JURISPRUDENCE IN ELECTION LAW

Mercado vs. Manzano (1998); Cordora vs. Tambunting (2009)

When a Filipino citizen is also a citizen of another State without performing
any act and as a voluntary consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries
(jus sanguinis and jus soli), all that he has to do to qualify as a candidate is simply to
file his certificate of candidacy which contains an oath of allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines.

Lonzanida vs. COMELEC (1999)

In 1989, Lonzanida ran for mayor and won. In 1992, he ran again and won. In
1995, he ran for the third time and won but lost in the election protest filed by his
rival candidate. In 1998, he ran for the fourth time and won. Lonzanidas assumption
of office as mayor of San Antonio, Zambales from May 1995 to March 1998 cannot
be considered as service of one full term for the purpose of applying the three-term
limit for elective government officials because he was ordered to vacate his post
before the expiration of the term. Involuntary severance from office for any length of
time short of the full term is an interruption of continuity of service and thus
Lonzanida did not fully serve the 1995-1998 term.

Villaber vs. COMELEC (2001)

Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is a crime involving moral turpitude and a
person convicted of such a crime can be disqualified.

Farinas vs. COMELEC (2003)

When an elective official runs for another elective position, he can do so and
cannot be considered as ipso facto resigned.

Bantay Republic vs. COMELEC (2007)

The names of nominees of party-list organizations can be examined on the
basis of the right of people to have access to matters of public concern.

De Guzman vs. COMELEC (2009)

If a Filipino becomes a naturalized citizen and decides to run for public office,
he is qualified to do so if he makes a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign
citizenship under R. A. 9225.
 2

Quinto vs. COMELEC (2009)

An appointive public official who has filed his certificate of candidacy is
considered resigned.

Penera vs. COMELEC (2013)

Abolishes the election offense of premature campaigning. Citing Section 13 of
R.A. No. 9369 (The Automated Election Law), the Supreme Court held that any
person who files his certificate of candidacy within the filing period shall only be
considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his
certificate of candidacy. Unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall
take effect only upon the start of the campaign period.
Thus, a person aspiring for an elective public office can engage in an election
campaign before the start of the campaign period and he will not commit the election
offense of premature campaigning. He becomes a candidate only upon the start of the
campaign period even if he filed his certificate of candidacy in advance.

Aldovino vs. COMELEC (2009)

Preventive suspension of an elected public official is not an interruption of his
term of office for purposes of the three-term limit rule because it does not involve the
loss of title to office or at least an effective break from holding office. The office
holder, while retaining title, is simply barred from exercising the functions of his
office for a term provided by law.

Roque vs. COMELEC (2010)

This case formally paves the way for the holding of the countrys first
nationwide automated elections. Bidding process and contract between COMELEC
and SMARTMATIC-TIM were valid.

Ladlad vs. COMELEC (2010)

Ang Ladlad was allowed accreditation as a party-list organization under R. A.
No. 7941 based on the equal protection clause and freedom of expression and
association under The 1987 Constitution and under Article 26 (principle of non-
discrimination as it relates to electoral process) of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights.
 3

Santiago vs. Ramos (2011)

The election protest filed by Miriam Defensor Santiago against President
Ramos was rendered moot and academic by the election of Santiago as a Senator in
the May 1995 elections and her assumption of office as such on June 30, 1995. In
assuming the office of Senator, Santiago has effectively abandoned or withdrawn her
protest, or at the very least, in the language of Moraleja vs. Relova, abandoned her
determination to protect and pursue the public interest involved in the matter of
who is the real choice of the electorate.

Aratea vs. COMELEC (2012)

The alleged second placer in the mayoralty contest, Estela D. Antipolo,
should be proclaimed Mayor because Romeo D. Lonzanidas certificate of candidacy
was void ab initio. Lonzanida had been elected and had served as Mayor for more
than three consecutive terms without interruption and he had been convicted by final
judgment of ten (10) counts of falsification under the Revised Penal Code. The
judgment of conviction became final on October 23, 2009 before Lonzanida filed his
certificate of candidacy on December 1, 2009. In short, Lonzanida was never a
candidate at all. All votes for him were stray votes. Thus, Estela D. Antopolo, the only
qualified candidate, actually garnered the highest number of votes for the position of
Mayor.

De la Cruz vs. COMELEC (2012)

The votes cast for a nuisance candidate declared as such in a final judgment,
particularly where such nuisance candidate has the same surname as that of the
legitimate candidate, not stray but counted in favor of the latter.

Maquiling vs. COMELEC (2013)

The winning mayor candidate Arnado, by using his US passport after
renouncing his American citizenship, has recanted the same Oath of Renunciation he
took. He is disqualified not only from holding the public office but even from
becoming a candidate in the May 2010 elections.
Arnado being a non-candidate, the votes cast in his favor should not have been
counted. This leaves Maquiling as the qualified candidate who obtained the highest
number of votes. The rule on succession under the Local Government Code will not
apply.
 4

Atong Paglaum vs. COMELEC (2013)

In this case, the Supreme Court lays down new 6 parameters for COMELEC
to follow in determining who may participate in the party-list elections. They are:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national
parties or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3)
sectoral parties or organizations.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do
not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any
marginalized and underrepresented sector.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register
under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district
elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in
legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only
through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list
system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is
linked to a political party through a coalition.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be marginalized and
underrepresented or lacking in well-defined political constituencies. It is
enough that their political advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. The sectors that are marginalized and
underrepresented include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The
sectors that lack well-defined political constituencies include
professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that
represent the marginalized and underrepresented must belong to the
marginalized and underrepresented sector they represent. Similarly, a
majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack well-
defined political constituencies must belong to the sector they represent.
The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
marginalized and underrepresented, or that represent those who lack
well-defined political constituencies, either must belong to their respective
sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors.
The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be
bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.
 5

6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be

disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they
have at least one nominee who remains qualified.

Abundo vs. COMELEC (2013)

Abundo vied for the position of municipal mayor of Viga, Catanduanes in four
successive regular elections, namely, the 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010 national and local
elections. His filing of his certificate of candidacy for the fourth time is valid and not a
violation of the three-term consecutive term limit rule because in the 2004 electoral
derby he lost, filed a protest and was eventually declared the winner. He served for a
period of little over one year and one month.
The Supreme Court ruled that the service of a term less than the full three years
by an elected official arising from his being declared as the duly elected official upon
an electoral protest is not considered a full service of the term for purposes of the
three consecutive term limit for elective public officials. There was an involuntary
interruption in the continuity of Abundos service when he was initially deprived of
title to, and was validly allowed to serve and occupy an office to which he, after due
proceedings, was eventually declared to have been the rightful choice of the
electorate.

Federico vs. COMELEC (2013)

Substitution of Edna Sanchez by Federico as Mayor after the December 14,
2009 deadline set by COMELEC under Resolution No. 8071 was invalid. Since
substitution was invalid, Federico cannot be validly proclaimed. Votes for Edna
Sanchez cannot be credited in favor of the substitute as he was never a legitimate
candidate.

Vinzons-Chato vs. COMELEC (2013)

Picture images of the ballots in the automated election system may be
considered as the official ballots or the equivalent of the original paper ballots
which the voters filled out.

Jalosjos vs. COMELEC (June 18, 2013)

COMELEC can cancel a certificate of candidacy even if there is no petition
filed where there is a final conviction and the accessory penalty of perpetual
disqualification to run for public office under COMELECs mandate to enforce and
administer all laws relating to the conduct of elections.
 6

Jalosjos vs. COMELEC (June 25, 2013)

A temporary stay in a strangers house while the candidates house is being
constructed cannot amount to an actual and physical residence. The mere presence of
a parcel of land does not make it ones residence.