Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CHAPTER 6
CAMPAIGN
SECTION 79. Definitions. (BP 881)
-As used in this Code:
(a) The term "candidate" refers to any person aspiring for or
seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate of
candidacy by himself or through an accredited political party,
aggroupment, or coalition of parties;
(b) The term "election campaign" or "partisan political
activity" refers to an act designed to promote the election or
defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office
which shall include:
(1) Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or
other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes
and/or undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate;
(2) Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies,
parades, or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of
soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or
propaganda for or against a candidate;
(3) Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or
holding interviews for or against the election of any candidate
for public office;
(4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials
designed to support or oppose the election of any candidate; or
(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for
or against a candidate.
The foregoing enumerated acts if performed for the purpose of
enhancing the chances of aspirants for nomination for
candidacy to a public office by a political party, aggroupment,
or coalition of parties shall not be considered as election
campaign or partisan election activity.
Public expressions or opinions or discussions of probable
issues in a forthcoming election or on attributes of or criticisms
against probable candidates proposed to be nominated in a
forthcoming political party convention shall not be construed as
part of any election campaign or partisan political activity
contemplated under this Article.
INCLUDED
PROHIBITED
SECTION 80. Election campaign or partisan political
activity outside campaign period.
It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or
candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to
engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity
except during the campaign period: Provided, That political
of
the
Philippines
COURT
EN BANC
G.R. No. 164858
HENRY
P. LANOT, substituted
by
MARIO
S.
RAYMUNDO, Petitioner,
CHARMIE
Q.
BENAVIDES, Petitioner-Intervenor,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and VICENTE P.
EUSEBIO, Respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a petition for certiorari1 assailing the Resolution dated
20 August 2004,2 the Resolution dated 21 May 20043 of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc, and the
Advisory dated 10 May 20044 of COMELEC Chairman
Benjamin S. Abalos ("Chairman Abalos") in SPA No. 04-288.
The 10 May 2004 Advisory of Chairman Abalos enjoined Acting
National Capital Region (NCR) Regional Director Esmeralda
Amora-Ladra ("Director Ladra") from implementing the
COMELEC First Divisions 5 May 2004 Resolution. 5 The 5 May
2004 Resolution ordered (1) the disqualification of respondent
Vicente P. Eusebio ("Eusebio") as a candidate for Pasig City
Mayor in the 10 May 2004 elections, (2) the deletion of
Eusebios name from the certified list of candidates for Pasig
City Mayor, (3) the consideration of votes for Eusebio as stray,
(4) the non-inclusion of votes for Eusebio in the canvass, and
(5) the filing of the necessary information against Eusebio by
the COMELEC Law Department.
The 21 May 2004 Order of the COMELEC En Banc set aside
the 11 May 2004 Order of the COMELEC En Banc 6and
directed the Pasig City Board of Canvassers to proclaim the
winning candidate for Pasig City Mayor without prejudice to the
final outcome of Eusebios disqualification case. The 11 May
2004 Order suspended the proclamation of Eusebio in the
event that he would receive the winning number of votes.
Finally, the 20 August 2004 COMELEC En Banc resolution set
aside the 5 May 2004 Resolution of the COMELEC First
Division7 and nullified the corresponding order. The COMELEC
the
Case
to
Dismissal
and
the
of
the
of
the
COMELEC
xxx
2.e having violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261,
paragraphs d, e, k, v and cc sub-paragraph 6 of the Omnibus
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
2) Another speech given on March 17, 2004 in ROTC St.,
Rosario, Pasig City wherein [Eusebio] again allegedly
uttered defamatory statements against co-[candidate]
Lanot and campaigned for his (respondents) and his
groups candidacy.
of
Eusebios
Possible
ON
3. ABS-CBN v. COMELEC
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 133486. January 28, 2000.]
