Purisima vs Salonga

Facts:

In the election of November 12, 1963, Amante Purisima and Gregorio Cordero
were among the candidates for any of the three offices of Provincial Board
Member of Ilocos Sur. After the election or on November 25, 1963 the
provincial board of canvassers met and started canvassing the returns for
said office.
Purisima noted during the canvass that the returns from some precincts,
forty-one (41) in all, showed on their face that the words and figures for
Cordero's votes had been "obviously and manifestly erased" and
superimposed with other words and figures
A request for suspension of the canvass was thereupon made by Purisima.
Purisima again called attention to the erasures and discrepancies and asked
for suspension of canvass for him to have recourse to judicial remedy.
Denying said request, the board of canvassers finished the canvass and
proclaimed Cordero the winner, on November 28.
Purisima, on December 10, filed in the Court of First Instance a petition for
recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code.
Alleging that the Commission on Elections was about to order the canvass
resumed, Purisima came to this Court, on January 17, 1964, by petition for
certiorari with preliminary injunction
respondent Judge stated that some of the requisites were not present,
namely:
o first, that it appears to the provincial board of canvassers that a
discrepancy exists;
o second, that said discrepancy is between the copy submitted to the
board and another authentic copy thereof; third, that said authentic
copy must also be submitted to the board.
Issue: Whether or not a petition for recount is proper
Held: YES

It is the duty of the board of canvassers to suspend the canvass in case of

patent irregularity in the election returns.
In the present case, there were patent erasures and superimpositions, in
words and figures on the face of the election returns submitted to the board
of canvassers.
It was therefore imperative for the board to stop the canvass so as to allow
time for verification of authentic copies and recourse to the courts
Since the board of canvassers prevented Purisima from securing the
Commission on Elections' copies of the returns to establish a discrepancy
between them and the Provincial Treasurer's copies, the failure to submit the
Commission on Elections' copies to said board should not prejudice Purisima's
right to petition for recount before the court.
 Patent erasures and superimpositions in words and figures of the votes stated
in the election returns strike at the reliability of said returns as basis for
canvass and proclamation.

Cauton vs Comelec
Facts:

petitioner Lucas V. Cauton and respondent Pablo Sanidad, along with

Godofredo S. Reyes, were candidates for the office of Representative in the
second congressional district of Ilocos Sur.
respondent Sanidad brought to the attention of the Board the fact that the
entries of votes for the candidates for Representative in those copies of the
election returns that came from the envelopes presented by the provincial
treasurer differed from the entries appearing in the copies of the returns from
the same election precincts that were in the possession of the Liberal Party.
Respondent Sanidad filed a petition with the Commission on Elections praying
for the opening of the ballot boxes in all the precincts of Candon, Santiago
and Sta. Cruz
Comelec ordered to open the boxes.
Petitioner opposed this and filed a preliminary injunction.
Upon instructions by respondent Commission on Elections, on December 28,
1966, the envelopes that were taken from the ballot boxes were opened and
the election returns were taken out and their contents examined and
recorded by a committee appointed by the Commission.
This was done in a formal hearing with notice to the parties concerned.
Respondent filed for a recount of the votes
The petitioner contends that under Section 157 of the Revised Election Code
the Commission on Elections has authority to order the opening of the ballot
boxes "only in connection with an investigation conducted for the purpose of
helping the prosecution of any violation of the election laws or for the purely
administrative purpose but not when the sole purpose is, as in this case, to
assist a party in trying to win the election
Issue: Whether or not the Comelec has jurisdiction to authorize the opening of the
ballot boxes.
Held: Yes. Petition denied.

the Commission on Elections simply performed a function as authorized by

the Constitution, that is, to "have exclusive charge of the enforcement and
administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections and ... exercise
all other functions which may be conferred upon it by law."
The Commission has the power to decide all administrative questions
affecting elections, except the question involving the right to vote.
 The power of the Commission on Elections in this respect is simply
administrative and supervisory intended to secure the proclamation of the
winning candidate based on the true count of the votes cast
When the Commission on Elections exercises this power the purpose is not
for the Commission to help a candidate win the election but to bring about
the canvass of the true results of the elections as certified by the boards of
election inspectors in every precinct.
The object of the canvass is to determine the result of the elections based on
the official election returns.
the Commission on Elections issued the questioned resolution considering
that it has been clearly established that the copies of the election returns for
the Municipal Treasurer, for the Commission on Elections and for the
Provincial Treasurer for the municipality of Sta. Cruz have uniform alteration
The purpose of the Revised Election Code is to protect the integrity of
elections and to suppress all evils that may violate its purity and defeat the
will of the voters
As We have adverted to, the Commission on Elections has the power to
inquire whether there exist discrepancies among the various copies of the
election returns.1
The opening of the ballot boxes may, therefore, be prayed for by a candidate
who is prejudiced by the apparent falsification of the election returns outside
the ballot boxes, and in ordering the opening of the ballot boxes the purpose
of the Commission is not to help a particular candidate win an election but to
properly administer and enforce the laws relative to the conduct of elections.
Sumulong vs Comelec
Facts:

Comelec adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of election

inspectors to be proposed by the political parties and persons named therein.
Petitioner is now claiming the exclusive right to propose the appointment of
such inspectors, now seeks to nullify that resolution on the ground that
section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 657 is unconstitutional, in so far requires
that a political party must have polled at least ten per centum of the total
number of votes cast in the preceding election in order to have the right to
propose the appointment of one inspector and his substitute.
CA 657 confers the power on the Commissions on Elections that of deciding
administrative questions affecting the appointment of election inspectors
the Commission on Elections shall, directly or through its authorized
provincial representatives, appoint a board of election inspectors for each
election precinct
The constitutional requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed
in its title should be reasonably construed so as not to interfere unduly with
the enactment of necessary legislation. It should be given a practical rather
than technical construction.
Issue: Whether or not CA 657 Section 5 is unconstitutional
whether the Commission on Elections, in giving so-called rebel candidates and free-
zone factions of the Nationalista Party the right to propose election inspectors for
the fifty-three legislative districts, has acted within the limits of the discretion given
by section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 657 to the Commission on Elections in the
choice of election inspectors where none of the minority parties is entitled to
propose the appointment of such inspectors is not absolute, but limited by the
provision of the Act that the majority party shall have the right to propose only one
inspector
Held: NO.
 In the instant case, appears that in the fifty-three legislative districts under
consideration none of the minority parties obtained in the preceding election
the minimum number of votes required to entitle it to propose the
appointment of election inspectors.
It should be allowed considerable latitude in devising means and methods
that will insure the accomplishment of the great objective for which it was
created free, orderly and honest elections.
We may not agree fully with its choice of means, but unless these are clearly
illegal or constitute gross abuse of discretion, this court should not interfere
In the matter of the administration of the laws relative to the conduct of
elections, as well as in the appointment of election inspectors, we must not
by any excessive take away from the Commission on Elections the initiative
belongs to it.
In short, hinayaan ng Supreme Court yun Comelec. Kasi independent body
siya eh not enough reason given by the Petitioner to allow the SC to step in.

Loong vs Comelec
Facts:

In a bid to improve our elections, Congress enacted R.A. No. 8436 on

December 22, 1997 prescribing the adoption of an automated election
system
The problem started during the automated counting of votes for the local
officials of Sulu at the Sulu State College
some election inspectors and watchers informed Atty. Tolentino, Jr. of
discrepancies between the election returns and the votes cast for the
mayoralty candidates in the municipality of Pata
Reports that the automated counting of ballots in
other municipalities in Sulu was not working well were received by
the COMELEC Task Force
The foregoing discrepancies were likewise noted and confirmed by the
chairmen, poll clerks and members of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI)
On June 8, 1998, private respondent Tan was proclaimed governor-
elect of Sulu on the basis of the manual count. [14] Private respondent
garnered 43,573 votes. Petitioner was third with 35,452votes or a
difference of 8,121 votes.
Comelec ordered a manual counting of the votes

Issue: whether or not COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to

lack of jurisdiction in ordering a manual count.
Held: NO.
 It is well established that the automated machines failed to read correctly the
ballots in the municipality of Pata. A mayoralty candidate, Mr. Anton Burahan,
obtained zero votes despite the representations of the Chairman of the Board
of Election Inspectors and others that they voted for him. Another candidate
garnered 100% of the votes
the automated machines rejected and would not count the local ballots in the
municipalities of Talipao, Siasi, Indanan, Tapal and Jolo.
it was discovered that the ovals of the local ballots were misaligned and could
not be read correctly by the automated machines.
the local ballots contained the wrong sequence code. Each municipality was
assigned a sequence code as a security measure. Ballots with the wrong
sequence code were programmed to be rejected by the automated machines.
It is plain that to continue with the automated count in these five (5)
municipalities would result in a grossly erroneous count. It cannot also be
gainsaid that the count in these five (5) municipalities will affect the local
elections in Sulu
Also, in this municipality, medyo scary and bloody yun elections. So nung
nalaman na nagkakagulo sa counting, kelangan mag act agad ng COMELEC
hence manual counting.
the military and the police authorities unanimously recommended manual
counting to preserve peace and order
An automated count of the local votes in Sulu would have resulted in a wrong
count, a travesty of the sovereignty of the electorate. Its aftermath could
have been a bloodbath. COMELEC avoided this imminent probability by
ordering a manual count of the votes. It would be the height of irony if the
Court condemns COMELEC for aborting violence in the Sulu elections.
From beginning to end, the manual counting was done with the watchers of
the parties concerned in attendance. Thereafter, the certificates of canvass
were prepared and signed by theCity/Municipal Board of Canvassers
composed of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Secretary. They were also
signed by the parties' watchers
COMELEC has to make snap judgments to meet unforseen circumstances that
threaten to subvert the will of our voters. In the process, the actions of
COMELEC may not be impeccable, indeed, may even be debatable.
Alvarez vs Comelec
Facts:

On May 12, 1997, petitioner was proclaimed duly elected Punong Barangay of
Doa Aurora, Quezon City.
He received 590 votes while his opponent, private respondent Abad-
Sarmiento, obtained 585 votes.
Private respondent filed an election protest claiming irregularities, i.e.
misreading and misappreciation of ballots by the Board of Election
Inspectors.
After petitioner answered and the issues were joined, the Metropolitan Trial
Court ordered the reopening and recounting of the ballots in ten contested
precincts.
It subsequently rendered its decision that private respondent won the
election. She garnered 596 votes while petitioner got 550 votes after the
recount
On appeal, the Second Division of the COMELEC ruled that private respondent
won over petitioner
The COMELEC En Banc denied the Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed
the decision of the Second Division
Petitioner argued that COMELEC
 o it did not preferentially dispose of the case; ( took 4 months and 4
days)
o it prematurely acted on the Motion for Execution pending appeal
o it misinterpreted the Constitutional provision that decisions, final
orders, or rulings of the Commission on Election contests involving
municipal and barangay officials shall be final, executory and not
appealable.
Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC is in error
Held: NO.

The comelec has a lot on its plate. Expecting strict compliance with the
deadlines of finishing cases, would be asking too much realistically.
Petitioner avers the COMELEC abused its discretion when it failed to treat the
case preferentially.
Petitioner misreads the provision in Section 258 of the Omnibus Election
Code.
o It will be noted that the preferential disposition applies to cases before
the courts[7]and not those before the COMELEC, as a faithful reading of
the section will readily show.
We note that when the motion for execution pending appeal was filed,
petitioner had a motion for reconsideration before the Second Division.
o This pending motion for reconsideration suspended the execution of
the resolution of the Second Division. Appropriately then, the division
must act on the motion for reconsideration
The requisites for the grant of execution pending appeal are:
o (a) there must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the
adverse party;
o (b) there must be a good reason for the execution pending appeal; and
o (c) the good reason must be stated in a special order.
In our view, these three requisites were present.
In its motion for execution, private respondent cites that their case had been
pending for almost three years and the remaining portion of the contested
term was just two more years.
In a number of similar cases and for the same good reasons, we upheld the
COMELECs decision to grant execution pending appeal in the best interest of
the electorate.
Correspondingly, we do not find that the COMELEC abused its discretion when
it allowed the execution pending appeal.
We agree with petitioner that election cases pertaining to barangay elections
may be appealed by way of a special civil action for certiorari.
o But this recourse is available only when the COMELECs factual
determinations are marred by grave abuse of discretion.
We find no such abuse in the instant case
Lewis vs Comelec
Facts:

petitioners, referring to themselves as "duals" or dual citizens, pray that they

and others who retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship be ordered to
allow them to vote and register as absentee voters under the aegis of R.A.
9189.
Petitioners are successful applicants for recognition of Philippine citizenship
under R.A. 9225 which accords to such applicants the right of suffrage,
among others.
However a COMELEC letter states that they still cannot vote due to lack of 1-
year residence requirement
o respondent COMELEC invites attention to the same Section 5 (1)
providing that duals can enjoy their right to vote, as an adjunct to
 political rights, only if they meet the requirements of Section 1, Article
V of the Constitution, R.A. 9189 and other existing laws.
DUALS MUST FIRST ESTABLISH THEIR DOMICILE/ RESIDENCE IN
THE PHILIPPINE
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners can vote as an absentee voter
Held: YES

In a nutshell, the aforequoted Section 1 prescribes residency requirement as

a general eligibility factor for the right to vote.
o On the other hand, Section 2 authorizes Congress to devise a system
wherein an absentee may vote, implying that a non-resident may,
as an exception to the residency prescription in the preceding section,
be allowed to vote.
Congress enacted R.A. 9189 - the OAVL
o Soon after Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189 passed the test of
constitutionality, Congress enacted R.A. 9225
After what appears to be a successful application for recognition of Philippine
citizenship under R.A. 9189, petitioners now invoke their right to enjoy
political rights, specifically the right of suffrage, pursuant to Section 5 thereof.
there is no provision in the dual citizenship law - R.A. 9225 -
requiring "duals" to actually establish residence and physically stay in
the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote.
o On the contrary, R.A. 9225, in implicit acknowledgment that duals are
most likely non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1) the same right
of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under R.A. 9189.
It cannot be overemphasized that R.A. 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise
as much as possible all overseas Filipinos who, save for the residency
requirements exacted of an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are
qualified to vote.
Now then, if the next generation of "duals" may nonetheless avail themselves
the right to enjoy full civil and political rights under Section 5 of the Act,
o then there is neither no rhyme nor reason why the petitioners and
other present day "duals," provided they meet the requirements under
Section 1, Article V of the Constitution in relation to R.A. 9189, be
denied the right of suffrage as an overseas absentee voter.

People vs Corral
Facts: