Article VII THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS PURPOSE To briefly recall and reiterate statutory and jurisprudential history, the

COMELEC was deliberately constituted as a separate and independent body from the other branches of government in order to ensure the integrity of our electoral processes; it occupies a distinct place in our scheme of government as the constitutional body charged with the administration of our election laws. For this reason, the Constitution and our laws unselfishly granted it powers and independence in the exercise of its powers and the discharge of its responsibilities. (Atty. Macalintal v. Comelec, supra note 16, at 770-771) COMPOSITION 1 Chairman 6 Commissioners TERM 1. 7 years (1st appointed: Chairman -7 yrs; 3 Members - 7 yrs; 2 Members - 5 yrs; 1 Member 3 yrs) 2. LIMITATION: Single term only: no reappointment allowed 3. Appointment to a vacancy: only for unexpired portion of predecessors term 4. No temporary appointments, or appointments in acting capacity a. Thus, the President cannot designate an incumbent commissioner as acting Chairman. b. The choice of temporary chairman falls under the COMELECs discretion. QUALIFICATIONS 1. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines; 2. At least 35 years old at the time of appointment 3. Holders of college degrees; and 4. Not candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections. 5. Majority of the Commission, including the Chairman must be: a. Members of the Philippines Bar b. Engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years: Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill. (Cayetano vs Monsond, G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991) 6. Appointments subject to CA approval

JURISDICTION The COMELEC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of all elective, regional, provincial and city officials. The COMELEC has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving municipal officials decided by the RTC, or involving elective barangay officials decided by the MTC. In these cases, the decisions therein shall be final, executory and unappealable.(Art. IX-C, Sec. 2 (2), 1987 Constitution) General Rule The COMELEC sitting en banc does NOT have the requisite authority to hear and decide election cases in the first instance. This power pertains to the divisions of the Commission. Any decision by the Commission en banc as regards election cases decided by it in the first instance is null and void. (Sarmiento vs Commission on Elections, 212 SCRA 307, 313 (1992).)

Exceptions: 1. When what is involved in the case is purely administrative, and not quasi-judicial in nature; 2. When the required number of votes to reach a decision, resolution, order or ruling is not obtained in the division (Garvida v. Sales, Jr. G.R. No. 124893. April 18, 1997) 3. Where the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc, participated in its proceedings and sought relief therefrom, in which instance he is estopped to subsequently question the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc (Ramirez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 122013. March 26, 1997); 4. Petitions for the postponement, declaration of failure of election and the calling of special elections (Loong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133676. April 14, 1999); and 5. The COMELEC en banc has the power to prosecute election cases, and in the exercise of such prosecutory power, it conducts preliminary investigation, decides whether or not there exists a probable cause and files the corresponding information in court. (Faelnar v. People, G.R. Nos. 140850-51. May 4, 2000).

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS The powers and functions of the COMELEC, conferred upon it by the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code, may be classified into administrative, quasi-legislative, and quasijudicial. The quasi-judicial power of the COMELEC embraces the power to resolve controversies arising from the enforcement of election laws, and to be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies; and of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications. Its quasilegislative power refers to the issuance of rules and regulations to implement the election laws and to exercise such legislative functions as may expressly be delegated to it by Congress. Its administrative function refers to the enforcement and administration of election laws. In the exercise of such power, the Constitution (Section 6, Article IX-A) and the Omnibus Election Code (Section 52 [c]) authorize the COMELEC to issue rules and regulations to implement the provisions of the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code.(Akbayan Youth, et al. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001, 355 SCRA 318, 364)

1.) Enforcement and Administration of Election Laws and Regulations 2.) Power to ensure free, honest, orderly credible and peaceful elections. 3.) Rule Making Power 4.) Quasi-Legislative Functions 5.) Quasi-Judicial Power 6.) Contempt and Subpoena 7.) Auxiliary writs and processes 8.) Specific Powers a.) Power to declare failure of elections Two conditions must concur before the COMELEC can act on a petition seeking to declare a failure of elections: i. No voting took place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by law, or even if there was voting, the election resulted in failure to elect; and ii. The votes not cast would have affected the result of the elections. (Dibratun v. Comelec, G.R. No. 170365, February 2, 2010) b.) Power to call for special elections In fixing the date for special elections, the Comelec should see to it that: i. It should not be later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of the postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect; and ii. It should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in the failure to elect. (Pangandaman v. Comelec, G.R. No. 134340. November 25, 1999) c. Power to postpone elections d. Power to correct manifest errors in election documents With the introduction of the PCOS System pursuant to R.A. 9369, every copy should be as good and as clear as the first one. Hence, the problem of manifest errors might be a thing in the past. (R. Avila, Fundamentals of Election Law, p. 59 (2010)) e. Power to order recanvass of votes f. Power to annul or suspend proclamation of elected candidates g. Power to annul an illegal canvass h. Power to transfer polling places i. Power to Transfer Venue of Canvassing of Votes

j. Power to order opening of ballot boxes k. Power to conduct initiative and plebiscite 9. Other Specific Powers a. Deputization of Peace Officers b. Investigatory and Prosecutorial Power c. Deputization of or Endorsement to Prosecutors 10. Power of exclusive control and supervision over the Automated Election System (Sec. 26, RA 8436) Stand-by Power of COMELEC: If it shall nolonger be reasonably possible to observe the periods and dates prescribed by law for certain pre-election acts, the Commission shall fix other periods and dates in order to ensure accomplishment of the activities so voters shall not be deprived of their suffrage (Sec. 28, R.A. 8436 & Sec. 29 of R.A. 6646, adopted pursuant to Sec. 9, Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution). This stand-by power, however, does not apply to fixing the date of registration of votes because Sec. 8 of R.A. 8189, which provides for a continuing registration of voters, specifically states that: No registration shall, however, be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election.

Powers NOT Granted to the COMELEC: 1. No power to decide questions involving the right to vote 2. No power to include and exclude voters Currently, jurisdiction to decide controversies on inclusion or exclusion of voters belongs to the Municipal Trial Court. Case Digests: Power of COMELEC Election for the Office of the Representatives was held. Because of the alleged irregularity in the canvassing of votes, COMELEC issued a resolution to reopen the ballot boxes to obtain judicial remedies under section 163 of the Revised Election Code. WON the resolution is valid. The COMELEC has the power to investigate and act on the propriety or legality of the canvass of election returns made by the board of canvassers. (Cauton vs.COMELEC, G.R. No. L-25467, April 27, 1967) The Congress enacted R.A. 8436 for the Automation of Election System. The Automated Machines used during the election did not properly read the votes casted. COMELEC issued a minute resolution ordering a manual count. WON the resolution is valid.To continue with the automated count would result in a grossly erroneous count. The resolution merely reinforces the collective efforts to endow COMELEC with enough power to hold free, honest, orderly, and credible elections.(Loong vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133676. April 14, 1999)

Judicial Recount Election was held; one of the candidates filed a petition to annul the canvass and proclamation due to alleged irregularity in the canvassing. The COMELEC issued a resolution annulling the canvass and proclamation. The requisites for judicial recount 1. Appearing to the Board of Canvassers that discrepancy exists. 2. Discrepancy is between the copy submitted to the Board and another authentic copy thereof. 3. Authentic copy must also be submitted to the Board. (Purisima vs. Salanga, 15 SCRA 704, (1965).

Exercise of discretion A coalition of several political parties was awarded the right to have the minority representation in the Board of Election Inspectors. Upon the termination of the coalition, the COMELEC granted the said right to another political party. WON the modification is valid. The COMELEC shall have the discretion to choose the minority inspector. The modification by the Commission of its ruling awarding the minority inspector to another party is a legal exercise of the discretion vested. (Sumulong vs. COMELEC, 73 Phil. 288 (1941). Period in rendering decision An election case was filed before the COMELEC en banc. En banc failed to render its decision within 90 days from the date the case was submitted for decision as mandated by law. WON the decision is still valid. The COMELEC has numerous cases before it, Considering the manpower and logistic limitations, it is sensible to treat the procedural requirements on deadlines realistically. (Alvarez vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 142527, March 1, 2001)

ARTICLE VIII POLITICAL PARTIES DEFINITION An organized group of persons pursuing the same ideology, political ideas or platforms of government and includes its branches and divisions.(Sec. 60, BP 881) An organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public office. (Sec. 3c, R.A.7491) 2 Kinds: 1.) national party, i.e. a party whose constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions; and 2.) regional party, i.e. a party whose constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region.

PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION The purpose of registration of political parties with the COMELEC is to enable them to: 1.) Acquire juridical personality; 2.) Qualify for subsequent accreditation; and 3.) Entitle them to the rights and privileges granted to political parties. (Sec. 60, BP 881) RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES GRANTED A registered political party is entitled to the following rights and privileges: To be voted upon as a party, provided that it is registered under the party-list system (Art. IX-C, Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution); To have a watcher in every Election Registration Board (Sec. 15, R.A. 8189); To inspect and/or copy at its expense the accountable registration forms and/or the list of registered voters in the precincts constituting the constituency at which the political party is fielding candidates. (Sec. 42, R.A. 8189) To have a watcher and/or representative in the procurement and watermarking of papers to be used in the printing of election returns and official ballots and in the printing, numbering, storage and distribution thereof (Sec. 8, R.A. 6646); To have watchers who shall verify the contents of the boxes containing the shipment of official ballots, election returns and sample official ballots received by the provincial, city and municipal treasurers (Sec. 189, BP 881. Note that this privilege is onlyavailable to the ruling party and the dominant opposition party.); To have one watcher in every polling place and canvassing center (Sec. 26, R.A. 7166);

To be present and to have counsel during the canvass of the election returns (Sec. 25, R.A. 6646) To receive the 4th copy (if the dominant majority party) or the 5th copy (if the dominant minority party) of the election returns (Sec. 27, R.A. 7166 as amended by R.A. 8045 and R.A. 8173)

PROCEDURE (1) The political party seeking registration may file with the COMELEC a verified petition attaching thereto its constitution and by-laws, platform or program of government and such other relevant information as may be required by the COMELEC. (2) The COMELEC shall require publication of the petition for registration or accreditation in at least three newspapers of general circulation. (3) After due notice and hearing, the COMELEC shall resolve the petition within 10 days from the date it is submitted for decision. (Sec. 61, BP 881. Note however the discrepancy with Sec. 62 which states that resolution of the petition for registration or accreditation shall be 15 days from the date of submission for decision.) WHO MAY NOT BE REGISTERED The following may not be registered as political parties: religious denominations and sects (Art. IX-C, Sec. 2 (5), 1987 Constitution; Sec. 61, BP 881) those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means (Art. IXC, Sec. 2 (5), 1987 Constitution, Sec. 61, BP 881) those which refuse to uphold and adhere to the Constitution (Art. IX-C, Sec. 2 (5), 1987 Constitution) those supported by foreign governments (Art. IX-C, Sec. 2 (5), 1987 Constitution)

FORFEITURE OF STATUS AND CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION Forfeiture of status Any registered political party that, singly or in coalition with others, fails to obtain at least 10% of the votes cast in the constituency in which it nominated and supported a candidate or candidates in the election next following its registration shall, after notice and hearing be deemed to have forfeited such status as a registered political party in such constituency. (Sec. 60, BP 881) Cancellation of registration The following are grounds for cancellation of registration of a political party: (1) Accepting financial contributions from foreign governments or their agencies (Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(5), 1987 Constitution); (2) The party is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes (Sec. 6 (1), R.A. 7941); (3) The party advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal (Sec. 6 (2), R.A. 7941);

(4) The party is a foreign party or organization (Sec. 6 (3), R.A.7941); (5) The party is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes (Sec. 6 (4), R.A. 7941); (6) The party violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections (Sec. 6 (5), R. A. 7941); (7) The party declares untruthful statements in its petition for registration (Sec. 6 (6), R.A. 7941); (8) The party has ceased to exist for at least 1 year (Sec. 6 (7), R.A.7941); (9) The party fails to participate in the last 2 preceding elections (Sec. 6 (8), R.A. 7941); (10) If registered under the party-list system, the party fails to obtain at least 2% of the votes in the 2 preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. (Sec. 6 (8), R.A. 7941) Under the party-list system, the COMELEC may refuse or cancel registration either motu propio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, after due notice and hearing. (Sec. 6, R.A. 7941) ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES Constitutional Provision: The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list (Sec. 5 (2), Art. VI). The Party List System It is a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives, from national, regional and sectoral parties,organizations and coalitions thereof registered with the COMELEC. The Party-list system was devised to replace the reserve seat system the very essence of the party list system is representation by election. (Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, G.R. 136781, October 6, 2000). Nomination of Party-List Representatives: Each registered party, organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not later than forty-five (45) days before the election a list of names, not less than five (5), from which party-list representatives shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes. A person may be nominated in one (1) list only. Only persons who have given their consent in writing may be named in the list. The list shall not include any candidate for any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the immediately preceding election. No change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except: 1. Nominee dies or 2. Withdraws in writing his nomination, 3. Becomes incapacitated in which case the name of the substitute nominee shall be placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered resigned (Section 8, R.A. 7641).

QUALIFICATIONS OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES: 1. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines; 2. A registered voter; 3. A resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election; 4. Able to read and write; 5. A bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election; and 6. At least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election; In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term (Section 9, R.A. 7914).

MANNER OF VOTING Every voter shall be entitled to two (2) votes: 1. For candidate for member of the House of Representatives in his legislative district; and 2. For the party, organizations, or coalition he wants represented in the house of Representatives: Provided, That a vote cast for a party, sectoral organization, or coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted: Provided, finally, That the first election under the party-list system shall be held in May 1998 (Section 10, R.A. 7941). The Four Parameters in the Philippine-Style Party-List Election (BANAT v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271 April 21, 2009): 1. 20% allocation: Twenty percent of the total number of the membership of the House of Representatives is the maximum number of seats available to party-list organizations, such that there is automatically one party-list seat for every four existing legislative districts. 2. A guaranteed seat for a party-list organization garnering 2% of the total votes cast: The guaranteed seats shall be distributed in a first round of seat allocation to parties receiving at least two percent of the total party-list votes. 3. Proportional representation: The additional seats, that is, the remaining seats after allocation of the guaranteed seats, shall be distributed to the party-list organizations including those that received less than two percent of the total votes. 4. The three-seat cap. Each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled only to a maximum of 3 seats. The formula in the allocation of party-list seat pronounced in Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC (GR No. 136781, October 6, 2000) has thus been modified. The continued operation of the two percent threshold as it applies to the allocation of the additional seats is now unconstitutional because this threshold mathematically and physically prevents the filling up of the available party-list seats. The additional seats shall be distributed to

the parties in a second round of seat allocation (Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009). The three seat cap is not a violation of the Constitution because the 1987 Constitution does not require absolute proportionality for the partylist system.

The Guidelines for determining whether Party-List Groups have complied with the requirements of Law (Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001):
1.

The political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and the underrepresented groups identified in Sec. 5 of RA 7941. Majority of its membership should belong to the marginalized and underrepresented;

2. While even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be elected to the House of Representatives. Thus, they must show that they represent the interest of the marginalized and underrepresented; 3. Religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system; except that priests, imams or pastors may be elected should they represent not their religious sect but the indigenous community sector; 4. A party or an organization must not be disqualified under Sec. 6, RA 7941; 5. The party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the government; 6. The party, including its nominees must comply with the qualification requirements of Section 9,R.A. 7941; 7. Not only the candidate party or organization must represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, so also must its nominees; 8. While lacking a well-defined political constituency, the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.

ARTICLE IX ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATES AND CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY Candidate refers to any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy and that any person who files certificate of candidacy within [the period for filing] shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy. (Penera v. Comelec, G.R. No. 181613, November 25, 2009) QUALIFICATIONS President and Vice- President: 1. Natural-born citizen 2. Registered voter 3. Able to read and write 4. At least 40 years old on the day of the election 5. Resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding the day of the election. (Sec.2, Art. VII) Senators: 1. Natural-born citizen 2. At least 35 yrs. old on the day of the election 3. Able to read & write 4. Registered voter 5. Resident of RP for not less than 2 years immediately preceding the day of the election (Sec. 2, Art. VI) District Representatives: 1. Natural-born citizen 2. At least 25 years old on the day of election 3. Able to read and write 4. Registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected 5. Resident of the same district for a period of not less than 1 year Immediately preceding the day of election. (Sec. 6, Art. VI) Sectoral Representatives: 1. Natural-born citizen 2. At least 25 years old on the day of election 3. Able to read and write 4. Resident for a period not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election 5. Bona fide member of the sector he seeks to represent Governor, Vice-governor, Mayor, Vice-mayor, Punong barangay, Sanggunian (sg) members 1. Citizen of the Philippines; 2. Registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city or province, or, in the case of a member of the SG panlalawigan, panlungsod or bayan, the district where he intends to be elected; 3. Resident therein for at least 1 year immediately preceding the election; 4. Able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect; 5. On election day, age must at least be: a) 23 years governor, vice-governor, member of the SG panlalawigan, mayor, vice mayor, or member of the SG panlungsod of HUC; b) 21 years mayor or vice mayor of ICC, CC, or municipalities; 18 years member of the SG panlungsod or SG bayan, or punong barangay or member of the SG barangay 15 but not more than 18 years SK(Sec 39, R.A. 7160) Qualifications prescribed by law are continuing requirements and must be possessed for the duration of the officers active tenure. Once any of the required qualification is lost, his title to the office may be seasonably challenged. (Frivaldo vs. COMELEC,174 SCRA 245)

The law does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship unlike that for residence and age. It must be possessed upon proclamation or on the day that the term begins (Id.)

DISQUALIFICATION 1. Under the Omnibus Election Code: a.) Declared as incompetent or insane by competent authority; b. )Convicted by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of 18 months imprisonment; c. )Convicted by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude; d. )Any person who is a permanent resident of or immigrant to a foreign country. 2. Under the Local Government Code (Sec. 40, R.A. 7160) Applicable to candidates for local elective office only (Magno v. COMELEC, supra, G.R. No.147904 : October 4, 2002): a.) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence; Those who have not served their sentence by reason of the grant of probation which should not be equated with service of sentence, should not likewise be disqualified from running for a local elective office because the two year period of ineligibility does not even begin to run (Moreno v. COMELEC, GR No. 168550, August 10, 2006). b.) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case; An elective local official who was removed from office as a result of an administrative case prior to January 1, 1992 the date of effectivity of the Local Government Code is not disqualified from running for an elective local public office, because Sec. 40 of the Local Government Code cannot be given retroactive effect (Grego v. COMELEC, GR No. 125955, June 19, 1997). c.) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic; d.) Those with dual citizenship; Dual citizenship as a disqualification must refer to citizens with dual allegiance. Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under the disqualification (Mercado v. Manzano, GR No. 135083, May 26, 1999). e.) Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad; A fugitive from justice includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment, but likewise those who, after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution (Marquez v. COMELEC,243 SCRA 538). f.) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code; Green card is ample evidence to show that the person is an immigrant to, or a permanent resident of, the United States of America (Caasi v. Court of Appeal, G.R. No. 88831 November 8, 1990). g.) The insane or feeble-minded.

3. Additional Grounds for Disqualification (Sec. 68, BP 881) a.) One who has violated provisions on: i. Campaign period ii. Removal, destruction of lawful election propaganda iii. Prohibited forms of propaganda iv. Regulation of propaganda through mass media b.) One who has given money or other material consideration to influence voters c.) One who committed acts of terrorism d.) One who spent election campaign in excess allowed by law e.) One who solicited or received contribution prohibited by law President: 1. not eligible for any reelection; 2. no person who has succeeded as President and served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time. (Sec.4, Art. VII) 3. General Disqualification* Vice-President: 1. Shall not serve for more than two consecutive terms. (Sec.4, Art. VII and Sec. 4, Art. VI); 2. General Disqualifications: a.) one who has been declared by competent authority as insane or incompetent; One who has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than 18 months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, unless given plenary pardon or granted amnesty. (Sec. 12, BP 881) Senators: Shall not serve for more than two consecutive terms. (Sec 4(2), Art. VI) District Representatives: 1. Shall not serve for more than three consecutive terms. (Sec. 7 Art. VI); 2. One who has been declared by competent authority as insane or incompetent; 3. One who has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than 18 months or for a crimeinvolving moral turpitude, unless given plenary pardon or granted amnesty. (Sec. 12, BP 881 or the Omnibus Election Code) Governor, Vice-governor, Mayor, Vice-mayor, Punong barangay, Sanggunian (sg) members: (Sec. 41, R.A. 7160) 1. sentenced by final judgement for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense

punishable by 1 year or more, within 2 years after serving sentence; 2. removed from office as a result of an administrative case; 3. convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; 4. with dual citizenship; 5. fugitives from justice in criminal and non-political case here and abroad; 6. permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of the Local Government Code; 7. insane or feeble-minded CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY A statement of a person seeking to run for a public office certifying that he announces his candidacy for the office mentioned and that he is eligible for the office, the name of the political party to which he belongs if he belongs to any, and his post-office address for all election purposes being as well stated (Sinaca v Mula, GR No. 135691. Sept. 27, 1999). No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the period fixed by law (Sec. 73, OEC). Automatic Resignation Officials holding appointive offices, including active members of AFP and officers of government-owned or controlled corporations shall be considered ipso facto resigned (Sec. 66, OEC & Art. 13, par. 3, R.A. 9369). Only elective officials may file their certificates of candidacy without being deemed ipso facto resigned from their posts. There is no violation of the equal protection clause since there is a SUBSTANTIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN ELECTIVE AND APPOINTIVE OFFICIALS to warrant differential treatment: i. Elective officials occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. On the other hand, appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto by an appointing authority. ii. Appointive officials, as officers and employees in the civil service, are strictly prohibited from engaging in any partisan political activity or take part in any election except to vote. On the other hand, elective officials, or officers or employees holding political offices, are obviously expressly allowed to take part in political and electoral activities (Quinto, et al. v COMELEC, G.R. No. 189698, December 1, 2009 ) Formal Defects in the Certificate of Candidacy: The election of a candidate cannot be annulled on the sole ground of formal defects in his certificate of candidacy (De Guzman v. Board of Canvassers, G.R. No. L-24721, November 3, 1925). Death, Disqualification or Withdrawal of Candidate; Substitution of Candidate: If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a registered accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party

may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified not later than mid-day of the day of the election (Sec. 76, OEC). Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy: The withdrawal of the certificate of candidacy shall effect the disqualification of the candidate to be elected, for the position. The withdrawal of the withdrawal, for the purpose of reviving the certificate of candidacy, must be made within the period provided by law for the filing of certificates of candidacy. Filing of Two Certificates of Candidacy: When a person files two certificates of candidacy for different offices, he becomes ineligible for either position (Sec. 72, OEC). He may withdraw one of his certificates by filing a sworn declaration with the Commission before the deadline for the filing of certificates of candidacy. Before the deadline for filing the certificate, a candidate may withdraw all except one, declaring under oath the office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for other office or offices (Go v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147741. May 10, 2001). The COMELEC shall have only the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificates of candidacy (Sec. 76, OEC). Accordingly, the COMELEC may not, by itself, without proper proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form.

Exceptions: 1. Authority over nuisance candidates 2. Power to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Sec. 78,OEC Nuisance Candidates: COMELEC may motu propio or upon petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if shown that said certificate was filed: 1. To put the election process in mockery or disrepute; 2. To cause confusion among voters by similarity of names of registered candidates; 3. By other circumstances or acts which demonstrate that a candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which his certificate of candidacy has been filed, and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate. Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy: The COMELEC, upon proper petition, may cancel a certificate of candidacy on the ground that any material misrepresentation contained therein as required under Sec. 74 of the OEC is false (Sec. 78, OEC), provided that (a) the false representation pertains to material matter affecting substantive rights of a candidate and that (b) the false representation must consist of deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible (Salcedo II v. COMELEC, G.R. No.135886, August 16, 1999). o The petition may be filed not later than 25 days from the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy, and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than 15 days before the election (Section 78 B.P. 881).

o Jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy lies with the COMELEC in division, not with the COMELEC en banc (Garvida v. Sales, G.R. No. 124893. April 18, 1997).

Effect of Disqualification Case: Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong (Sec. 6, RA 6646 or the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987). o Note that the COMELEC can suspend proclamation only when evidence of the winning candidates guilt is strong (Codilla, Sr. v. De Venecia, et. Al, G.R. No. 150605. December 10, 2002). o The use of the word may indicates that the suspension of the proclamation is merely permissive. If the COMELEC does not find any sufficient ground to suspend proclamation, then a proclamation may be made (Grego v. COMELEC, supra, 125955 : June 19, 1997). o It is incorrect to say that since a candidate has been disqualified, the votes intended for the disqualified candidate should, in effect, be null and void. This would amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty reside (Ortega v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105111 July 3, 1992). o The ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. Exceptions: 1. The one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified;AND 2. The electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of the candidates disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety but would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. (Grego v. COMELEC, supra, 125955 : June 19, 1997).

Case Digest: Term of office The petitioner was duly elected and served 2 consecutive terms as Municipal Mayor prior to 1995 elections. In the 1995 elections he was again proclaimed winner but due to election protest against him, he was removed from office months before the 1998 elections. In the 1998 elections he again ran and won. A disqualification case was filed against him. WON petitioners service from 1996 to 1998 as Mayor may be considered as service of one full term. Two requisites for the disqualification must concur: 1.) that the official concerned has been duly elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post; and 2.) that he has fully served three consecutive terms. The two requisites are absent. He cannot be considered as having been duly elected and he did not fully serve the term by reason of involuntary relinquishment of office. (Lonzanida vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135150, July 28, 1999)

Philippine citizenship Private respondent filed a petition for disqualification alleging that petitioner is not a citizen of the Philippines, But an immigrant and resident of USA. Petitioner admitted that he was a naturalized American citizen but he applied for dual citizenship under R.A. 9225. WON he may be allowed to run for public office. R.A. 9225 imposes an additional requirement on those who wish to seek elective public office. He is thus disqualified from running for public office in view of his failure to renounce his American citizenship. (De Guzman vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 129118. July 19, 2000) Petitioner believing that he is a Filipino citizen, upon filing an application for repatriation, filed his Certificate of Candidacy for mayor. The absence of any official action or approval by the proper authorities, a mere application for repatriation does not and cannot amount to the automatic reacquisition of the applicants Philippine citizenship. (Labo vs. COMELEC, GR No. 86564, August 1, 1989)

Moral Turpitude A petition for disqualification was filed against the petitioner for the alleged conviction for violation of BP 22 which is a crime involving moral turpitude. WON every criminal act involves moral turpitude. Not every criminal act involves moral turpitude and the court has the authority to determine. It depends upon the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute. (Villaber vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 148326, November 15, 2001) Fugitive from Justice Petitioner sought the cancellation of respondents Certificate of Candidacy on the ground that the latter is a fugitive from justice. The respondent is allegedly criminally charged in the United States and that his arrest is yet to be served because of his flight from the country. WON fugitive from justice covers only those convicted by final judgment. Fugitive from justice does not mean a person convicted by final judgment. It includes those after being charged flees to avoid prosecution. (Marquez vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 112889, April 18, 1995) Green Card Holder Petitioner was sought to be disqualified to hold public office on the ground that he is a green card holder. He alleged that he merely obtained the green card for convenience, that he is a permanent resident of the Philippines and voted in the previous elections. WON green card is proof that the holder is a permanent resident of the United States. Immigration to the Unites States constituted an

abandonment of respondents domicile and residence in the Philippines. He entered the United States with the intention to have his residence there permanently as evidenced by the application for an immigrants visa. To be qualified to run for elective office in the Philippines, the law requires that the candidate who is a green card holder must have waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country. (Caasi vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 88831 November 8, 1990)