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
Quiason Makalintal Barot Torres & Ibarra for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
SYNOPSIS
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court filed by ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation assailing
the COMELEC En Banc Resolution No. 98-1419 dated April
21, 1998 approving the issuance of a restraining order to stop
petitioner ABS-CBN or any other groups, its agents or
representatives from conducting exit survey and to authorize
the Honorable Chairman to issue the same. Because of the
issuance of this resolution, petitioner filed the instant case, and
on May 9, 1998, the Court issued the temporary restraining
order prayed for by petitioner. The lone issue to be resolved in
this case is whether or not the respondent Comelec acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it approved the issuance of a restraining
order enjoining the petitioner or any other group, its agents or
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J p:
Procedural Issues:
Main Issue:
Nature
and
Scope
of Speech and of the Press
of
Freedoms
for
Ban
on
4. SWS v. COMELEC
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 147571. May 5, 2001.]
SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS, INCORPORATED and
KAMAHALAN
PUBLISHING
CORPORATION,
doing
business
as
MANILA
STANDARD,petitioners, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J p:
Petitioner, Social Weather Stations, Inc. (SWS), is a private
non-stock, non-profit social research institution conducting
surveys in various fields, including economics, politics,
demography, and social development, and thereafter
processing, analyzing, and publicly reporting the results
thereof. On the other hand, petitioner Kamahalan Publishing
Corporation publishes the Manila Standard, a newspaper of
general circulation, which features newsworthy items of
information including election surveys.
Petitioners brought this action for prohibition to enjoin the
Commission on Elections from enforcing 5.4 of R.A. No.
9006 (Fair Election Act), which provides:
Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published
fifteen (15) days before an election and surveys affecting local
candidates shall not be published seven (7) days before an
election.
focus
on
these
two
First. Sec. 5.4 fails to meet criterion [3] of the O'Brien test
because the causal connection of expression to the asserted
governmental interest makes such interest "not unrelated to
the suppression of free expression." By prohibiting the
publication of election survey results because of the possibility
that such publication might undermine the integrity of the
election, 5.4 actually suppresses a whole class of expression,
while allowing the expression of opinion concerning the same
subject matter by newspaper columnists, radio and TV
commentators, armchair theorists, and other opinion makers.
In effect, 5.4 shows a bias for a particular subject matter, if
not viewpoint, by preferring personal opinion to statistical
results. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression
means that "the government has no power to restrict
expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject
matter, or its content." 11 The inhibition of speech should be
upheld only if the expression falls within one of the few
unprotected categories dealt with in Chaplinsky v.New
Hampshire, 12 thus:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of
speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never
been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These
include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and
the insulting or 'fighting' words those which by their very
utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of
the peace. [S]uch utterances are no essential part of any
exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a
step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is
clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
Nor is there justification for the prior restraint which 5.4 lays
on protected speech. In Near v. Minnesota, 13 it was held:
[The] protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely
unlimited. But the limitation has been recognized only in
exceptional cases. . . . No one would question but that a
government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting
service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or
the number and location of troops. On similar grounds, the
primary requirements of decency may be enforced against
obscene publications. The security of the community life may
be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the
overthrow by force of orderly government . . . . ACcaET
Thus, contrary to the claim of the Solicitor General, the
prohibition imposed by 5.4 cannot be justified on the ground
that it is only for a limited period and is only incidental. The
prohibition may be for a limited time, but the curtailment of the
right of expression is direct, absolute, and substantial. It
constitutes a total suppression of a category of speech and is
not made less so because it is only for a period of fifteen (15)
days immediately before a national election and seven (7) days
immediately before a local election.
This sufficiently distinguishes 5.4 from R.A. No. 6646, 11(b),
which this Court found to be valid in National Press Club
v. COMELEC 14 and Osmea v.COMELEC. 15 For the ban
imposed by R.A. No. 6646, 11(b) is not only authorized by a
specific constitutional provision, 16 but it also provided an
alternative so that, as this Court pointed out in Osmea, there
was actually no ban but only a substitution of media
advertisements by the COMELEC space and COMELEC hour.
Second. Even if the governmental interest sought to be
promoted is unrelated to the suppression of speech and the
resulting restriction of free expression is only incidental, 5.4
nonetheless fails to meet criterion [4] of the O'Brien test,
namely, that the restriction be not greater than is necessary to
further the governmental interest. As already stated, 5.4 aims
at the prevention of last-minute pressure on voters, the
creation of bandwagon effect, "junking" of weak or "losing"
candidates, and resort to the form of election cheating called
"dagdag-bawas." Praiseworthy as these aims of the regulation
might be, they cannot be attained at the sacrifice of the
fundamental right of expression, when such aim can be more
narrowly pursued by punishing unlawful acts, rather
than speech because of apprehension that such speech
creates the danger of such evils. Thus, under the
Administrative Code of 1987, 17 the COMELEC is given the
power:
5. CHAVEZ v. COMELEC
EN BANC
CASE:
6. PILAR v. COMELEC
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 115245. July 11, 1995.]
JUANITO
C.
PILAR, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION
ELECTION, respondent.
ON
"The fine shall be paid within thirty (30) days from receipt of
notice of such failure; otherwise, it shall be enforceable by a
writ of execution issued by the Commission against the
properties of the offender.
"For the commission of a second or subsequent offense under
this section, the administrative fine shall be from Two
Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) to Sixty Thousand Pesos
(P60,000.00), in the discretion of the Commission. In addition,
the offender shall be subject to perpetual disqualification to
hold public office."
are
rel.
269
109
||| (Pilar v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 115245, [July 11, 1995], 315
PHIL 851-860)
ARTICLE XV
Watchers
SECTION 178. Official watchers of candidates.
Every registered political party, coalition of political parties
and every independent candidate shall each be entitled to one
watcher in every polling place.
No person shall be appointed watcher unless he is a qualified
voter of the city or municipality, of good reputation and shall not
have been convicted by final judgment of any election offense
or of any other crime, must know how to read and write
Pilipino, English, Spanish or any of the prevailing local dialects,
and not related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity
or affinity to the chairman or any member of the board of
election inspectors in the polling place where he seeks
appointment as a watcher.
Each candidate, political party or coalition of political parties
shall designate in every province, highly urbanized city or
district in the Metropolitan Manila area, a representative
authorized to appoint watchers, furnishing the provincial
election supervisor or the city election registrar, as the case
may be, the names of such representatives. The provincial
election supervisors shall furnish the municipal election
registrars and election registrars of component cities with the
list of such representatives.
In the case of Metropolitan Manila, the designation of the
persons authorized to appoint watchers shall be filed with the
Commission, which shall furnish the list of such
representatives to the respective city and municipal election
registrars. (Sec. 26, BP 697, with amendments) cdt
SECTION 179. Rights and duties of watchers.
Upon entering the polling place, the watchers shall present
and deliver to the chairman of the board of election inspectors
ELECTION PROPER
CASTING OF VOTES
The person thus chosen shall prepare the ballot for the illiterate
or disabled voter inside the voting booth.
the naked eye, the presence of red and blue fibers in the ballot.
It is only when none of these marks appears extant that the
ballot can be considered spurious and subject to rejection.
SYLLABUS
DECISION
VITUG, J p:
SYNOPSIS
CASE:
LIBANAN v. HRET
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 129783. December 22, 1997.]
that (t)his course of action was adopted not only to give effect
to the intent of each and every voter, but also to rectify any
mistake in appreciation, deliberate or otherwise, committed at
the precinct level and overlooked during the revision stage of
this case." 14 In holding that the absence of the signature of
the Chairman of the BEI at the back of the ballot does not
invalidate it, the HRET has ratiocinated in this wise: LLphil
"No spurious ballot was found in this case. For a ballot to be
rejected for being spurious, the ballot must not have any of the
following authenticating marks: a) the COMELEC watermark;
b) the signatures or initial of the BEI Chairman at the back of
the ballot; and c) red and blue fibers. In the present case, all
the ballots examined by the Tribunal had COMELEC
watermarks.
"xxx xxx xxx
"Anent the BEI Chairman's signature, while Section 24 of R.A.
7166 provides that failure to authenticate the ballot shall
constitute an election offense, there is nothing in the said law
which provides that ballots not so authenticated shall be
considered invalid. In fact, the members of the Committee on
Suffrage and Electoral Reforms agreed during their
deliberation on the subject that the absence of the BEI
Chairman's signature at the back of the ballot will not per se
make a ballot spurious.
"Moreover, while Rep. Palacol, then Chairman of the
Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, mentioned
during his sponsorship speech that one of the salient features
of the bill filed was to require the chairman of the Board of
Election Inspectors to authenticate a ballot given to a voter by
affixing his signature on (sic) the back thereof and to consider
any ballot as spurious,' R.A. 7166, as approved, does not
contain any provision to that effect. Clearly, therefore, the
Congress as a whole (House of Representatives and Senate)
failed to adopt the proposal of Rep. Palacol that ballots without
the BEI Chairman's signature at the back will be declared
spurious. What is clearly provided under the said law is the
sanction imposable upon an erring Chairman of the BEI, and
not the disenfranchisement of the voter." 15
The pertinent provision of the law, Section 24 of R.A.. No.
7166, provides:
"SEC. 24. Signature of Chairman at the back of Every Ballot.
In every case before delivering an official ballot to the voter,
the Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors shall, in the
presence of the voter, affix his signature at the back thereof.
Failure to authenticate shall be noted in the minutes of the
Board of Election Inspectors and shall constitute an election
offense punishable under Section 263 and 264 of the Omnibus
Election Code."
There is really nothing in the above law to the effect that a
ballot which is not so authenticated shall thereby be deemed
spurious. The law merely renders the BEI Chairman
accountable for such failure. The courts may not, in the guise
of interpretation, enlarge the scope of a statute and embrace
situations neither provided nor intended by the lawmakers.
Where the words and phrases of a statute are not obscure and
ambiguous, the meaning and intention of the legislature should
be determined from the language employed, and where there
is no ambiguity in the words, there should be no room for
construction. 16
As so aptly observed by the Solicitor-General, House Bill
("HB") No. 34811 (which later became R.A. No. 7166),
approved by the House of Representatives on third reading,
was a consolidation of different bills. Two of the bills
consolidated and considered in drafting H.B. No. 34811 were
H.B. 34639 and H.B. No. 34660. Section 22 of the two latter
bills provided that:
"HON. RONO. Oo may basis na. lyon lang. I think that would
solve our problem.
PUNZALAN v. COMELEC
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 126669. April 27, 1998.]
ERNESTO
M. PUNZALAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTION
S and FERDINAND D. MENESES, respondents.
[G.R. No. 127900. April 27, 1998.]
FERDINAND
D.
MENESES, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS an
d ERNESTO M. PUNZALAN, respondents.
[G.R. No. 128800. April 27, 1998.]
ERNESTO
M. PUNZALAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTION
S and FERDINAND D. MENESES, respondents.
[G.R. No. 132435. April 27, 1998.]
ERNESTO
M. PUNZALAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTION
S and FERDINAND D. MENESES, respondents.
Punzalan Tiongson & Lising and Romulo C. Felizmena for
Ernesto Punzalan.
Pete Quirino Cuadra for Ferdinand Meneses.
SYNOPSIS
Danilo
Manalastas,
Ferdinand
Meneses
and
Ernesto Punzalan were among the four candidates for mayor
of Mexico, Pampanga during the May 8, 1995 elections. The
Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed Meneses as
the duly elected mayor. Manalastas and Punzalan each filed
their own election protests that were consolidated and were
jointly tried by the RTC of San Fernando, Pampanga. After
hearing the election protests, the trial court rendered judgment
in favor of Punzalan, who was declared winner of the elections.
Meneses filed a notice of appeal with the COMELEC while
Manalastas did not appeal. Punzalan filed a motion for
execution pending appeal with the trial court and was granted
by the latter. After several petitions, some of which even
reached the Supreme Court, the COMELEC finally issued a
resolution setting aside the trial court's decision and affirming
the proclamation of Meneses by the MBC as the duly elected
mayor of Mexico, Pampanga. Punzalan filed a motion for
reconsideration of the aforesaid resolution, which was denied.
Hence, this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and
a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to
set aside the COMELEC's resolution. TCaEAD
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court upheld
the findings of the COMELEC, stressing the well-founded rule
that laws and election statutes governing election contests
especially appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to
the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public
officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities. An
election protest is imbued with public interest so much so that
the need to dispel uncertainties which becloud the real choice
of the people is imperative.
