Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2. Guiao vs COMELEC
Facts:
After the canvass of the returns for assemblyman in Pampanga, petitioner Ben Guiao, who lost, submitted his written
objections to the inclusion of several returns in the canvass. He asked that a subpoena be issued to the members of the citizens
election committee. The Board of Canvassers denied the request for the subpoena and dismissed the objections for failure of
petitioner to substantiate them and proclaimed the winners. Petitioner questioned the proclamation of the private respondent but
did not question the proclamation of other winners who belonged to his political party.
Issue:
Whether or not the BOC should issue a subpoena.
Ruling:
Petitioner cannot challenge the proclamation of any one of the candidates. The proclamation cannot be void as to one and
valid with respect to the others. The written objection of the petitioner were not timely presented. The time to object in writing in
any election return is when it is being examined by the board of canvassers. The board of canvassers was correct in refusing to
subpoena the members of the citizen election committee. The function of the board of canvassers is purely ministerial. To have
acceded to the request of the petitioner would have made the board a hearing body to ascertain the issue of duress and other
irregularities alleged by petitioner.
3. Lee vs COMELEC
Facts:
Petitioner Sally A. Lee (Lee) and respondent Leovic R. Dioneda (Dioneda) were candidates for Mayor of Sorsogon City.
During the canvassing of the election returns, counsel for Dioneda moved for the exclusion of Election Return No. 41150266 for
Precinct No. 28A2 from Barangay Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon City on the ground that no entries were made for the position of
congressman and that Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) watchers were utilized to fill up election returns.
The Board of Canvassers (BOC) ruled in favor of Lee on the ground that the questioned election return was clear and regular
on its face, the BOC then proclaimed Lee as the winning candidate for Mayor of Sorsogon City. Dioneda then filed a petition to the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for annulment of Lees proclamation and the exclusion of the questioned election return.
The COMELEC Second Division granted Dionedas petition and accordingly excluded the questioned return from the canvass
and nullified the proclamation of Lee. Lee filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied by the COMELEC En Banc.
Issue:
Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in annulling Lees proclamation and excluded the questioned
election return
Ruling:
Lee argues that as the case at bar is a pre-proclamation controversy, the COMELEC is restricted to an examination of the
election returns and is without jurisdiction to go [beyond] or behind them and investigate election irregularitie, citing the case of
Loong v. Commission on Elections.
The doctrine cited by Lee presupposes that the returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face.
Where, as in the case at bar, there is a prima facie showing that the return is not genuine, several entries having been omitted in the
questioned election return, the doctrine does not apply. The COMELEC is thus not powerless to determine if there is basis for the
exclusion of the questioned election return.
The doctrine that COMELEC is restricted to an examination of the election returns and is without jurisdiction to go behind
them and investigate election irregularities presupposes that the returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their
face hence, if there is a prima facie showing that the return is not genuine, several entries having been omitted in the questioned
election return, the doctrine does not apply.
4. Lagumbay vs COMELEC
Facts:
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" In each precinct the number of registered voters equaled 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, whereas, all the Nacionalista Party
got exactly zero.
Issue:
Whether the COMELEC was correct in not rejecting obviously manufactured election returns of certain questioned
precincts.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. There is no such thing as block voting now-a-days. The election returns showing
all 8 candidates of the Liberal party getting all the votes, with each one of them getting the same number of votes while the 8
nacionalista candidates got zero are evidently false or fabricated because of the inherent improbability of such a result. It is against
statistical improbabilities especially because at least 1 vote should have been received by the Nacionalista candidates, i.e. the
Nacionalista inspector. While it is possible that the inspector did not like his partys senatorial live-up, it is not, however, possible
that he disliked all of such candidates and it is also not likely that he favoured all the 8 candidates of the Liberal party. Hence, most
probably, he was made to sign an obviously false return by force or duress. If he signed voluntarily, then he betrayed his party and
any voting or counting of ballots was a fraud and a mockery of the popular will. Rejecting such returns on the ground that they are
manifestly fabricated or falsified would constitute a practical approach to the COMELECs mission to insure a free and honest
election.
5. Castromayor vs COMELEC
Facts:
Castromayor was declared and proclaimed winner in an election contest held in1995 in Calinog, Iloilo, taking the 8 th
Sangguniang Bayan seat. When the chairman of the Municipal Board of Canvassers rechecked the totals of the Statement of Votes,
there was some disparity and it appeared that another candidate, Demorito has more votes than Castromayor and the reason was
that votes from one (1) precinct was overlooked. She thereafter sent a fax to the COMELEC requesting that the MBC be reconvened
for purposes of rectifying the error and annulling the proclamation of Castromayor and proclaim Demorito as the 8 th member of the
Saggunian.
The COMELEC then issued aresolution based on the request. Petitioner then assailed the resolution of the COMELEC.
Petitioner contends that he was denied due process since the issue involves a preproclamation controversy and he should be
entitled to notice and hearing so that he can be afforded an opportunity to refute the allegations. Petitioner contests the Resolution
of the COMELEC which was based on a fax letter sent by Garin.
Issue:
Whether or not the resolution is valid and that the proclamation of petitioner is valid.
Ruling:
What the COMELEC resolution contemplates is a hearing before the MBC at which petitioner will be heard on his objection
and that only if warranted will the MBC be authorized to set aside the proclamation of petitioner previously made. In its notice to
the candidates, the MBC did not state that it was going to reconvene to annul petitioner's proclamation and make a new one but
only that it was going to do so "for the correction of the errors noted in the Statement of Votes per Precinct/Municipality. The
Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate of Canvass and of the proclamation, any error in the statement ultimately
affects the validity of the proclamation. It begs the question, therefore, to say that this is not a pre-proclamation controversy and
the procedure for pre-proclamation controversies cannot be applied to the correction in the computation of the totals in the
Statement of Votes. What is involved here is a simple problem of arithmetic. The Statement of Votes is merely a tabulation per
precinct of the votes obtained by the candidates as reflected in the election returns. In making the correction in computation, the
MBC will be acting in an administrative capacity, under the control and supervision of the COMELEC. Hence any question pertaining
to the proceedings of the MBC may be raised directly to the COMELEC en banc in the exercise of its constitutional function to decide
questions affecting elections.
6. Fermo vs COMELEC
Facts:
Laxina and Fermo are candidates for the position of Punong Brgy. in QC. Laxina was proclaimed winner. Fermo filed election
protest question results in 4 clustered precincts on ground of massive fraud and serious irregularities.
The MTC ruled that Fermo won the contested post and granted a motion for execution pending appeal. COMELEC reversed on
ground that the possibility that the term of contested seat might expire by the time appeal is decidednot a good reason to
warrant execution pending appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction in
annulling the order of the MTC granting herein petitioner's motion for execution pending appeal on the ground that there were no
"good reasons" for the issuance therefor.
Ruling:
We rule in the negative.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing.
A valid exercise of the discretion to allow execution pending appeal requires that it should be based "upon good reasons to
be stated in a special order."
In the present case, the petitioner relies solely on one ground to support his petition i.e. "shortness of term". We find that
the COMELEC committed no reversible error. "Shortness of term", alone and by itself cannot justify premature execution. It must be
manifest in the decision sought to be executed that the defeat of the protestee and the victory of the protestant has been clearly
established.
8. Jalandoni vs Crespo
Facts:
On May 23, 2001, the Manila City Board of Canvassers proclaimed private respondent Mario B. Crespo, a.k.a. Mark Jimenez,
the duly elected Congressman of the 6th District of Manila pursuant to the May 14, 2001 elections. He was credited with 32,097
votes or a margin of 768 votes over petitioner who obtained 31,329 votes.
On May 31, 2001, petitioner filed with the HRET an electoral protest against private respondent, impugning the election in
807 precincts in the 6th District of Manila.
Petitioner prayed that a revision and appreciation of the ballots in the 807 contested precincts be conducted; and that,
thereafter, he be proclaimed the duly elected Congressman of the 6th District of Manila.
On June 18, 2001, private respondent filed his answer with counter-protest vehemently denying that he engaged in massive
vote buying. He also opposed petitioners allegation that there is a need for the revision and appreciation of ballots.
Meanwhile, on March 6, 2003, the HRET, in HRET Cases Nos. 01-020, Bienvenido Abante & Prudencio Jalandoni vs. Mario
Crespo, and 01-023, Rosenda Ann M. Ocampo vs. Mario Crespo, issued Resolutions declaring that private respondent is ineligible for
the Office of Representative of Sixth District of Manila for lack of residence in the district and ordering him to vacate his office
Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
Petitioner averred that since private respondent was declared disqualified in HRET Cases Nos. 01-020 and 01-023, the votes
cast for him should not be counted. And having garnered the second highest number of votes, he (petitioner) should be declared the
winner in the May 14, 2001 elections and proclaimed the duly elected Congressman of the 6 th District of Manila.
On March 26, 2003, private respondent filed an opposition to petitioners motion to implement the afore-quoted provision.
On March 27, 2003, the HRET issued a Resolution holding that private respondent was guilty of vote-buying and
disqualifying him as Congressman of the 6th District of Manila.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the votes cast in favor of private respondent should not be counted pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646;
2. Whether or not petitioner, a second placer in the May 14, 2001 congressional elections, can be proclaimed the duly elected
Congressman of the 6th District of Manila.
Ruling:
1. There must be a final judgment before the election in order that the votes of a disqualified candidate can be considered
stray.
The obvious rationale behind the foregoing ruling is that in voting for a candidate who has not been disqualified by final
judgment during the election day, the people voted for him bona fide, without any intention to misapply their franchise, and in the
honest belief that the candidate was then qualified to be the person to whom they would entrust the exercise of the powers of
government.
In the present case, private respondent was declared disqualified almost twenty-two (22) months after the May 14, 2001
elections. Obviously, the requirement of final judgment before election is absent. Therefore, petitioner can not invoke Section 6 of
R.A. No. 6646.
2. We revert back to the settled jurisprudence that the subsequent disqualification of a candidate who obtained the highest
number of votes does not entitle the candidate who garnered the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner.
9. Javier vs COMELEC
Facts:
Javier and Pacificador, a member of the KBL under Marcos, were rivals to be members of the Batasan in May 1984 in
Antique. During election, Javier complained of massive terrorism, intimidation, duress, vote-buying, fraud, tampering and
falsification of election returns under duress, threat and intimidation, snatching of ballot boxes perpetrated by the armed men of
Pacificador. COMELEC just referred the complaints to the AFP. On the same complaint, the 2nd Division of the Commission on
Elections directed the provincial board of canvassers of Antique to proceed with the canvass but to suspend the proclamation of the
winning candidate until further orders. On June 7, 1984, the same 2nd Division ordered the board to immediately convene and to
proclaim the winner without prejudice to the outcome of the case before the Commission. On certiorari before the SC, the
proclamation made by the board of canvassers was set aside as premature, having been made before the lapse of the 5-day period
of appeal, which the Javier had seasonably made. Javier pointed out that the irregularities of the election must first be resolved
before proclaiming a winner. Further, Opinion, one of the Commissioners should inhibit himself as he was a former law partner of
Pacificador. Also, the proclamation was made by only the 2nd Division but the Constitute requires that it be proclaimed by the
COMELEC en banc. In Feb 1986, during pendency, Javier was gunned down. The Solicitor General then moved to have the petition
close it being moot and academic by virtue of Javiers death.
Issue:
Whether or not there had been due process in the proclamation of Pacificador.
Ruling:
Article XII-C, Section 3, of the 1973 Constitution provides that: The COMELEC may sit en banc or in three divisions. All
election cases maybe heard and decided by divisions except contests involving members of the Batasang Pambansa, which shall be
heard and decided en banc.
The SC ruled in favor of Javier and has overruled the Sol-Gens tenor. The SC has repeatedly and consistently demanded
the cold neutrality of an impartial judge as the indispensable imperative of due process. To bolster that requirement, we have held
that the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision
will be just. The litigants are entitled to no less than that. They should be sure that when their rights are violated they can go to a
judge who shall give them justice. They must trust the judge, otherwise they will not go to him at all. They must believe in his sense
of fairness, otherwise they will not seek his judgment. Without such confidence, there would be no point in invoking his action for
the justice they expect.
Due process is intended to insure that confidence by requiring compliance with what Justice Frankfurter calls the rudiments
of fair play. Fair play calls for equal justice. There cannot be equal justice where a suitor approaches a court already committed to
the other party and with a judgment already made and waiting only to be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the
charade of a formal hearing. Judicial (and also extrajudicial) proceedings are not orchestrated plays in which the parties are
supposed to make the motions and reach the denouement according to a prepared script. There is no writer to foreordain the
ending. The judge will reach his conclusions only after all the evidence is in and all the arguments are filed, on the basis of the
established facts and the pertinent law.
10. Frivaldo vs COMELEC
Facts:
Petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of the province of Sorsogon on January 22, 1988, and assumed
office in due time. On October 27, 1988, the league of Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter, represented by its President, Salvador
Estuye, who was also suing in his personal capacity, filed with the Commission on Elections a petition for the annulment of Frivaldos
election and proclamation on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, having been naturalized in the United States.
Frivaldo admitted that he was naturalized in the United States as alleged but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses
that he had sought American citizenship only to protect himself against President Marcos. His naturalization, he said, was "merely
forced upon himself as a means of survival against the unrelenting persecution by the Martial Law Dictators agents abroad." He
added that he had returned to the Philippines after the EDSA revolution to help in the restoration of democracy. He also argued that
the challenge to his title should be dismissed, being in reality a quo warranto petition that should have been filed within ten days
from his proclamation, in accordance with Section 253 of the Omhibus Election Code.
Issue:
Whether or not Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines at the time of his election as provincial governor of Sorsogon.
Ruling:
The Court decided in the negative. If he really wanted to disavow his American citizenship and reacquire Philippine
citizenship, the petitioner should have done so in accordance with the laws of our country. Under CA No. 63 as amended by CA No.
473 and PD No. 725, Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation.
However, it appears that Frivaldo has not taken these categorical acts. He contends that by simply filing his certificate of candidacy
he had, without more, already effectively recovered Philippine citizenship. But that is hardly the formal declaration the law envisions
surely, Philippine citizenship previously disowned is not that cheaply recovered.
This Court will not permit the anomaly of a person sitting as provincial governor in this country while owing exclusive
allegiance to another country. The fact that he was elected by the people of Sorsogon does not excuse this patent violation of the
salutary rule limiting public office and employment only to the citizens of this country. The qualifications prescribed for elective
office cannot be erased by the electorate alone. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of
ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed, as in this case, that the candidate was qualified. Obviously, this rule requires strict
application when the deficiency is lack of citizenship. If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the Philippines, he must owe his
total loyalty to this country only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state.
The petition is dismissed and petitioner JUAN G. FRIVALDO is declared not a citizen of the Philippines and therefore
disqualified from serving as Governor of the Province of Sorsogon. Accordingly, he is ordered to vacate his office and surrender the
same to the duly elected Vice-Governor of the said province.