, in which case it must be filed before
the expiration of the extended time.
POST-ELECTION DISPUTES
20 PTS.
QUO WARRANTO
ELECTION PROTEST
Distinguished from an Election Protest
It refers to election contest relating to election and returns of
Quo Warranto Election Protest
elective officials. It proposes to oust winning candidate from
office. It is strictly a contest between a winning and defeated Who can A candidate running for
Any registered voter
candidates. file? same office (Rival)
 (FIT)
 frauds
ELECTION PROTEST  (ID)
 irregularities
Fraud  disloyalty
 terrorism
Illegal Acts Grounds or
Grounds Or  ineligibility
Terrorism during or after … in casting &
[F-I-T] ISSUES
Casting and Counting of counting of ballots,
of the winning
Votes or preparation of
candidate
It can only be filed by a the returns.
candidate who has filed a
Who can file certificate of candidacy and To unseat the Raises the question of
has been voted upon for the respondent from who actually obtained
Effect of
same office. office but not the plurality of the legal
Filing or
Effect Unseats the respondent necessarily to install votes and therefore is
Purpose
Period 10 days from proclamation the petitioner in his entitled to hold the
No protest is accepted for place. office.
filing without payment of Period 10 days from proclamation of results
Payment of Docket Fee
P300 filing fee for each Vesting
interest of
Payment of Docket Fee
Counter Protest Jurisdict
ion

Jurisdiction in an Election Protest Distinguished from a PPC

Position Who has Appeal to
jurisdiction? Quo Warranto Pre-Proc Controversy
President/ Vice SC acting as SC  any candidate
President Presidential Electoral  by any
Tribunal (PET) Who can registered
Any registered voter
Senator Senate Electoral SC by way of file? political party
Tribunal (SET) certiorari if coalition of political
there’s parties
GADALEJ Any question pertaining
Representative House of Reps ET SC by way of to or affecting the
(HRET) certiorari if proceedings of the board
 (ID)
there’s of canvassers on PTRCA
 disloyalty
GADALEJ  Preparation
Grounds or
Municipal RTC COMELEC;  Transmission
Or  ineligibility
SC by way of  Receipt
ISSUES
certiorari  Custody
of the winning
Brgy MTC/ MeTC  Appreciation of
candidate
Election Returns
The pendency of an election protest is NOT a sufficient basis
to enjoin protestee from assuming office.
To unseat the
Appeals respondent from
Effect of
1. From Electoral Tribunal  SC  Rule 65 on office but not
Filing or
certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus if there’s necessarily to install
Purpose
GADALEJ the petitioner in his
2. COMELEC  SC  Rule 64 on Ordinary Appeal place.
3. COMELEC  SC  Rule 65 on certiorari, prohibition,
or mandamus if there’s GADALEJ
4. MTC/RTC  COMELEC DUMAYAS VS COMELEC
5. MTC/RTC  SC Rule 65 on certiorari, prohibition, G.R. Nos. 141952-53. April 20, 2001
or mandamus, if there’s GADALEJ TOPIC: Quo Warranto Proceedings under the OEC
As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a petition
KHO VS COMELEC for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-
COUNTER-PROTEST: It should be stressed that under the proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the protestee may incorporate one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the authority

7 / 10
to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the remedy is a regular election protest, not a preproclamation
validity of his proclamation. controversy.

Nevertheless, the general rule is not absolute. It Here, petitioner merely had bare allegations, and didn’t
admits of certain exceptions, as where: adduce evidence that would show that the returns were
indeed spurious or tampered with. Returns cannot be
(a) the BOC was improperly constituted; excluded on mere allegation that the returns are
(b) quo warranto was not the proper remedy; manufactured or fictitious when the returns, on their face,
(c) what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto appear regular and without any physical signs of tampering,
or an election protest but a petition to annul a alteration or other similar vice. If there had been sham voting
proclamation; or minimal voting which was made to appear as normal
(d) the filing of a quo warranto petition or an election protest through falsification of the election returns, such grounds are
was expressly made without prejudice to the pre- properly cognizable in an election protest and not in a pre-
proclamation controversy or was made ad cautelam; and proclamation controversy.
(e) the proclamation was null and void.
Therefore, COMELEC en banc did not commit grave
An examination of the petition filed by Vice Mayor abuse of discretion in reversing the ruling of its Second
Betita reveals that it is neither a quo warranto petition Division.
nor an election protest.

Samad vs COMELEC: A petition for quo warranto under

the Omnibus Election Code raises in issue the disloyalty or
ineligibility of the winning candidate. It is a proceeding to
unseat the respondent from office but not necessarily to
install the petitioner in his place. ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS

An election protest, on the other hand, is a contest between JURISDICTION

the defeated and winning candidates on the ground of frauds
or irregularities in the casting and counting of the ballots, or Position Who has Appeal to
in the preparation of the returns. It raises the question of who jurisdiction?
actually obtained the plurality of the legal votes and therefore
President/ Vice SC acting as SC
is entitled to hold the office.
President Presidential Electoral
Tribunal (PET)
In the case at bar, the allegations contained in Betita's
Senator Senate Electoral SC by way of
petition before the regular court do not present any proper
Tribunal (SET) certiorari if
issue for either an election protest or a quo warranto case
there’s
under the Omnibus Election Code. The special civil action is
GADALEJ
actually an action for the annulment of petitioner's
Representative House of Reps ET SC by way of
proclamation on the ground of illegality and
(HRET) certiorari if
prematurity. Although petition was denominated as a quo
there’s
warranto petition under Rule 66 of the RoC, it is different
GADALEJ
from the quo warranto provided for in the OEC, where the
Municipal RTC COMELEC;
only issue is to determine either the disloyalty or
SC by way of
ineligibility of the respondent. Neither can it be considered
as an election protest since what was put forth as an issue in certiorari
said petition was petitioner's alleged unlawful assumption of Brgy MTC/ MeTC
the office of Mayor by virtue of his alleged illegal proclamation
as the winning candidate in the election.
Effect of Death
Thus, COMELEC did not err, much less abuse its discretion, Death of Protestant. The death of the protestant does not
when it refused to consider as abandoned Bernal's motion for extinguish an election protest. In De Castro v. Comelec, 267
reconsideration and urgent motion to declare petitioner's SCRA 806, it was held that an election protest is imbued with
proclamation as void ab initio. public interest which raises it onto a plane over and above
ordinary civil actions, because it involves not only the
ISSUE 2: W/N COMELEC 2nd Division erred in ordering the adjudication of the private interest of the rival candidates but
exclusion of the contested returns. also the paramount need of dispelling once and for all the
uncertainty that beclouds the real choice of the electorate
HELD: Yes. COMELEC 2ND Division gravely erred in ordering with respect to who shall discharge the prerogatives of the
the exclusion of the contested returns. Thus, COMELEC EN office within their gift. In this case, it was held that the Vice
Banc correctly reversed the Second Division’s Mayor-elect has the status of a real party in interest in the
resolution, by holding that petitioner failed to justify the continuation of the proceedings.
exclusion of said returns on the ground of duress,
intimidation, threat or coercion. The only evidence submitted In Poe v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, PET Case No. 002, March
by petitioner to prove said irregularities were self-serving 29, 2005, the Supreme Court said that if persons not real
affidavits executed by his watchers and supporters. parties in the action could be allowed to intervene,
proceedings will be unnecessarily complicated, expensive and
In a pre-proclamation controversy, the board of canvassers interminable — and this is not the policy of the law. Inasmuch
and the COMELEC are not required to look beyond or behind as no real parties such as the vice-presidential aspirants in
the election returns which are on their face regular and the 2004 elections have come forward to intervene, or to be
authentic. Where a party seeks to raise issues the resolution substituted for the deceased protestant, it is far more prudent
of which would necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the veil of to abide by the existing and strict limitations on intervention
election returns which are prima facie regular, the proper and substitution under the law and the rules.

8 / 10
POE vs GMA is the prevailing Doctrine as per Atty: [But I
think it is pro hac vice since the case didn’t expressly He prayed that the case be dismissed on the ground that the
abandon De Castro. There, Susan Roces herself admitted that following jurisdictional allegations have not been alleged in
she didn’t want to assume or substitute the office of FPJ. SC the petition of protest:
also held that the reason why the protest failed was because
Susan was not a real party in interest.] (1) that contestant (Antonio Miro) has filed a certificate of
candidacy;
(2) the date of proclamation.
Atty’s PPT:
NO right of substitution can inure in favor of a surviving Consequently, the CFI issued an order dismissing the election
spouse, for the right to hold the disputed public office is a protest on the sole ground that the failure of the protestants
personal right which cannot be transmitted to the latter’s to allege the date of proclamation of the protestee renders
legal heirs. the court without jurisdiction to try and decide the protest,
citing the case of Yumul vs. Palma.
BARBERS VS COMELEC
G.R. No. 165691. June 22, 2005 From the aforesaid order of dismissal, petitioners appealed to
TOPIC: (Senate) Electoral Tribunal the COMELEC, which affirmed the order of dismissal, stating
Where the candidate has already been proclaimed winner in that the "omission is a fatal defect as it is jurisdictional; in
the congressional elections, the remedy of petitioner is to file other words, the CFI did not acquire jurisdiction to hear and
an electoral protest with the Senate Electoral Tribunal. decide the case from the very start and the only mandatory
course of action for it to take is to dismiss the said protest‖.
It is then clear that annulment of proclamation, be it partial
or total, arises from the Commission's jurisdiction over pre- The law applicable is Section 190 of P .D. No. 1296, otherwise
proclamation controversies. Republic Act (RA) No. 7166, known as the Election Code of 1978, which provides that:
qualifies such power of the Commission by so stating that a
pre-proclamation contest may only apply in cases Section 190. Election Contest of Municipal and Municipal
where there are "manifest errors" in the election District Offices. – A sworn petition contesting the election of a
returns or certificates of canvass, with respect to national municipal or municipal district officer shall be filed with the
elective positions such as herein case. proper Court of First Instance by any candidate for the same
office who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy, within ten
Conclusion: (10) days after the proclamation of the election."
The alleged invalidity of Biazon's proclamation involves a
dispute or contest relating to the election returns of members This was further amplified by Section 2, Rule II of Resolution
of the Senate. Indisputably, the resolution of such dispute No. 1451 promulgated by the COMELEC under the authority
falls within the sole jurisdiction of the SET. For this Court to of the 1978 Election Code in relation to Section 18 of BP Blg.
take cognizance of the electoral protest against Biazon would 52:
usurp the constitutional functions of the SET.
Sec. 2. Filing of election contests. –A sworn petition
In addition, the COMELEC did not commit any grave abuse of contesting the election of any municipal or municipal district
discretion in issuing the assailed Resolutions affirming officer-elect shall be filed with the proper Court of First
Biazon's proclamation since the uncanvassed returns and the Instance, or mailed at the post office as registered matter
results of the special elections to be held would not materially addressed to said Court, together with twelve (12) legible
affect the results of the elections. copies thereof, by any candidate for the same office who had
duly filed a certicate of candidacy and who was voted upon in
the election. Each contest shall refer exclusively to one office
RIVERA VS COMELEC but contests for offices of the Sangguniang Bayan may be
G.R. No. 95336. July 12, 1991 consolidated in one case.

Decisions in election contests from the [RTC], involving ISSUE: WON the petition was presented within the
elective municipal and barangay officials, notwithstanding it period prescribed by law
being final, executory and not appealable, may [still] be
questioned in the Supreme Court via special civil action of HELD: Yes. There is no question that the petition of protest
certiorari. contains averments that sufficiently comply with the two (2)
requisites of jurisdiction. The only question hinges on the
third requisite.
ANTONIO S. MIRO VS. COMELEC AND CAYETANO B.
CAUAN Paragraph 7 of petitioner's petition of protest claims that the
| G.R. NO. L-57574 | APRIL 20, 1983 same "was presented within the period filed by law".
Generally, such averment is not sufficient assurance that the
TOPIC FROM THE SYLLABUS: Procedure in Election Contests petition was indeed filed on time, absent a showing of the
date to reckon the timeliness of the filing of the petition.
FACTS:
Petitioner filed an election protest assailing the proclamation In this case, the Court holds that the absence of averment as
of herein respondent as the Municipal Mayor-elect of San regards the date of the proclamation, is not fatal so as to
Pablo Isabela, by 3,304 votes as against petitioner who prevent the court from acquiring jurisdiction over petitioner's
garnered 2,133 votes. Records show that the petition was petition of protest. The mere fact that the petition of protest
filed on February 9, 1980, and was presented within the was filed with the Court of First Instance on February 9, 1980
period fixed by law (paragraph 7 of the petition). as the records will show, is presumptive of the fact that the
petition of protest was filed within the ten (10) day period,
However, the respondent filed his answer with counter protest considering that the elections were held on January 30, 1980.
and motion to dismiss, stating that he was proclaimed as the
duly elected candidate for Mayor of San Pablo, Isabela, and Respondent-protestee's admission in his answer with counter-
submitting as annex, a copy of the Certicate of Canvass and protest and motion to dismiss of his proclamation, attaching
Proclamation issued by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. thereto the certificate of canvass and proclamation showing

9 / 10
that he was proclaimed on January 31, 1980 erases all doubts protestant, in cases where the widow is not a real party
as to the timeliness of the filing of the protest. in interest, we denied substitution by the wife or heirs.

By these facts, therefore, it becomes undisputable that the

This is not to say that death of the protestant necessarily
petition of protest was filed on time and respondent court
abates the pending action. We have held as early as Vda. de
should not have dismissed the case.
De 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
DE CASTRO VS. COMELEC AND AMADO A. MEDRANO or to the protestee such that the death of either would oust
| G.R. NO. 125249 | FEBRUARY 7, 1997 the court of all authority to continue the protest proceedings.

Effect of the Contestant’s Death in an Election Protest

Hence, we have allowed substitution and intervention but only
It is true that a public office is personal to the public officer by a real party in interest. A real party in interest is the party
and is not a property transmissible to his heirs upon death. who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, and the
Thus, applying the doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum party who is entitled to the avails of the suit. Herein Mrs. FPJ,
persona , upon the death of the incumbent, no heir of his may herself denies any claim to the august office of President.
be allowed to continue holding his office in his place. Thus, given the circumstances of this case, we can conclude
that protestant’s widow is not a real party in interest to this
But while the right to a public office is personal and exclusive election protest.
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 ELECTION OFFENSES
court of all authority to continue the protest
proceedings. a) Vote-buying and vote-selling.

Upon the same principle, the death of the protestee De Mesa b) Wagering upon the result of the election. Any money
did not abate the proceedings in the election protest filed or thing of value put up as a bet or wager shall be
against him, and it may be stated as a rule that an election forfeited to the Government.
contest survives and must be prosecuted to final
judgment despite the death of the protestee." c) Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent
device or other forms of coercion.
The death of the protestant, as in this case, neither
constitutes a ground for the dismissal of the contest nor ousts d) Appointment of new employee (except in case of
the trial court of its jurisdiction to decide the election contest. urgent need, with notice given to the Comelec within
three days from the appointment), creation of new
positions, promotion, or granting salary increases.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
e) Carrying of deadly weapon within a radius of 100
Who can assail before the PET? meters from precinct.
Only the 2nd and 3rd Candidate.
f) Transfer or detail of government official/emplovee
Applicable Rules without Comelec approval.
PET Rules. The Rules of Court is merely suppletory.
Atty’s PPTs
Authority of COMELEC to Prosecute:
POE VS GMA The finding of probable cause in the prosecution of election
offenses rests in the Comelec’s sound discretion. The Comelec
SUSAN ROCES stresses that even if the instant protest case exercises the constitutional authority to investigate and,
succeeds, she is cognizant that as a mere substitute she where appropriate, prosecute cases for violation of election
cannot succeed, assume or be entitled to said elective office, laws, including acts or omissions constituting election fraud,
and her utmost concern is not personal but one that involves offenses and malpractices.
the public’s interest. She prays, however, that if subsequently
determined that the protestee Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo did Delegate to CSP-
not get the highest number of votes for president, for The power above includes the authority to decide whether or
protestee to be disallowed from remaining in office, and thus not to appeal the dismissal of a criminal case by the trial
prevented from exercising the powers, duties, responsibilities court. The Chief State Prosecutor — who may have been
and prerogatives reserved only to the duly-elected president designated by the Comelec to prosecute a criminal action —
or her legitimate successor. merely derives his authority from the Comelec. It is beyond
his power to oppose the appeal made by the Comelec.
GMA, on the other hand, relying on Vda. de De Mesa v.
Mencias, xxx asserts that the widow of a deceased candidate Prescriptive Period
is not the proper party to replace the deceased protestant If no complaint is filed 5 years from the date of commission of
since a public office is personal and not a property that offense, then action is prescribed.
passes on to the heirs. She points out that the widow has no
legal right to substitute for her husband in an election protest, Jurisdiction:
since no such right survives the husband, considering that the RTC: criminal action for violation of OEC
right to file an election protest is personal and non- MTC: failure to register or failure to vote.
transmissible.

In analogous cases before other electoral

tribunals,12 involving substitution by the widow of a deceased

10 / 10