SYLLABUS
1. POLITICAL LAW; ELECTION LAW; REPUBLIC ACT NO.
7166; FAILURE BY THE BOARD OF ELECTION
INSPECTORS CHAIRMAN TO AFFIX HIS SIGNATURE AT
THE BACK OF THE BALLOT DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE
BALLOT ITSELF; RATIONALE. While Section 24 of
Republic Act No. 7166, otherwise known as "An Act Providing
For Synchronized National and Local Elections and For
Electoral Reforms," requires the BEI chairman to affix his
signature at the back of the ballot, the mere failure to do so
does not invalidate the same although it may constitute an
election offense imputable to said BEI chairman. Nowhere in
said provision does it state that the votes contained therein
shall be nullified. It is a well-settled rule that the failure of the
BEI chairman or any of the members of the board to comply
with their mandated administrative responsibility, i.e., signing,
authenticating and thumbmarking of ballots, should not
2. ID.;
ID.; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC);
MATTERS FALLING WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION SHOULD
NOT BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE COURT. The
appreciation of the contested ballots and election documents
involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the
COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked with the supervision
of elections all over the country. It is the constitutional
commission vested with the exclusive original jurisdiction over
election contests involving regional, provincial and city officials,
as well as appellate jurisdiction over election protests involving
elective municipal and barangay officials. Consequently, in the
absence of grave abuse of discretion or any jurisdiction
infirmity or error of law, the factual findings, conclusions,
rulings and decisions rendered by the said Commission on
matters falling within its competence shall not be interfered
with by this Court. cIHCST
KAPUNAN, J p:
Danilo
Manalastas,
Ferdinand
Meneses
and
Ernesto Punzalan were among the four (4) candidates for
mayor of the municipality of Mexico, Pampanga during the May
8, 1995 elections. cdrep
On May 24, 1995, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC)
proclaimed Ferdinand Meneses as the duly elected mayor,
having garnered a total of 10,301 votes against Danilo
Manalastas' 9,317 votes and Ernesto Punzalan's 8,612 votes.
On May 30, 1995, Danilo Manalastas filed an election protest
docketed as Election Case No. E-005-95 before the Regional
Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, challenging the
results of the elections in the municipality's forty-seven (47)
precincts. 1 In due time, Ferdinand Meneses filed his answer
with counter protest impugning the results in twenty-one (21)
precincts 2 of the 47 protested by Manalastas.
On June 2, 1995, Ernesto Punzalan filed his own election
protest docketed as Election Case No. E-006-95, also before
the RTC in San Fernando, Pampanga, questioning the results
of the elections in one hundred and fifty seven (157)
precincts. 3 Meneses, on his part, filed an answer with counterprotest with respect to ninety-six (96) precincts 4 of the 157
protested by Punzalan.
Since the two (2) election protests involved the same parties
and subject matter, they were ordered consolidated and were
jointly tried by the RTC of San Fernando Pampanga, Branch
44.
i) One (1) ballot for the protestant written by two (2) or more
persons. 6
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo,
Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Martinez,
Quisumbing and Purisima, JJ., concur.
POST ELECTION
COUNTING OF VOTES
SECTION 206. Counting
interruption.
to
be
public
and
without
favor for the office for which he is a candidate and the vote for
the office for which he is not a candidate shall be considered
as stray, except when it is used as a means to identify the
voter, in which case, the whole ballot shall be void.
If the word or words written on the appropriate blank on the
ballot is the identical name or surname or full name, as the
case may be, of two or more candidates for the same office
none of whom is an incumbent, the vote shall be counted in
favor of that candidate to whose ticket belong all the other
candidates voted for in the same ballot for the same
constituency.
9. When in a space in the ballot there appears a name of a
candidate that is erased and another clearly written, the vote is
valid for the latter.
10. The erroneous initial of the first name which accompanies
the correct surname of a candidate, the erroneous initial of the
surname accompanying the correct first name of a candidate,
or the erroneous middle initial of the candidate shall not annul
the vote in favor of the latter.
11. The fact that there exists another person who is not a
candidate with the first name or surname of a candidate shall
not prevent the adjudication of the vote of the latter.
