ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON

PUBLIC OFFICERS PUBLIC OFFICERS Begin After Atty’s ppt

1ST WEEK: 2nd WEEK:
WEDNESDAY [ FEBRUARY 8, 2022 ] WEDNESDAY [ FEBRUARY 15, 2022 ] START on ABS CBN, page 625

6:00 PM - 9:00 PM 6:00 PM - 9:00 PM Not too long, just the digested

~ 6:26 PM~ ~ 6:26 PM~ 625

[ Page 252 ] - 493
[ Page 313 ] - 615 10 per student, 345
There will be a lot of case reading
Book of Nachura will be used
Cases will be used,
Election Law

Reporting A. Suffrage
Digest
Divided among class Suffrage

Election Law The right to vote in the election of

officers chosen by the people and in the
Midterms determination of of questions submitted to
Finals the people. It includes within its scope
election, plebiscite, initiative
Recitation Reporting
GMA
Writing Case Digests
MIDTERMS: SUFFRAGE IS A
PRIVILEGE AND AN OBLIGATION

Ended

CASES ARE ASSIGNED, DO AS ATTY

PRESENTED IT

Theory of the Book is provided by Nachura

Page 615 - 621

3 Sentences per Case

No recit
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON
PUBLIC OFFICERS
3rd WEEK: PUBLIC OFFICERS
WEDNESDAY [ FEBRUARY 22, 2022 ] 4th WEEK:
WEDNESDAY [ March 1, 2023 ]
6:00 PM - 9:00 PM
6:00 PM - 9:00 PM
~ 6:30 PM~
~ 6:30 PM~
ATTENDANCE
ATTENDANCE
~ 6:39 PM~
~ 6:39 PM~

NOTE BUAC V. COMELEC CASE

Note the Mitmug v. COMELEC CASE

To hear the petition to hear verified
petition to declare failure of election

NOTE THE HRET Regina Ongsiako

Reyes v.
COMELEC, GR. No. 207264, June 25,
2013
 not interrupt the reglementary period
to appeal of 5
PUBLIC OFFICERS days
5TH WEEK: BALAJONDA V. COMELEC
WEDNESDAY [ March 8, 2023 ] LLOREN V. COMELEC
Judgments rendered by the trial
6:00 PM - 9:00 PM Timely perfection of appeal court or the COMELEC MAY BE EXECUTED
requires two fees: PENDING APPEAL
~ 6:30 PM~
(1) 1,000 Php Fee paid on the PANGILINAN REPORT
ATTENDANCE trial court, the one paid together with
the filing of the NOA QUINTIN SALUDAGA V. COMELEC
~ 6:39 PM~
(2) 3,200 Php Fee paid in the The discretion to allow execution
COMELEC Cash Division within the 15- pending reconsideration belongs to the
day period from the period from the division that rendered the assailed
GALLENTES REPORT NOA DECISION, ORDER, OR RESOLUTION
OR the COMELEC en banc, not the
FLORES V. COMELEC DIVINAGRACIA V. COMELEC Presiding Commissioner.

Conflict between a statute and the If appellants have paid the first EDDING V. COMELEC
constitution 1000 Php to the lower court, within the 5-
day-reglementary period, they are further COMELEC cannot deprive the
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction required to pay the COMELEC Cash RTC of its competence to order
decided by the RTC (for elective municipal Division 3200 Php execution of judgment pending appeal,
officials) from the MTC (for elective brgy.
Officials) NOLLEN v. COMELEC Mere filing of an appeal does not
invest the trial court of its jurisdiction over
COMELEC has the Exclusive Notices of appeal after July 27, 2009, the case and the authority to resolve
appellate jurisdiction decided by the non-payment or incomplete payment pending incidents
RTC (for elective municipal officials) of the two appeal fees is no longer
from the MTC (for elective brgy. excusable. SANTOS V. COMELEC
Officials)
The reason why such execution
VELORIA V. COMELEC RELAMPAGOS v. CUMBA is allowed in election cases is to give
as much recognition to the worth of
Appeal from the RTC to the Execution Pending Appeal the trial judge’s decision as that which
COMELEC must be filed within 5 days is initially ascribed by the law to the
from the receipt of copy of the decision The motion to execute pending proclamation of the board of
appeal is strictly construed and must be canvassers.
A Motion for Reconsideration is filed before the expiration of the 5-day
a prohibited pleading, and thus does period for appeal. This is to prevent the “bring back
the ghost of the ‘grab-the-proclamation,
prolong-the-protest’ techniques so often In election protest cases, the proclaimed and adjudged winner in
resorted to by devious politicians in the disruption of public service is an the election.
past in their efforts to perpetuate their element that has been weighed and
hold on an elective public office factored in, and cannot per se be the GUEVARA V. COMELEC
basis to deny execution pending
NAVAROSA V. COMELEC appeal. Power to cite for contempt

RTC may grant a motion for The COMELEC should accord The COMELEC has the statutory
execution pending appeal when there respect and weight to the RTC’s power to cite for contempt
are valid and special reasons to grant the decision proclaiming petitioner as
same such as: winner But the power may be exercised
only when the COMELEC is engaged in the
(1) the public interest involved or exercise of quasi-judicial powers.
the will of the electorate; ESPEJON REPORT

(2) the shortness of the remaining CAMILIAN V. COMELEC

portion of the term; or GALIDO V. COMELEC
Execution pending appeal must
(3) the length of time that the be strictly construed against the Power of the SC to review appellate
election protest has been pending. movant. THIS IS BECAUSE IT IS AN decisions of the COMELEC
EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE
The fact that decisions, final
The reasons for allowing orders or rulings or of the COMELEC in
GUTIERREZ V. COMELEC immediate execution must be of such contests involving elective municipal
urgency as to outweigh the injury or and barangay officials are final,
A short period is left of the term damage of the losing party should executory and not appealable DOES
of office is a good ground for such party secure a reversal of the NOT preclude a recourse to the
execution pending appeal, according to judgment on appeal. Supreme Court by way of a special
the Supreme Court. civil action for certiorari
Absent such urgency, the order
must be stricken down as flawed with
grave abuse of discretion. AMBIL V. COMELEC
RAMAS V. COMELEC
Not every invocation of public The power of the SC to review
A short period is left of the term interest with particular reference to decisions of the COMELEC involves
of office is a good ground for the will of the electorate can be only final orders, decisions and rulings
execution pending appeal, according to appreciated as a good reason, of the COMELEC en banc rendered in
the Supreme Court. especially if the same appears to be the exercise of its adjudicatory or
self-serving, and has not been clearly quasi-judicial powers.
established. Public interest will be
JESUS CALO V. COMELEC best served only when the candidate
voted for the position is finally CAWASA V. COMELEC
 Except the right to vote, The power vote, please read appropriate chapter on
to decide all questions affecting elections, Registration of Voters.
including determination of the number and
location of polling places, appointment FILIPINAS ENGINEERING AND
election officials and inspectors, and MACHINE SHOP V. FERRER
registration of voters SUCCESSION LAW
Determinations made in the exercise 8th WEEK - 2nd OF 2 MEETINGS:
It is the COMELEC that of this power TUESDAY [MARCH 29, 2023 ]
ultimately determines whether or not
to effect a change in the location of ECHIN REPORT 6:00 PM - 9:00 PM
polling places, after notice hearing,
although it may be initiated by a SALVA V. MAKALINTAL START
written petition of the majority of the ~ 6:33 pm ~
voters, or by agreement of the political
parties. DUMARPA V. COMELEC
TAN V. COMELEC
However, the COMELEC may not “The COMELEC has the authority to
appoint military personnel as effect the re-clustering of precincts when
members of the Board of Election necessary to prevent failure of election and
Inspectors. If there are no public MAGDALO PARA SA PAGBABAGO V. promote free, orderly and honest elections.
school teacher available, then COMELEC Unless clearly illegal, or constituting grave
teachers in private schools, employees abuse of discretion, the Court cannot
in the civil service or other citizens of interfere with the actions of the COMELEC
known probity and competence may in this respect.”
be appointed. ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY V. COMELEC
PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS
SALIC DUMARPA V. COMELEC BROTHERHOOD, INC. (PGBI) V. FILIPINAS ENGINEERING & MACHINE
COMELEC SHOP V. HON. JAIME N. FERRER
The COMELEC has the authority
to effect the re-clustering of precincts “Determinations made in the
when necessary to prevent failure of exercise of this power may be questioned
election and promote free, orderly, COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT in an ordinary civil action before trial
and honest elections. PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC. V. courts”
COMELEC --
Unless clearly illegal, or
constituting grave abuse of discretion, Cases
the Court cannot interfere with the
actions of the COMELEC in this respect. ALLIANCE FOR NATIONALISM AND Admin Law
DEMOCRACY (ANAD) V. COMELEC
As an incident to its duties Law on Public Officers
concerning registration of voters, and
deciding questions involving the right to CHoose from Nachura book
Midterm Exams 2 weeks before Finals 20% allocation: the combined number of and [viiia] Three different groups may
To cover everythig, MAY 31, 2022, all party-list congressmen shall not exceed participate in the party-list
20%. of the total membership in the House its nominees must comply with the
SUBMIT CASES two weeks after finals of Representatives; {2) the 2% threshold: requirements of the law; (g) the nominees
only those parties garnering a minimum of ' system: (1) national parties or
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF 2% of the total valid votes cast for the organizations; (2) regional parties or ·
SENIOR CITIZENS V. COMELEC party-list system are qualified to have a must also represent a marginalized
seat in the House; {3) the three-seat or under-represented sector; and (h) the
“But where a party-list group was flmit: each qualified party, regardless of organizations; and (3) sectoral parties or
not apprised of the fact that the term- the number of votes •it actually obtained, organizations.
sharing agreement entered into by the is entitled to a maximum of three seats, nominee must be able to contribute
nominees of the said party-list group in i.e., one qualifying and two additional; and to the formulation and enactment of
201 0 would be a material consideration in (4) proportional representation: the appropriate legislation that will
the evaluation of tlhe organization's additional seats which a qualified party is benefit the nation.
qualifications as a party-list group for the entitled to shall be computed in proportion
May 13, 2013 elections, thus denying the to their total number of votes.” BANAT (BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR
party-list group the opportunity to answer NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND
this issue squarely, it was held that the ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR TRANSPARENCY) V. COMELEC
party-list group was denied due process” PARTY
the Supreme Court abandoned the
“the Court said that the following formula adopted in Veterans Federation
guidelines shall be followed in order that a in.the matter of the allocation of additional
ABANG LINKOD PARTY-LIST V. political party registered under the party- seats to party-list groups, even as it also
COMELEC list system may be entitled to a seat in the explained that the requirement in Ang
House of Representatives: (a) must Bagong Bayani that the nominees
“Track record is a record of past represent marginalized and under- must · represent a marginalized or under-
performance often taken as an indicator of represented sectors; (b) major political represented sector does not mean that the
likely future performance. There is no basis parties must comply with this” 1
in law and established jurisprudence to nominee must wallow in poverty.
insist that groups seeking registration statutory policy; (c) Ang Bagong
under the party-list system still need to Buhay Hayaang Yumabong (as a party) ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. V. COMELEC
comply with the track record requirement. must • BELLO V. COMELEC
Nowhere in R.A. 7941 'is it mandated that be subject to the express
groups seeking registration · thereunder constitutional prohibition against religious the Supreme Court formulated new
must submit evidence to show track record (d) ·.. parameters which should guide the
as a group” the party must not be disqualified
under RA 7941; (e) the party must not be
VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY V. ;, S11ffrag<'•1md Eleclion laws 641
COMELEC COMELEC in determining who may
participate in the 13 May 2013 and
“the Supreme Court said that the ; subsequent elections:
Constitution and RA 7941 mandate at least an adjunct of an entity or project
four (4) inviolable parameters: (1) the funded by the government; (f) the party
 the highest to the lowest based on the "marginalized and underrepresented"
number of votes they garnered during include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban
the election: (2) The parties, organizations · poor, indigenous cultural communities,
and coalitions receiving at least 2% ·•· handicapped, veterans, and overseas
COMELEC in determining who may of the total votes cast for the party-list workers. The sectors that lack "well-
participate in the 13 May 2013 and system shall be entitled to one : defined constituencies'' include
; subsequent elections: guaranteed seat each; (3) Those garnering professionals, the elderly, women and the
an adjunct of an entity or project funded sufficient number of votes ·• youth.
by the government; (f) the party and [viiia] according to the ranking in paragraph 1 [viiie] A majority of the members of
Three different groups may participate in shall be entitled to additional seats in · sectoral parties or
the party-list proportion to their total number of votes [viib] In computing the additional seats,
its nominees must comply with the until all additional seats are allocated; the guaranteed organizations that
requirements of the law; (g) the nominees and (4) Each party, organization or represent the "marginalized and
' system: (1) national parties or coalition shall be entitled to not more than underrepresented" must
organizations; (2) regional parties or · 3 seats. · seats shall no longer be included, because
must also represent a marginalized or [viiibJ National parties or organizations and they have already been allocated, ; belong
under-represented sector; and (h) the regional parties or to the "marginalized and
organizations; and (3) sectoral parties or ·organizations do not need to organize 1.1nderrepresented" sector they represent.
organizations. along sectoral lines and do not need to at one seat each to every two percenter,
nominee must be able to contribute to the 'represent any "marginalized or Thus, the remaining available seats
formulation and enactment of underrepresented" sector. Similarly, a majority of the members of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the [viiic] Political parties can participate in sectoral parties or organizations that
nation. party-list elections for allocation as "additional seats" are the
[vii] In BANA T (Barangay Association for provided they register under the party-list maximum seats reserved under the lack
National Advancement ; system and do not field candidates "well-defined political constituencies,"
and Transparency) v. COMELEC, G.R. No. • in legislative district elections. A political either · must belong to their
179271, April 21, 2009, the · party, whether major or not. that fields Party List System less the guaranteed
Supreme Court abandoned the formula candidates in legislative district elections seats. There shall be two steps in the
adopted in Veterans Federation in.the can participate in party-list elections respective sectors, or must have a track
matter of the allocation of additional seats only through its sectoral wing that can record of advocacy.for their respective
to party-list groups, even as it also separately register under the party-list second round of allocation: First, the
explained that the requirement in Ang system. The sectoral wing is by itself an percent~ge is multiplied by the remaining
Bagong Bayani that the nominees must · independent sectoral party, and is sectors. The nominees of national and
represent a marginalized or under- linked to a political party through a regional parties or organizations must
represented sector does not mean that the coalition. · available which is the difference betwee.n
1 [viiid] Sectoral parties or organizations the maximum seats reserved be bona fide
nominee must wallow in poverty. may either be members of such parties or organizations.
[viia] In this case, the Court prescribed the "marginalized and underrepresented" or under the Party List System and the
procedure to be lacking in "well-defined political guarante~<}.s~ats of the two percenters
followed in the allocation of seats for constituencies." It is enough that their The whole integer of the product of the
party-list.representatives under Sec. 11, principal advocacy pertains to the percentage ahd-t~~lavailable
RA 7941: (1) The parties, organizations special interest and concerns cit their seats corresponds to the party's share in
and coalitions shall be ranked from sector. The sectors that are the remaining available seats.
assign one party-list seat to each of the the dismissal of a criminal case by the trial
parties next in rank until all court
available seats are completely distributed.
[viii] In Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC, ABC (Alliance for Barangay Concerns) People v. Judge Basilio
G.R. No. 203766, April 2, Party List v. COMELEC
2013, the Supreme Court formulated new However, the COMELEC -~authorized to.
parameters which should guide the c~~-§3.L.oL:be
OUTLINE I REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW the Court declared that the assistance of other prosecuting arms of
[viiif] National, regional and sectoral power of the COMELEC, not only to register governrnent~S;--tf may _ validly._
parties or organizations political parties, but also to cancel delegate the power to the Provincial
'shall not be disqualified if some of their their registration, emanates from no less Prosecutor [
nominees are disqualified, provided than
that they have at least one nominee who
remains qualified. Milagros Amores v. HRET

RA 7941 covers all youth sector nominees

vying for party-list
representative seats. A nominee of the
The Supreme Court has recognized, on youth sector must be at least 25 but
several occasions, the not more than 30 years of age on the day
power of the COMELEC to cancel a political of the election
party's registration. In Bello v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 19199.8, December 7, De Jesus v. People
2010, the Court confirmed that a People v Judge Inting
complaint for the cancellation of party-list
registration, aside from a petition for Under Sec. 265, B.P. 881, the COMELEC is
gran~ed the ··exclusi~e
power to conduct preliminary investigation
the disqualification of the party-list of all offenses punishable \,mderth1s
nominee, provides a "plain, speedy and (Omnibus Election) Code and to prosecute
adequate remedy" against a party-list the same
organization alleged to_ have failed to
comply with Sec. 6 of COMELEC Res. No. Baytan v. COMELEC
8807 --- to submit docamentary
evidence to prove that they belong to a It is well-settled that th_e · finding of
marginalized and under-represented pro~able caus~ in !he
sector. prosecution of election offenses rests m
the COMELEC s sound d1scret1on

COMELEC v. Silva

This power includes the authority to decide

whether t? appeal
 there was, after all, compliance with the of the elections so as to give therl1 an
due process clause, because the opportunity to attend the polls and· •
petitioner and the intervenor were given express their will {
BANAT (Barangay Association for every opportunity to oppose- the
National Advancement and manual count, and the result of the said Makalintal v. COMELEC
Transparency) v. COMELEC count was reliable. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of
.the Philippines not otherwise .disqualified
Under Sec. 43, RA 9369 [An Act amending Sambarani v. COMELEC by law, who are at least eighteen
R.A. 8436 (Election years of age, and who shall !lave resided in
Modernization Act)], COMELEC has Since there was failure of elections, the the Philippines for at least one
concurrent power to conduct preliminary petitioners can legally year and in the place where they propose
investigation with other prosecution arms remain in office as barangay chairmen of to vote for.at least six months
of Government. The Supreme Court the respective barangays in a holdover immediately preceding the election. No
said that the phrase in the Constitution capacity. While it is true that Sec. 43 (c} of literacy, property or other substantive
"where appropriate" leaves to the Local Government Code ·requirement shall be imposed on the
thelegislature the power to. determine the limits the term of elective barangay exercise of suffrage [Sec. 1, Art. V,
kind of election offenses that the officials to three years, Sec. 5, RA 9164 Constitution].
COMELEC shall prosecute exclusively explicitly provides that incumbent 1. Transfer of residence solely by reason of
barangay officials may continue in office in occupation, profession or
Mitmug v. COMELEC a hold-over capacity until their successors employment does not result in loss of
shall have been elected and shall have original residence
Power to declare failure of election [Sec. 4, qualified
R.A. 7166}. This is 9 power
statutorily granted, butbefore the Hassan v. COMELEC Yra v. Albano
COIVIELEC can act on a verified petition Registration does not confer the right to
seeking a declaration of failure of election, For the validity of an election, it is vote; it is but a condition
two conditions must concur, essential that the voters have precedent for the exercise of the right
namely: [a) no voting has taken place in notice, in some form, actual or Registration is a regulation, not a
the precincts concerned on the date - constructive, of the time, place and qualification
fixed by law, or even if there was voting, purpose
the election nevertheless resulted in thereof. The requirement of notice
a failure to elect; and [b] the votes cast becomes stricter in case of special
would affect the result of the election elections where it was called by some
authority after the happening of a
Loong v. COMELEC condition precedent, or at least there must
be substantial compliance
Supreme Court denied the petition to therewith, so that it may fairly and
declare failure of election because when reasonably be said that the purpose of the
the COMELEC resorted to manual count statute had been carried into effect. The
after the automated machines failed sufficiency of notice is based on
to read the ballots correctly, it did not do whether the voters generally have
so arbitrarily. The Court found that knowledge of the time, place and purpose
 address stated in his Certificate of (3) WAYS TO RE.AQCUIRE
C~mdidacy (COC) for Mayor of Caloocan. CITIZENSHIP
The Supreme Court held that Asistio has
always been a resident of Caloocan (1) ACT BY CONGRESS
City since his birth, or for more than 72 (2) REPATRIATION
SUCCESSION LAW years. His family is among the
9TH WEEK - 1st OF 1 MEETINGS: prominent families in the City; he served (Effectivity Retroacts to the
WEDNESDAY [APRIL 5, 2023 ] as 2nd District Representative of Date of Application)
Caloocan for four terms; he also sought (3)
6:00 PM - 9:00 PM election as City Mayor in 2007. In all
of these occasions, Asistio cast his vote in Labo v. COMELEC
START the same city. There is no showing
~ : pm ~ that he established domicile elsewhere or 1. Qualifications prescribed by law are
that he abandoned his residence in continuing requirements and must
Akbayan Youth v. COMELEC Caloocan City. xx x That Asistio allegedly be possessed for the duration of the
indicated in his COC a non-existent officer's active tenure. Once any of the
[a] System of continuing registration. The or false address, or tha.t he could not be prescribed qualifications is lost, his title to
personal filing of applications' physically found in the address he the office may be seasonably
of registration of voters shall be conducted indicated, may, if these purported challenged.
daily in the office of the Election •·. misrepresentations are true, be a basis for
Officer during regular office hours, but no an election offense under the Omnibus Frivaldo v. COMELEC
registration shall be conducted Election Code. But they do not serve
during the period starting 120 days before as proof that Asistio abandoned his The Local Government Code does not
a regular election and 90 days.': domicile in Caloocan City or that he has specify any particular date when
before a special election [Sec. 8, R.A. established residence elsewhere. the ~andidate must posses~ Filipino
8189). In Akbayan Youth v. COMELEC/ citizenship. Philippine citizenship is
G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001, the Ututalum v. COMELEC required to ensure that no alien shall
Supreme Court upheld the action of the'. govern our people. An official begins to
COMELEC in denying the petitioner's [a] However, the annulment of the list of govern only u~on proclamation and on the
request for two additional registration· .. voteris-1:)all not constitute a day that his term begins. Since
days. The law was simply followed by the ground for a pre-proclamation contest Fnvaldo took his oath of allegiance on June
COMELEC. 30, 1995, when his application for
Frivaldo v. COMELEC repatriation was granted by the Special
Asisto v. Hon. Thelma Trinidad-Pe Committee on Naturalization created
Aguirre . A. Qualifications. Some principles: under PD 825, he was, therefore, qualified
1. Qualifications prescribed by law are to be proclaimed and to assume
private respondent Enrico Echiverri filed a continuing requirements and must office. Sec. 39 of the Locai Government
petition for be possessed for the duration of the Code speaks of qualifications of
exclusion of voter Luis Asistio from the officer's active tenure. Once any of the elective officials, not of candidates.
Permanent List of Voters of Caloocan prescribed qualifications is lost, his title to Furthermore, repatriation retroacts to the
City, alleging that Asistio is not a resident the office may be seasonably date of the filing of his application for
of Caloocan, specifically not of the Challenged repatriation on August 17, 1994
Rommel Apolinario Jalosjos v. G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015, proclaimed the winner in the electoral ;
COMELEC involves a petition to disqualify Joseph contest.
Ejercito Estrada from running for the.
There is no hard and fast rule to determine position of City Mayor of Manila in the
a candidate's compliance 2013 local elections. The petition was
with the residency requirement since the anchored on Sec. 40 of the Local
question of resider1ce is a question Government Code, in relation to Sec. 12,
of intention. This notwithstanding, B.P. 881. It will be recalled that
jurisprudence has laid down the following former President Estrada was convicted of
· guidelines: (a) every person has a plunder by the Sandiganbayan on
domicile or residence somewhere; (b) September 12, 2007, and was sentenced
where once established, the domicile to suffer the penalty of reclusion text of the pardon does not support this
remains until he acquires a new one; perpetua, with the accessory penalties of position. The third preambular clause
and (c) a person can have but one domicile civil interdiction during the period of in the pardon, "Whereas, Joseph Ejercito
at a time service of sentence and perpetual absolute Estrada has publicly committed to
disqualification. On October 25, no longer seek any elective position or
Svetiana Jalosjos v. COMELEC 2007, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo office", neither makes the pardon
extended executive clemency to . conditional nor militate against the
[a] A change of residence requires an Estrada, and the pardon extended restored conclusion that Estrada's right to suffrage
actual and deliberate Estrada's civil and political rights .· and to seek public elective office · have
abandonment, because one cannot have upon acceptance of the same. The been restored
two legal residences at the same COMELEC dismissed the petition, and on
time. Where there is no such proof of May 13, 2013, Estrada was proclaimed Villaber v. COMELEC
abandonment, the residence of origin duly elected Mayor of Manila. On
should be deemed to continue pe.tition for certiorari with the Supreme it
Court, former Mayor Alfredo Lim was held that violation of BP 22 is a crime
Abrahim Kahlil Mitra v. COMELEC intervened, and joioed Risos-Vidal's theory involving moral turpitude, because
that Estrada is disqualified to run !he accused knows at the time of the
[b]Where a dwelling qualifies as a for and to hold public office, because the issuance of the check that he does not
residence, i.e., the dwelling where pardon extended by President Gloria have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the
a person permanently resides, intends to Macapagal Arroyo failed to espressly remit drawee bank for the payment of the
return to and remain, his or her the accessory penalty of perpetual check in full upon presentment. A
capacity or inclination to decorate the place, disqualification. Lim further posited that conviction thereof shows that the accused
or the lack of it, is immaterial since Estrada is disqualified, his is guilty of deceit, and certainly relates to
certificate of candidacy is void ab initio, and affects the good moral character
Alicia Risos Vidal v. COMELEC and and the votes he obtained are , of the person.
Joseph Ejercito Estrada considered stray votes; thus, in light of the
ruling in Maquiling v. COMELEC, De Torre v. COMELEC
he (Lim), as second placer, should be
(c] Sentenced by final judgment for a [iii] Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
crime involving moral turpitude. involves moral turpitude [De
[i] Alicia Risos Vidal v. COMELEC and la Torre v. COMELEC, 258 SCRA 483].
Joseph E;ercito Estrada,
Caasi v. COMELEC ruled that the petitjoner, a Municipal Mayor [ii] However, the statement that the filing
who had been ordered removea ;'. of a certificate of:
[i] Read Caasi v. COMELEC, 191 SCRA 229, from office by the Sangguniang candidacy by one who has dual citizens ip
where the Supreme Panlalawigan, was disqualified, even as suffic to renounce foreign '.
Court declared that a "green card" is ample he :: citizenship should be deemed superseded
proof that the hold alleged that the decision was not yet final by Sec. 5(2) . f R.A. 9225 which;
because he had not yet received a ._ categorically requires a former Filipino who
Moreno v. COMELEC copy of the decision, since it was shown reacquires Ph1ljppine citizenship i
that he had merely refused to accept •. by taking the oath of allegiance under R.A.
delivery of the copy of the decision. 9225, to st'a_te in clear and;
unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all
foreign citizenship, iling which he
Mercado v. Manzano is disqualified from running for an elective
public office [Lopez . COMELEC, ·
[i] In Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, G.R. No. 182701, July 23, 2008]. In fact,
reiterated in Valles v. in Teodora Sobejan -Condon v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000, August 9, COMELEC, G.R. No. 198742, August 10,
2000, the Supreme Court clarified the, 2012, the Supreme Co rt declared.
"dual citizenship" disqualification and that foreign citizenship must be formally
reconciled it with Sec. 5, Art. IV of the< rejected through idavit duly i
Constitution on "dual allegiance". One is sworn before an officer authorized to
disqualified only if he consciously or'. administer oath.
deliberately obtains "dual citizenship", thus,
owing allegiance to two states. Teodora Sobejana-Condon v. COMELEC
Grego v. COMELEC
In fact, in Teodora Sobejan -Condon v.
[b] Those removed from office as a result Valles v. COMELEC COMELEC, G.R. No. 198742, August 10,
of an administrative case. 2012, the Supreme Co rt declared.
[i] In Grego v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 125955, [i] In Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, that foreign citizenship must be formally
June 19, 1997, it'. reiterated in Valles v. rejected through idavit duly i
was held that an elective local official who COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000, August 9, sworn before an officer authorized to
was removed from office as a result ' 2000, the Supreme Court clarified the, administer oath.
of an administrative case prior to January "dual citizenship" disqualification and
1, 1992 (date of effectivity of the , reconciled it with Sec. 5, Art. IV of the< Casan Macode Maquiling v. COMELEC
Local Government Code) is not disqualified Constitution on "dual allegiance". One is
from running for an elective local ., disqualified only if he consciously or'. [iii] Dual citizens by naturalization are
public office, because Sec. 40 of the LGC deliberately obtains "dual citizenship", thus, required to take not only;
cannot be given retroactive effect owing allegiance to two states. the Gath of Allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines, but also to personally,
Reyes v. COMELEC renounce foreign citizenship in order to qua
Lopez v. COMELEC I ify as a candidate for public office._
[ii] In Reyes v. COMELEC, 254 SCRA 514, If, after he had renounced his foreign
the Supreme Court , citizenship, he should still use his foreign
 Emilio Ramon "E.R." Ejercito v.
passport, he is not divested of his Filipino COMELEC
citizenship which he acquired by
taking the required oath of allegiance. [c] One who spent in his election campaign
However, by representing himself as a an amount i.n excess of
foreign citizen, he voluntarily and that allowed by this Code.
effectively reverted to his earlier status as [i} In Emilio Ramon "ER." Ejercito v.
a COMELEC, G.R. No.
dual citizen. Such reversion was not 212398, November 25, 2014, the Supreme
retroactive; it took place the moment he Court upheld the decision of the
represented himself as a foreign citizen by · Commission on Elections disqualifying
-using his foreign passport. As a Governor ER Ejercito of Laguna for
dual citizen, he was qualified to vote, but Marquez v. COMELEC having spent an amount far exceeding that
by the express disqualification under allowed by law in his media
Sec. 40 (d) of the Local Government Code, expenses during his campaign. The Court
he was not qualified to run for a declared that the COMELEC en
local elective position. By being barred bane properly considered as evidence the
from even becoming a candidate, his Advertising Contracrt dated May 8,
certificate of candidacy is thus rendered 2013.
void from the beginning. Without a
valid certificate of candidacy, he is, Pangkat Laguna v. COMELEC
therefore, a non-candidate, and the votes Rodriguez v. COMELEC
cast in his favor should not have been [e} One who has violated the provisions of
counted. It is the qualified candidate Sec. 80 (campaign period),
who obtained the highest number of votes Sec. 83 (removal, destruction of lawful
who should be proclaimed; the rule election propaganda), Sec. 86
on succession in the Local Government (regulation of propaganda through mass
Code will not apply [Casan Macode media). \
Maquiling v. COMELEC, GR. No. 195649, \
April 16, 2013]. Caasi v. COMELEC [i] In Pangkat Laguna v. COMELEC, GR. No.
\~8075, February
[f] Permanent residents in a foreign 4, 2002, the Supreme Court held that the
country or those who have acts of Laguna Governor Lazaro in
acquired the right to reside abroad, and ordering the purchase of trophies,
continue to avail of the same right after basketballs, volleyballs, che~oard sets,
the effectivity of the Local Government a~d t~e distribution of medals.and pins to
Code. various schools, did not c~tute a
[i] In Caasi v. COMELEC, 191 SCRA 229, v1olat1on of Sec. 80 on premature
the Supreme Court campaigning. Respondent Lazaro waS"{lot,
held that possession of a "green card" is in any way, directly or indirectly soliciting
ample evidence that one is an votes; she was merely performing
immigrant to the United States. the duties and tasks imposed upon her by
law, which duties she had sworn to
perform as Governor of Laguna START
~ : pm ~
Lanot v. COMELEC
make sure you understand Section 68 and
[aj Congress wanted to in·sure that no Section 78
person filing a certificate of VERY CRITICAL
candidacy under the early deadline
required by the automated election system
• would be disqualified or penalized for any
partisan political act done before the SUCCESSION LAW
start of the campaign period. Thus, in 12TH WEEK - 1st OF 2 MEETINGS:
enacting RA 9369, Congress expressly MONDAY [APRIL 24, 2023 ]
wrote the Lanot doctrine [Lanot v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 164858, 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM

Penera v. COMELEC START

~ : pm ~
third paragraph of the amended Sec. 15
of RA 8436 [Penera v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
181613, November 25, 2009]. SUCCESSION LAW
Under the present law, no candidate can 12TH WEEK - 2nd OF 2 MEETINGS:
be held liable for premature TUESDAY [APRIL 25, 2023 ]
campaigning, because "he shall be
considered a candidate (only} at the start 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM
of the campaign period". Furthermore,
"unlawful acts or omissions applicable START
to a candidate shall take effect only upon ~ : pm ~
the start of the aforesaid campaign
period".\

SUCCESSION LAW
13th WEEK - 1st OF 2 MEETINGS:
MONDAY [MAY 1 , 2023 ]

7:00 PM - 9:00 PM

START
SUCCESSION LAW ~ : pm ~
11TH WEEK - 2nd OF 2 MEETINGS:
WEDNESDAY [APRIL 19, 2023 ]
SUCCESSION LAW
7:00 PM - 9:00 PM 13TH WEEK - 2nd OF 2 MEETINGS:
TUESDAY [MAY 2, 2023 ]
7:00 PM - 9:00 PM 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM

START START START

~ : pm ~ ~ : pm ~ ~ : pm ~

SUCCESSION LAW SUCCESSION LAW SUCCESSION LAW

14TH WEEK - 1st OF 2 MEETINGS: 16th WEEK - 1st OF 2 MEETINGS: 18TH WEEK - 1st OF 2 MEETINGS:
MONDAY [MAY 8, 2023 ] MONDAY [MAY 22, 2023 ] MONDAY [JUNE 5, 2023 ]

7:00 PM - 9:00 PM 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM

START START START

~ : pm ~ ~ : pm ~ ~ : pm ~

SUCCESSION LAW SUCCESSION LAW SUCCESSION LAW

14TH WEEK - 2nd OF 2 MEETINGS: 16TH WEEK - 2nd OF 2 MEETINGS: 18TH WEEK - 2nd OF 2 MEETINGS:
TUESDAY [MAY 9, 2023 ] TUESDAY [MAY 23, 2023 ] TUESDAY [JUNE 6, 2023 ]

7:00 PM - 9:00 PM 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM

START START START

~ : pm ~ ~ : pm ~ ~ : pm ~

SUCCESSION LAW SUCCESSION LAW SUCCESSION LAW

15TH WEEK - 1st OF 2 MEETINGS: 17th WEEK - 1st OF 2 MEETINGS: 19th WEEK - 1st OF 2 MEETINGS:
MONDAY [MAY 15, 2023 ] MONDAY [MAY 29, 2023 ] MONDAY [JUNE 12, 2023 ]

7:00 PM - 9:00 PM 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM

START START START

~ : pm ~ ~ : pm ~ ~ : pm ~

SUCCESSION LAW SUCCESSION LAW SUCCESSION LAW

15TH WEEK - 2nd OF 2 MEETINGS: 17TH WEEK - 2nd OF 2 MEETINGS: 19TH WEEK - 2nd OF 2 MEETINGS:
TUESDAY [MAY 16 2023 ] TUESDAY [MAY 30, 2023 ] TUESDAY [JUNE 13, 2023 ]
7:00 PM - 9:00 PM

START
~ : pm ~