12. Ballots which contain prefixes such as "Sir.", "Mr.", "Datu",
"Don", "Ginoo", "Hon.", "Gob." or suffixes like "Hijo", "Jr.",
"Segundo", are valid.
13. The use of the nicknames and appellations of affection and
friendship, if accompanied by the first name or surname of the
candidate, does not annul such vote, except when they were
used as a means to identify the voter, in which case the whole
ballot is invalid: Provided, That if the nickname used is
unaccompanied by the name or surname of a candidate and it
is the one by which he is generally or popularly known in the
locality, the name shall be counted in favor of said candidate, if
there is no other candidate for the same office with the same
nickname.
14. Any vote containing initials only or which is illegible or
which does not sufficiently identify the candidate for whom it is
intended shall be considered as a stray vote but shall not
invalidate the whole ballot.
15. If on the ballot is correctly written the first name of a
candidate but with a different surname, or the surname of the
candidate is correctly written but with different first name, the
vote shall not be counted in favor of any candidate having such
first name and/or surname but the ballot shall be considered
valid for other candidates.
16. Any ballot written with crayon, lead pencil, or in ink, wholly
or in part, shall be valid.
17. Where there are two or more candidates voted for in an
office for which the law authorizes the election of only one, the
vote shall not be counted in favor of any of them, but this shall
not affect the validity of the other votes therein.
may
be
raised
in
pre-
not be affected
(Sec. 56, BP 697)
by the
outcome of
the controversy.
CASES:
LAGUMBAY v. COMELEC
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-25444. January 31, 1966.]
WENCESLAO RANCAP LAGUMBAY, petitioner, vs. THE
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS
and
CESAR
CLIMACO, respondents.
Wenceslao R. Lagumbay for the petitioner.
Ambrosio Padilla for the respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. ELECTION LAWS; JURISDICTION; ELECTION FRAUDS.
Frauds in the holding of election should be settled by the
corresponding courts or electoral tribunals where testimonial or
documentary evidence is necessary; but where the fraud is so
palpable from the return itself, there is no reason to give
itprima facie value.
2. ID.; ID.; FALSE OR FABRICATED RETURNS; DUTY OF
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS TO REJECT THEM.
Where the returns were obviously false or fabricated, the
Commission on Elections has the power and duty to reject
them.
DECISION
BENGZON, J p:
This petition prays for revision of an order of the Commission
on Elections declining to reject the returns of certain precincts
of some municipalities in Mindanao. The Constitution provides
for review by this Court of the rulings of the said Commission.
The matter being urgent, and having reached the conclusion
that the returns of certain questioned precincts were "obviously
manufactured" within the meaning of pertinent jurisprudence,
particularly Mitchell vs. Stevens,1 we issued on December 24,
1965, a short resolution upholding the Commission's power
and duty to reject the returns of about fifty precincts.
"It appearing therein that contrary to all statistical
probabilities in the first set, in each precinct the number of
registered voters equalled the number of ballots and the
number of votes reportedly cast and tallied for each and
every candidate of the Liberal Party, the party in power;
UTUTALUM v COMELEC
EN BANC
and has long assumed office and has been exercising the
powers, functions, and duties appurtenant to said office, the
remedy of the petitioner lies with the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal. The pre-proclamation controversy becomes
moot and academic."
and in the more recent case of Antonio vs. COMELEC (G.R.
No. 84678, 29 March 1989):
"Where the winning candidates have been proclaimed, the preproclamation controversies cease. A pre-proclamation
controversy is no longer viable at this point in time and should
be dismissed. The proper remedy thereafter is an election
protest before the proper forum. Recourse to such remedy
would settle the matter in controversy conclusively and once
and for all."
Having arrived at the foregoing conclusions, a discussion of
the other peripheral issues raised has been rendered
unnecessary. cdphil
WHEREFORE, this Petition for Certiorari is hereby
DISMISSED and the assailed Resolutions are AFFIRMED. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano,
Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Grio-Aquino,
Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
||| (Ututalum v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 84843-44, [January 22,
1990], 260 PHIL 354-364)
ARTICLE XXI
Election Contests
SECTION 249. Jurisdiction of the Commission. The
Commission shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the elections, returns, and qualifications of all Members of
the Batasang Pambansa, elective regional, provincial and city
officials. (Art. XII-C, Sec. 2(b), Const.; Art. XIV, Sec. 58, BP
697)
(b) The protestee shall answer the protest within five days after
receipt of the summons, or, in case there has been no
summons from the date of his appearance and in all cases
before the commencement of the hearing of the protest or
contest. The answer shall deal only with the election in the
polling places which are covered by the allegations of the
contest;
ARTICLE XXII
Election Offenses
visible
and
uncovered.
(Sec. 64,
(1) Any and all kinds of public works, except the following:
(a) Maintenance of existing and/or completed public works
project: Provided, That not more than the average number of
laborers or employees already employed therein during the sixmonth period immediately prior to the beginning of the fortyfive day period before election day shall be permitted to work
during such time: Provided, further, That no additional laborers
shall be employed for maintenance work within the said period
of forty-five days;
(b) Work undertaken by contract through public bidding held, or
by negotiated contract awarded, before the forty-five day
period before election:Provided, That work for the purpose of
this section undertaken under the so-called "takay" or
"paquiao" system shall not be considered as work by contract;
(c) Payment for the usual cost of preparation for working
drawings, specifications, bills of materials, estimates, and other
procedures preparatory to actual construction including the
purchase of materials and equipment, and all incidental
expenses for wages of watchmen and other laborers employed
for such work in the central office and field storehouses before
the beginning of such period: Provided, That the number of
such laborers shall not be increased over the number hired
when the project or projects were commenced; and
(d) Emergency work necessitated by the occurrence of a public
calamity, but such work shall be limited to the restoration of the
damaged facility.
No payment shall be made within five days before the date of
election to laborers who have rendered services in projects or
works except those falling under subparagraphs (a), (b), (c),
and (d), of this paragraph.
This prohibition shall not apply to ongoing public works projects
commenced before the campaign period or similar projects
under foreign agreements. For purposes of this provision, it
shall be the duty of the government officials or agencies
concerned to report to the Commission the list of all such
projects being undertaken by them.
(2) The Ministry of Social Services and Development and any
other office in other ministries of the government performing
functions similar to said ministry, except for salaries of
personnel, and for such other routine and normal expenses,
and for such other expenses as the Commission may authorize
after due notice and hearing. Should a calamity or disaster
occur, all releases normally or usually coursed through the said
ministries and offices of other ministries shall be turned over to,
and administered and disbursed by, the Philippine National
Red Cross, subject to the supervision of the Commission on
Audit or its representatives, and no candidate or his or her
spouse or member of his family within the second civil degree
of affinity or consanguinity shall participate, directly or
indirectly, in the distribution of any relief or other goods to the
victims of the calamity or disaster; and acd
(3) The Ministry of Human Settlements and any other office in
any other ministry of the government performing functions
(6) Any voter who, in the course of voting, uses a ballot other
than the one given by the board of election inspectors or has in
his possession more than one official ballot. (Par. (ii), Id.)
(7) Any person who places under arrest or detains a voter
without lawful cause, or molests him in such a manner as to
obstruct or prevent him from going to the polling place to cast
his vote or from returning home after casting his vote, or to
compel him to reveal how he voted. (Par. (jj), Id.)
(8) Any member of the board of election inspectors charged
with the duty of reading the ballot during the counting of votes
who deliberately omits to read the vote duly written on the
ballot, or misreads the vote actually written thereon or reads
the name of a candidate where no name is written on the
ballot. (Par. (kk), Id.) cdt
(9) Any member of the board of election inspectors charged
with the duty of tallying the votes in the tally board or sheet,
election returns or other prescribed form who deliberately fails
to record a vote therein or records erroneously the votes as
read, or records a vote where no such vote has been read by
the chairman. (Par. (ll), Id.)
(10) Any member of a board of election inspectors who has
made possible the casting of more votes than there are
registered voters.
(11) Any person who, for the purpose of disrupting or
obstructing the election process or causing confusion among
the voters, propagates false and alarming reports or
information or transmits or circulates false orders, directives or
(aa) On Canvassing: