Administrative-law-reviewer.pdf

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS Administrative Law -

-

Law that tends to control the administrative operation of the government

Types of Administrative Agencies:

Two aspects of administrative law

1. 2. 3. 4.

a. Internal administrative law- refers to the legal aspect of the government b. External administrative law- the relationship between the government and the private individual

Carry specific functions Performs business functions Regulation of business or public interest Regulate business of private individuals

Jurisdiction: That which is mandated by law or by the Constitution, expressly or impliedly

Main Purpose: serve the interest of the individuals and citizens

Conferment of Power

Kinds of Administrative Law:

Directory Power or Mandatory Power- must be done

a. Constitution; b. Rules and regulation; and c. Administrative agencies

Permissive Power- merely directory To Determine whether it is mandatory or permissive:

It consists of the following: a. b. c. d.

Specialization and expertise with respect to matters and services

1. Ascertain the legislative intent 2. If it is done, determine whether there would be damage: if yes, then mandatory; if no, then permissive

Constitution; Laws ; Administrative code; and Other laws enacted by the Congress

Government is not capable of error but the government employee or official may commit an error

Note that when a general law is called a Code, it means it has a wide scope or coverage.

-

Kinds of Documents: a. Incorporated Agencies b. Administrative agencies created by the Constitution Congress cannot abolish agencies created by the constitution (water cannot rise above its source) c. Administrative agencies created by the law Congress had the power to enact, create and abolish Reorganization is simply changing the organizational structure (different from abolishing)

-

The individual concerned will be sued Presumption of regularity in good faith for government employees as long as they performed their duties in good faith. Such presumption can be overturned. If an error/mistake was committed by the government official or employee in good faith and no injury, then the error is not an actionable wrong.

Powers of the administrative agency -

Reasons for the creation of administrative agencies: 1. More convenient Administrative Agencies can promulgate rules to enforce the law created by Congress. 2. To address the growing complexities of modern society

Lodged in the executive department  Executive Power SC held in case of Marcos v. Manglapus that the powers granted to the president are not only those granted by the Constitution but he also have implied powers or residual powers

Powers:

-

1

 Power to Control Amend, alter or set aside the decision of a subordinate in the Executive Department

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS

-

-

-

-

 Power to Review Reverse, amend or go over the decisions of a subordinate  Power to Investigate Fact-finding as those agencies whose function is primarily to investigate and make a recommendatory action When the agencies has the power to investigate is merely incidental, it can conduct a case Is notice and hearing necessary in an investigation? Yes, it is essential for due process to give the person under investigation an opportunity to be heard, but lack of notice and hearing does not deprive a person due process as long as no right is trampled upon. Such requirement is only necessary when the law expressly provides for the requirement of notice and hearing. If the law is silent, it depends on the stage of the investigation. If it is in the fact-finding stage, then there is no need for notice and hearing, but if the investigation is in the stage of filing charges, then notice and hearing is required.

2. The power of SC- decisions of the courts may form part of the laws of the land 3. Article X of the 1987 Constitution (Local Government Code) 4. Local Sanggunian Rulemaking power of the administrative agencies pertains to quasi-legislative power -

-

Administrative agencies exercise rulemaking power and not lawmaking, the former can be delegated Rulemaking power is based on the existing laws. The administrative agencies merely supplies the details not found in the law.

The rulemaking power is for: 1. In relation to the function of the administrative agency to implement the laws Publication is necessary for administrative agencies for their IRR to be effective. Publication is for the public to be aware, and answers the date of effectivity of the law. Administrative Code requires that publication be made in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation unless provided otherwise. It is required even if the law is silent.

Limitations: 1. Cannot abolish or create executive offices 2. Cannot Remove or suspend career executive officials and employees without just cause, except for cabinet officials appointed by the President. 3. Setting aside, reversing or reviewing a decision that already become final by virtue of a court order 4. Limited to supervision outside of the executive department, ie local government units

2. Interpretation and construction of the law Interpretation and construction is strictly part of the Judiciary’s function, however it is also given to administrative agencies if there is a request or referral for legal opinion. The legal opinion is given great weight and great respect. Ex. DOJ circulars which clarifies some provision of law; the Forestry Code did not qualify what are included as ‘other forest products’ It is followed by other administrative agency. It is not binding to the courts but Congress may enact a law following such interpretation. Absent such law, the court may invalidate such erroneous interpretation. Ex. BFAR provided that the use of electricity as one of the prohibited acts in fishing before Congress enacted a law for such. SC held that it was beyond the power of the BFAR to include such as prohibited. What the law does not include, it excludes.

QUASI-LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION General Rule: Legislative function is vested upon the Congress. It may not be delegated, following the Doctrine of Separation of Powers and Nondelegation of Legislative Power. Exceptions: 1. Constitution gives powers to the President such as fixing the Tariff, declaration of Martial Law, etc.

2

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS Administrative agencies can interpret the law because going to courts is costly, and the party must bring a case of actual controversy.

Recourse when rules promulgated is in the exercise of quasi-legislative function: Petition for Declaratory Relief.

3. Interpretation of the facts based on the law Determine how to implement law but not how the law should be

If there is a petition from a group or private individual for the increase of fare, and the administrative agency ruled on such matter- Quasi-judicial function. Notice and hearing is required.

Ex. DPWH – power to remove obstruction in waterways, even fish cages or other platform as long as it impedes the flow. SC held that executive power is not only limited to enforcement, but the power to determine the facts is incidental to the main function to implement the law.

QUASI-JUDICIAL There is a controversy, and gathering of evidence is involved in the process. Rules of Court is suppletory in character. The Rules are applicable only when the Administrative Procedure is lacking.

To determine if it is rulemaking: a. Determine if there is an existing law, or at least a provision of the Constitution If none, then it is a lawmaking power b. Ascertain if the rule promulgated pursuant to the law is valid, following the two tests: a. Completeness test Law must be complete and it must not delegate the authority to another department. There must be nothing left but enforce the law. A law is not complete if there is discretion on the part of the enforcing body. Ex. “the courts shall determine the penalty for violators.” b. Sufficient standard test To guide the implementor by setting boundaries or limitations Ex. Ynot v. IAC- the confiscated meat may be disposed by the Department as it may deem necessary

Technical rules on evidence are not applied. Lawyers may or may not be involved in the process. Adjudication of the cases in Administrative Agencies have limited jurisdiction and it is based on what is provided by law. Compared to those exercising general jurisdiction that is vested in courts, they may exercise functions even in matters not provided by law. Jurisdiction is acquired: a. Over the subject matter The subject matter are provided for by law. Ex. Government Employee is under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. b. Cause of action This is subject to the provisions of law granting such agency power.

Notice and hearing requirement is not required for rulemaking -

Ex. CSC cannot resolve issues who would handle the salary of the husband.

When the law only has general application or applies to a particular class Publication is needed for the rule to be effective

c. Over the parties The complainant or petitioner files the complaint. The agency acquires jurisdiction over the party upon the filing of the complaint. Jurisdiction is acquired over the defendant or respondent through proper service of summons or voluntary submission. The defendant submits to the jurisdiction with a caution that he can question the jurisdiction.

Ex. Rate-fixing of minimum fares in jeepney When there is no petition or adversarial procedure, notice and hearing is not required. The administrative agency can simply promulgate based on the law.

3

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS If the administrative agency has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the petition must be dismissed.

a. Has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, quasi-judicial agency and to the best of his knowledge has no such other action or claim is pending therein; b. If there is such other action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and c. If he should learn that the same or similar action has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five days to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

Due Process Requirement must always be observed. In the event that the requirement of notice and hearing was denied, the party may appeal. For custodial investigation: not as strict in enforcing the Constitutional Rights Administrative Agencies has their own set of rules. If they have none, then the provisions of the Administrative Code must be followed. Rules of Court has suppletory character.

Forum Shopping

Due Process in Administrative Agencies (Ang Tibay v. CIR)

-

1.

The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented. The decision must be based on the evidence presented by the parties. The evidence must be substantial, relevant as a reasonable mind to accept as adequate to support the conclusion. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. The tribunal must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision The tribunal should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered.

2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

Notarized statement. A pleading is verified by an affidavit that an affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. This is usually included in the certificate of nonforum shopping. 

Judicial Affidavit Rule

Witness testimony is prepared in writing and in a form of question and answer. When the parties go to courts, the other party would proceed to crossexamination instead of conducting direct examination. Right to Counsel is not necessary in Quasi-judicial proceedings Luniqued Case: The procedure is composed of a committee. The first day of hearing, Regional Director has no counsel. He requested for a reset that was granted by the committee. On the next scheduled hearing, the respondent did not appear nor his counsel. As such, the committee decided to proceed and recommended the dismissal of the Regional Director. The SC held that even without counsel in an Administrative Case, there is no denial of due process because the respondent should know, considering his high degree of education.

Principles under Civil Procedure Applicable: 

Can be committed even if one is a judicial court and the other is a quasi-judicial agency.  Verification

Certificate of Non-forum shopping

A reminder that a person must not resort to Forum Shopping. To certify under oath asserting a claim that the party:

4

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction on Prior Result -

-

-



Courts will not proceed to decide on the case for the administrative agency has necessary expertise on such matters Action of courts: o Courts shall refer the case to the administrative agency instead of resolving the case; or o Dismiss the case outright (Sir Ngolob’s opinion: dismissal is not the proper procedure but more appropriate to archive for revival after decision reached by the appropriate administrative agency) May be a defense by the Defendant if he wants to bring the case to proper administrative agency and the court may motu proprio refer the case

      

Principle of Qualified Political Agency: -

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies -

-

Once a case was lodged in administrative agency, the parties must exhaust all administrative remedies before the matter be brought to the Court Parties went to the administrative agency first before they went to Court Courts will not entertain the case filed unless all remedies were exhausted by the party, otherwise the filing of a case in court while pending in a quasi-judicial agency will result to forum shopping. Q: there is a pending administrative case. Ten days after the receipt of a decision, the party filed a complaint in court. The running for period to appeal will not be suspended.

-

-

-

-

1. Appeal 2. Motion for Reconsideration Exception:

 

due to multifarious functions there are those that may be acting as President’s alter ego o deemed the decision of the Office of the President so as not for the parties to go to the President himself secretary’s decision is the President’s decision o some administrative agency are of the same level with the RTC however there are decisions that can be appealed to the CA

Judicial Review

Administrative Remedies of the Party:



when there is urgent need for judicial intervention when there is unreasonable delay or official inaction when there is no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy provided by law when there is estoppel on the part of the agency concerned when there is great and irreparable damage which can only be prevented by court action when the resort to administrative remedy will amount to the nullification of a claim when the law specifically provides that the issue shall be brought up to the court when the subject matter is private land in land case proceedings

when the issue involved is a pure question of law when the due process is clearly violated when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

-

-

5

exercised by all courts whether from an agency exercising quasi-legislative or quasijudicial agency Political Question- not decided by court but by the people o Changed the trend that the court will not decide on matters that is a political question o Every act of the government is now a subject of judicial review but is not abandoned for there are instances that should be left to the sovereign power. Plain administrative actions are brought through ordinary action o Court of general jurisdiction Quasi-legislative functions o Mode of appeal under Rule 43 and brought to CA

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS -

ELECTION LAWS

If in excess of jurisdiction, then the mode of review is through Rule 65 but only when no other remedy is available for the aggrieved party

Right of Suffrage -

Questions of law are the ones brought to the judiciary but determine the kind of judicial review

Right to vote and be voted upon

Sources: Constitution

Review on Appeal Error of judgment brought to Court of Appeals

Appeal on Certiorari Special civil action Deals with jurisdiction

error

RA No. 8189 Qualifications of a Voter:

on

1. Philippine citizenship 2. 18 years of age The reckoning point is on the date of election. Example: A applied for registration. He is now seventeen years old. On the day of election, he will turn 18. He would allowed to vote by then. 3. Resident of the Philippines at least 1 year and a resident of the municipality for at least 6 months -Romualdez- Marcos v. COMELEC

Disqualification of Voters 1. Sentenced imprisonment for at least one year unless pardoned Those that were not granted pardon can vote after five years of service (automatic) 2. Insanity or incompetent 3. Dual citizens Registration of Voters: Day to day but ends 120 days before regular election; or 90 days before special election Process: 1. Filing 2. COMELEC conducts a hearing to determine the qualifications COMELEC either: Grants- any person can file for a petition for exclusion if he knows any disqualification existing in the voter; or

6

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS Political Parties

Denies- the applicant can file a petition for Inclusion

-

3. Voters shall look for the precinct which contains his name At least 1 precinct per barangay in the event that it cannot accommodate enough people, there will be supplemental precinct

-

Case: Book of Voters- contains the vital information of voter where the Board will compare for the validity of identity. Facts: Barangay Kagawad carried the ballot box which contained the book of voters to be transported to the precinct that is six hours away from his barangay. On his way to the precinct, he bought groceries. Due to the heavy load, he left the book of voters along the road and went to the precinct. The teachers pushed through with the election. SC: Loss of the book of voters is not a valid ground to invalidate election. -

Handicaps and illiterate can be registered voters as long as they have none of the disqualifications. They must be assisted by a member of the household. Principle of Res Judicata is not applicable for the qualifications of voters -

He may possess the disqualification but he can cure the defect

National party

Absentee voting -

-

-

Whether registered voters or not, outside the Philippines but possess all the qualifications, he can register in the consulate or embassy or any institution that deals with the rights of the citizens. Limited to: o President o Vice-president o Senator

when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions.

Regional party -

when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region.

Sectoral party

Change of Residence -

Philippines follow a multi-party system that is based on the platform of leadership mean an organized group of persons pursuing the same ideology, political ideas or platforms of government and includes its branches and divisions. To acquire juridical personality, quality it for subsequent accreditation, and to entitle it to the rights and privileges herein granted to political parties, a political party shall first be duly registered with the Commission. Any registered political party that, singly or in coalition with others, fails to obtain at least ten percent 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 (Section 60, Omnibus Election Code) Case Doctrine: There are two kinds of partylist contemplated under the Constitution: sectoral and political. Although the Constitution did not exclude nor disqualify the political parties from participating in the party-list system, the SC still held that it is not still the time for such party to participate in the party-list system.

-

Can still vote in the locality but can apply for transfer of the voter’s ID to prevent double registration.

7

refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interests and concerns of their sector. (RA 7941 Partylist System Act)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS -

The Sectors shall include the following: o labor, o peasant, o fisherfolk, o urban poor, o indigenous cultural communities, o elderly, o handicapped, o women, o youth, o veterans, o overseas workers, and o professionals.

   

Registration of Political Parties:

Requirements for Candidates to Run under a Political Party:

Any organized group of persons may register as a party, organization, or coalition for purposes of the party-list system by: 







 

filing with the COMELEC not later than 90 days before the election a petition verified by its president and secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as national, regional or sectoral party or organization or coalition attaching the constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information the COMELEC may require COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least two national newspapers of general circulation Resolve the petition after 15 days from date it was submitted for decision but in no case shall it be later than 60 days before election

-

Case: Ang LADLAD v. COMELEC -

-

-

By COMELEC motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party With due notice and hearing

  

Ang LADLAD is a sectoral party-list representing the LGBT community to give voice in the Congress. COMELEC denied its registration on the grounds that morality is contrary to Christian and Muslim beliefs. SC: Morality is not a ground for disapproval on the application for it was not provided by law. Ang LADLAD may run for the party-list system. (Note that Ang LADLAD lost in that election.)

Midterm Election- the election held three years after the Presidential Election.

Grounds: 

Present a certificate of membership Nomination of the party for the position

The internal rules of the political party governs the selection of the official candidates running under the political parties but the COMELEC can decide on the leadership of the parties.

Removal or Cancellation of Registration -

foundation, organization whether directly or through any of its members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes Violates or fails to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to elections Declares untruthful statements in its petition Ceased to exist for at least one year Fails to participate in the last two preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two percentum of the votes cast under the partylist system in the two preceding elections (Rationale: have no strong following)

Religious sect or denomination, organization, or association organized for religious purposes Advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal Foreign party or organization Receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party,

-

Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates are not included in this period. 12 senators/ 3 years are elected

Conduct of Convention – to select the candidates per political party, and filing of the Certificate of Candidacy.

8

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS -

Senatorial candidates may be less than 12

-

Election Period- when the Election laws takes effect. Prohibited acts as mandated by the Election Code takes effect

-

Campaign Period -

-

National Candidates- February 12, 2019- May 11, 2019 Local Candidates – March 29, 2019- May 11, 2019 Maundy Thursday and Good Friday candidates cannot campaign on said dates

Filing of Certificate of Candidacy- a condition before a person can be elected in the public office.

Elective Officials v. Appointive Officials

Requirements for Certificate of Candidacy:

-

Common Contents:

-

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Office aspired for Name of aspirant Age Sex Civil status Place and date of birth Citizenship Execution of sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship i. If married, name of spouse j. Address for election purposes k. Legal residence, exact address and number l. Barangay, city, municipality and province where aspirant is a regular vote m. If under political party, accompanied by certificate of nomination and acceptance To be treated as a candidate running under political party Political party had nominated that person is really a member of a political party Can be used by coalition

-

Campaign Medium: 1. Audio-visual With limitations with respect to the minutes, eg. TV ads 2. Print media Regulations and limitations which now included social media Note: social media is not included for election expenses. Expenses allowed: 1. Independent Candidates -P5/ registered voter in the constituency where they are running for office

Case: Penera v. COMELEC

-

Not deemed resign for their term of office is from July 1 to June 30. If the elective officials are deemed resigned upon filing of CoC, then we deprive the electorate representation. Appointive officials are deemed resigned for there is a grave danger that they would use official time for personal reasons.

Limitation for ballot: 30 characters maximum space for candidates

Premature Campaigning

-

She won as Mayor and some of her coparties. A petition was filed alleging premature campaigning COMELEC decided against Penera, so she was disqualified. Case was brought to SC SC defined Premature Campaigning as an act of doing a campaign for or against a party prior campaign period committed by a candidate. A candidate is a person who has duly filed his CoC but is considered only a candidate during the campaign period. Thus, Penera was still not a candidate when they campaigned around town.

Mayor candidate and her slate agreed to meet in the house of Penera. They went to town with banners and megaphone announcing their intention to run Headed to COMELEC to file their Certificate of Candidacy.

2. With political parties P3/ individual candidate but the political party itself can spend P5/ registered voter. Contributions of candidates can be part of the expenses

9

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS -

Example of prohibited act: feeding people in the political rally

Can discuss more matters with respect to the problems each sector face More effective than a rally for rally cannot be controlled 3. House to House Knocks on each house within the area and ask the members of the household what they need (eg. Housewife) -

Limitations: 1. Streamers- 3ft x 8ft Only during rallies or gatherings 5 days before the conduct of rally or gatherings 2. Poster- 2ft x 3 ft In designated posting areas Political parties and candidates within the locality can agree how to share the area Can post in private places as long as the owner consented 3. Leaflets- maximum size is 8.5 in x 14 in 4. For public transport To be displayed with limitations Vehicles owned by the government is strictly prohibited

Prohibition: 1. Foreigners not allowed to campaign for any candidate 2. Government officials and Employees Mere utterances of one’s preference is not a violation but if the Employee is campaigning for a candidate then it is a violation EXPN: those also running Permit -

SC: freedom of expression but qualified the use of PUVs that the owner must apply for the permit coming from COMELEC and LTFRB and payment of required fees.

-

5. Letters written to individual voters

Misrepresentation and Credentials

Destruction of campaign materials is a violation of the Election Laws

-

National- 1 each region Governmental- 1 within the province and 1 each municipality

How to conduct a campaign -

Depends on the voters

Case: Married woman Candidate won for Mayor. She used her husband’s surname during the election. When she was the incumbent mayor, her marriage was annulled. She made a survey and found out that her husband’s surname is more popular. When she ran for the next election, she used her husband’s surname in filing the CoC.

A candidate may establish headquarters -

Rally or political parties issued by the municipality Ministerial duty of the municipality to grant unless there is a conflict like a prior scheduled political rally or there is danger

TV ads, survey

Surveys

Survey post-election- must maintain a distance from the precinct/ voting place

-

1. Rally/ political rally Conducted by a candidate in a place whereby he would hold speeches General audience, not selected by the candidate Somehow display of his strength 2. Caucus Audience are selected or invited, from particular sectors

-

-

Conducted when candidates have already filed a Certificate of Candidacy COMELEC: those who would release falsified election survey can be held liable Conduct of surveys during election day must be away from the precinct (it is still a means to garner votes. Bandwagon mentality) (Note: according to COMELEC Resolution No. 3636, pollsters shall not conduct their surveys within 50meters from the polling place)

Case: Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC

10

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS transported to the precinct that is six hours away from his barangay. On his way to the precinct, he bought groceries. Due to the heavy load, he left the book of voters along the road and went to the precinct. The teachers pushed through with the election.

ELECTION DAY -

Commence at 7am and ends at 3pm

Precinct- voting place where sort of 200 registered voters are found -

However, the losing candidates contested that there should be failure of election because there were allegedly illiterate voters that were assisted by the barangay officials.

After the Automated Election System (AES)there is a voter counting machine

Cluster- equivalent to 5 voting precincts. -

-

SC: It is not a sufficient to declare a ground of failure of election.

AES’ counting is by cluster. Less than 5 precincts for some areas, still 1 cluster due to limited number of Voter Counting Machine Manned by the Board of Election Inspectors, usually public school teachers with added qualification that they must have basic IT knowledge

Steps: 1. Voters would look for their name and the precinct. 2. If their name is included, they should proceed inside. Place their thumbmark and signature and they shall be given a ballot. 3. Shade their ballot according to their votes. 4. After shading, feed the machine to be read. 5. Go to the Board of Election inspector.

Voting Place -

Preferably public schools. Private schools can also be used as a precinct.

Any form of campaigning not included in the IRR must have a petition filed with the COMELEC.

Board of Election Inspectors Qualification: Public school teachers

A voter may be challenged based on his identity

But there are cases when soldiers can be the Board of Election Inspectors due to the peace and order situation of the area.

The issue is addressed by the Board of Election Inspectors. The Board will require the voter to furnish any proof of identity such as government ID, passport, or present any person testifying for the voter.

Is it valid? Circumstances that can declare failure of failure or when election does not happen. If there is a war prior to the election day, it is already a failure of election.

It is not a court proceeding since it is sufficient to have a proof of identity. In case of doubts, the Board must decide in favor of the voter.

Other circumstances include: -

Ex. The board can decide just by comparing the signature of the voter.

When soldiers were members of the board because soldiers are not qualified.

Cases shall be decided immediately.

During Election Day

Voting opens at 7am and closes at 3pm. There shall be no disruption in the process to present any irregularity from happening. If there are still voters who are still waiting beyond 3pm, as long as they are only 30m away, the Bureau of Elections Inspectors must get their names, ascertain identity and be allowed to cast their votes.

Opening: Paraphernalia are already prepared. A computerized list of voters are posted on the wall. The book of voters should also be inside. Facts: Barangay Kagawad carried the ballot box which contained the book of voters to be

11

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS Those who has no names in the list but previously have voted in the same precincts can still be allowed to vote but must be indicated that it has no name in the list.

generated by the machine, thus there is no more PPC based on tampering and substitution. Grounds: 1. Tampering or substitution of the election returns 2. Qualification of the board of canvassers a. Illegal composition of the board b. Precinct level- cluster requirement for the Board of Election Canvassers must have basic IT knowledge 3. Illegal proceedings a. Precipitate canvassing without proper basis for canvassing to determine the number of votes b. Acts of terrorism (found in Automated Election System) c. Improper venue

Watchers -

-

-

Their role is to challenge the identity of voters and tell the Board of any observance in the irregularity of the voting process Machine summarizes the counting. There is no need for tally sheets because the machine now counts for the election return. Machine prints out the election return and sends the result to the board of canvassers.

Board of canvassers -

-

Within the municipality: composed of the officials in the Municipality In the automated election system, the machine prints out the election returns. The board waits for the hard copy to be compared with the soft copy. If there are no discrepancies, then they shall declare the winners. The hard copy of the results shall be distributed to COMELEC, Board of Canvassers, Court, Dominant Political Parties, etc…

The grounds must be based on those provided in the Omnibus Election Code: If a case is filed before a winner has been proclaimed, then it is a PPC. No winner has been proclaimed yet thus, the case must be resolved before a winner can be proclaimed. If a winner has already been proclaimed, the proclaimed winner occupies the position and the case becomes a regular election case.

Case in Itogon: the votes of one precinct was not considered. During the counting, lightning struck that resulted to loss of power. Some votes were counted before the power interruption but the board still disregarded its votes for it will not materially alter the results.

Nature of the Proceeding: Summary proceeding due to the fact that the case must be resolved immediately prior to the assumption of office. If a winner assumes office, then the case is converted to a regular election case.

PREPROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY

If there are manifest errors, then the COMELEC may make corrections in that case, even under RA 9369.

Sources:

Case: Quino v. COMELEC

Omnibus Election Code RA No. 9369

ELECTION PROTESTS AND QUO WARRANTO

Jurisdiction: COMELEC

-

In the Omnibus Election, the Board of Election Inspectors prepares the election returns.

-

Under the Automated Election System: the PCOS machine prints the election returns. There can be no case of tampering or substitution that was

12

Cases filed against or involving the winning candidate These are election contests that must not be mixed in the same petition. The petition filed must indicate what kind of petition it is.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS Election Protests Parties: ProtestantProtestee the issue involved involves the question of who won based on the plurality of votes or the irregularity of the conduct of the election The complainant must be the losing candidate up to the candidate who garnered the fourth highest vote. If the one who filed the case is shown to be the winner, then he can be considered as the winning candidate.

is based on the same grounds as the PPC, then the Election Protest can be filed. PPC is suspended in effect. 2. Follow procedure of regular cases filed in court such as Certification on non-forum shopping, Judicial Affidavit, verification 3. Appeal MTC appeal to COMELEC RTC appeal to COMELEC. Note that RTC has no appellate jurisdiction in election contests. COMELEC’s decision is final and executory but can be subject to the power of review by the SC.

Quo Warranto Parties: ComplainantRespondent The issue involved is based on the ineligibility or disloyalty of the respondent to the Republic of the Philippines or the qualification of the person The complainant can be any registered voter, whether a candidate or not. If the complainant is a losing candidate, he may be declared as the winner.

Case: Election Protest was filed against a candidate. Protestant failed to allege the precinct and the number of vote. RTC dismissed the case. The protestant filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC and appealed to the COMELEC. He paid the appellant fees after filing the Notice of Appeal. The COMELEC dismissed so he brought the case to the SC.

Jurisdiction:

SC: The appellant fees can be paid with the COMELEC at a later time and not simultaneous with the filing of the Notice of Appeal. However, the case must still be dismissed because of the failure to allege the precincts and the number of votes. These are material requirements.

MTC- barangay elective officials -

They are covered by AM No. 07-14-15-SC for they are not covered by Automated Election.

RTC- municipal elective officials -

COMELEC Jurisdiction administrative procedure

They are covered by AM No. 10-4-1-SC.

COMELEC- provincial officials House of Representatives Electoral TribunalCongressmen Senate Electoral Tribunal- Senators Presidential Electoral Tribunal- President and VicePresident Process with respect to Barangay Officials and Municipal Officials: 1. Petition must be filed within 10 days from the proclamation of winners. The period cannot be extended and can no longer contest after the lapse of the ten-day period. If there is a pending PPC during such time, there is already a winner and the complaint

13

over

Electoral Tribunal Must be brought to the HRET if there is already a winner. Issue: number of votes and the precinct

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS

CASES In general, a pre-proclamation controversy is an administrative remedy to correct errors, discrepancies, defects or fraud committed at the canvassing level.

Quinio V. Comelec

Facts:

a) illegal composition of the Board of Canvassers; and

On May 2010 elections, Quinio won as Mayor Compostela, Cebu and was proclaimed on the next day.

b) illegal proceedings, as when there is precipitate canvassing, terrorism, lack of sufficient notice to the members of the Board of Canvassers, and improper venue.

On May 21, 2010, Wagasalso filed a petition for annulment of proclamation claiming that that the Audit/Print Logs of the Consolidating Machine of the MBOC did not reflect at least fourteen (14) clustered precincts that more than 700 votes were cast but the Statement of Votes reflected only 10 votes.

Also, it was expressly provided under COMELEC Resolution No. 8809 that there shall be no preproclamation cases on issues/controversies relating to the generation, transmission, receipt and custody and appreciation of election returns or certificates of canvass.

On June 28, 2010,he took oath and assumed office. On the same day, however, the COMELEC granted the "Extremely Urgent Motion to Suspend the Effect of Proclamation."

Obviously, the alleged irregularity on the audit logs does not fall within the ambit of the new definition of a pre-proclamation controversy.

On January 12, 2011 the COMELEC Granted the Petition to Annul Proclamation.

Also, since it was already year 2012, the petition has become moot and academic.

Quinio filed a petition for certiorari under rule 65 with the SC.

And where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to which r Quinio would be entitled.

ISSUE: Does such contention reasonably warrant the annulment of one’s proclamation? HELD:

Thus, DISMISSED on the ground of MOOTNESS.

The scope of pre-proclamation controversy has now been limited into only two (2) issues, to wit:

14

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS

Fornier v. COMELEC, GR No. 161824

Facts:

certificates of candidates

In seeking the disqualification of the candidacy of FPJ and to have the COMELEC deny due course to or cancel FPJ’s certificate of candidacy for alleged misrepresentation of a material fact (i.e., that FPJ was a natural-born citizen) before the COMELEC, petitioner Fornier invoked Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code –

candidacy

of

Presidential

Ruling: Yes. It declared that COMELEC’s jurisdiction is limited to all matters relating to election, returns and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials, but not those of national officials like the President. It has, however, jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of citizenship of national officials under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code on petitions to deny due course or cancel certificates of candidacy on the ground that any material representation contained therein is false. It found that the evidence adduced by petitioner Fornier is not substantial, and that FPJ did not commit any falsehood in material representation when he stated in his certificate of candidacy that he is a natural-born Filipino citizen.

"Section 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. In another special civil action, petitioners Tecson and Desiderio challenge the jurisdiction of the COMELEC over the issue of the citizenship of FPJ. They assert that only this Court has jurisdiction over the issue in light of the last paragraph of Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution, which provides:

Petitioners invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as provided for in the last paragraph of Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution, and raise the issue of the ineligibility of a candidate for President on the ground that he is not a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. The actions contemplated in the said provision of the Constitution are post-election remedies, namely, regular election contests and quo warranto. The petitioner should have, instead, resorted to pre-election remedies, such as those prescribed in Section 68 (Disqualifications), in relation to Section 72; Section 69 (Nuisance candidates); and Section 78 (Petition to deny course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy…These pre-election remedies or actions do not, however, fall within the original jurisdiction of this Court. (Separate Opinion)

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. In its Resolution of 23 January 2004, the First Division of the COMELEC dismissed COMELEC Case SPA No. 04-003 for lack of merit. Issue: Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions to deny due course to or cancel

15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS

MARIA JEANETTE C. TECSON and FELIX B. DESIDERIO, JR. vs. The COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FPJ

FACTS:

RULING:

On 31 December 2003, Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as FPJ filed his COC for the position of President of the Philippines under the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) Party. In his COC FPJ represented himself as a naturalborn Filipino born on August 20, 1939 in Manila. Victorino X. Fornier initiated, on 09 January 2004, a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ or to cancel his CoC for making a material misrepresentation, by claiming to be a naturalborn Filipino citizen when in truth, according to Fornier, his parents were foreigners. His mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject. According to Fornier, although Allan Poe (FPJ’s father) was a natural born Filipino, he could not have transmitted his citizenship because the latter is an illegitimate child of his alien mother. Fornier based this on two assertions, first, Allan F. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez before his marriage to Bessie Kelley and, second, even if no such prior marriage had existed, Allan F. Poe, married Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of respondent. The case was dismissed by the COMELEC.

1. YES. It is necessary to take on the matter of whether or not respondent FPJ is a naturalborn citizen, which, in turn, depended on whether or not the father of respondent, Allan F. Poe, would have himself been a Filipino citizen and, in the affirmative, whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of respondent prevents him from taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative father. Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn from the presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years old, Lorenzo would have been born sometime in the year 1870, when the Philippines was under Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the “en masse Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou), if acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe, father of respondent FPJ. The 1935 Constitution, during which regime respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate. But while the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in violation of Section 78, in relation to Section 74, of the Omnibus Election Code. Petitioner utterly failed to prove misrepresentation.

In two other consolidated cases, docketed as Tecson vs. Comelec and Velez vs. FPJ, they challenged the jurisdiction of the COMELEC asserting that, under Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, only the Supreme Court had original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the basic issue on citizenship. ISSUES: 1. WoN FPJ is a natural-born Filipino citizen. 2. WoN the COMELEC has jurisdiction over the case.

16

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS 2. Yes. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, defined by Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, would not include cases directly brought before it, questioning the

qualifications of a candidate for the presidency or vice-presidency before the elections are held.

BAR MATTER No. 914, October 1, 1999 RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR vs. VICENTE D. CHING

FACTS: Vicente D. Ching, the legitimate son of the spouses Tat Ching, a Chinese citizen, and Prescila A. Dulay, a Filipino, was born in Francia West, Tubao, La Union on 11 April 1964. Since his birth, Ching has resided in the Philippines. On 17 July 1998, Ching filed an application to take the 1998 Bar Examinations. In a Resolution of this Court, dated 1 September 1998, he was allowed to take the Bar Examinations, subject to the condition that he must submit to the Court proof of his Philippine citizenship. In compliance with the above resolution, Ching submitted the following documents: 1. Certification, dated 9 June 1986, issued by the Board of Accountancy of the Professional Regulations Commission showing that Ching is a certified public accountant; 2. Voter Certification, dated 14 June 1997, issued by Elizabeth B. Cerezo, Election Officer of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in Tubao La Union showing that Ching is a registered voter of the said place; and 3. Certification, dated 12 October 1998, also issued by Elizabeth B. Cerezo, showing that Ching was elected as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Tubao, La Union during the 12 May 1992 synchronized elections. The oath-taking of the successful Bar examinees was scheduled on 5 May 1999. However, because of the questionable status of Ching's

citizenship, he was not allowed to take his oath. Pursuant to the resolution of this Court, dated 20 April 1999, he was required to submit further proof of his citizenship. The OSG filed its comment, pursuant to the resolution above, stating that Ching being the “legitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother born under the 1935 Constitution was a Chinese citizen and continued to be so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he elected Philippine citizenship.” The OSG adds that “what he acquired at best was only an inchoate Philippine citizenship which he could perfect by election upon reaching the age of majority.” In this regard, the OSG clarifies that “two conditions must concur in order that the election of Philippine citizenship may be effective, namely: (a) the mother of the person making the election must be a citizen of the Philippines; and (b) said election must be made upon reaching the age of majority.” Ching elected Philippine citizenship on 15 July 1999. ISSUE: Whether or not Vicente Ching has elected Philippine citizenship within a "reasonable time." RULING: No, Vicente Ching did not elect Philippine citizenship within a “reasonable time.” The Court held that Ching failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship. The span of fourteen (14) years that lapsed from the time he reached the age of majority until he finally expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the requirement of electing “upon reaching the age of majority.” Moreover, Ching has offered no reason why he delayed his election of Philippine citizenship. The prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking process. All that is

17

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Ching's unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election cannot be simply glossed over. Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a commodity that can be claimed when needed and suppressed when convenient. One who is privileged to elect Philippine

citizenship has only an inchoate right to such citizenship. As such, he should avail of the right with fervour, enthusiasm and promptitude. Sadly, in this case, Ching slept on his opportunity to elect Philippine citizenship and, as a result, this golden privilege slipped away from his grasp. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolves to DENY Vicente D. Ching's application for admission to the Philippine Bar.

Penera v. COMELEC GR No. 181613

Facts: -

-

immediately succeeding proviso in the same third paragraph states that "unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period." The essential elements for violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code are: (1) a person engages in an election campaign or partisan political activity; (2) the act is designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates; (3) the act is done outside the campaign period. The second element requires the existence of a "candidate." Under Section 79(a), a candidate is one who "has filed a certificate of candidacy" to an elective public office. Unless one has filed his certificate of candidacy, he is not a "candidate." The third element requires that the campaign period has not started when the election campaign or partisan political activity is committed. The second element requires the existence of a "candidate." Under Section 79(a), a candidate is one who "has filed a certificate of candidacy" to an elective public office. Unless one has filed his certificate of candidacy, he is not a "candidate." The third element requires that the campaign period has not started when the election campaign or partisan political activity is committed. Congress has laid down the law — a candidate is liable for election offenses only

Mayor candidate and her slate agreed to meet in the house of Penera. They went to town with banners and megaphone announcing their intention to run Headed to COMELEC to file their Certificate of Candidacy. She won as Mayor and some of her coparties. A petition was filed alleging premature campaigning COMELEC decided against Penera, so she was disqualified. Case was brought to SC.

Issue: W/N Penera was guilty of preelection campaigning Ruling: Section 79(a) of the Omnibus Election Code defines a "candidate" as "any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy x x x." The second sentence, third paragraph, Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by Section 13 of RA 9369, provides that "any person who files his 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." The

18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS upon the start of the campaign period. This Court has no power to ignore the clear and express mandate of the law 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." Neither can this Court turn a blind eye to the express and clear language of the law that "any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period."

G.R. No. April 16,195649 2013 CASAN MACODE MAQUILING, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO, LINOG G. BALUA, Respondents.

Issue: Whether or not continued use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign citizenship affects one’s qualifications to run for public office.

Facts: Arnado was a natural born Filipino citizen, but lost his citizenship upon naturalization as citizen of United States of America. Sometime on 2008 and 2009, his repatriation was granted and he subsequently executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of foreign citizenship.

Ruling: Yes. The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is a positive and voluntary act of representation as to one’s nationality and citizenship; it does not divest Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation but it recants the Oath of Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an elective position which makes him dual citizen.

On November 2009, Arnado filed for a certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and won the election. But prior from his declaration as winner, a pending action for disqualification was filed by Balua, one of the contenders for the position. Balua alleged that Arnando was not a citizen of the Philippines, with a certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration that Arnado’s nationality is USA-American and a certified true copy of computer-generated travel record that he has been using his American passport even after renunciation of American citizenship.

Citizenship is not a matter of convenience. It is a badge of identity that comes with attendant civil and political rights accorded by the state to its citizens. It likewise demands the concomitant duty to maintain allegiance to one’s flag and country. While those who acquire dual citizenship by choice are afforded the right of suffrage, those who seek election or appointment to public office are required to renounce their foreign citizenship to be deserving of the public trust. Holding public office demands full and undivided allegiance to the Republic and to no other. It is a continuing requirement that must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or assumption of office but during the officer's entire tenure.

A division of the COMELEC ruled against Arnado but this decision was reversed by the COMELEC en Banc stating that continued use of foreign passport is not one of the grounds provided for under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63 through which Philippine citizenship may be lost. Meanwhile, Maquiling petition that he should be declared winner as he gained the second highest number of votes.

Once any of the required qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably challenged. 19

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS Therefore, the Court held Arnado disqualified for any local elective position as provided by express disqualification under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code. Popular vote does not cure this ineligibility of the candidate. Otherwise, substantive requirements set by the Constitution are nugatory.

Furthermore, there is no second-placer to speak of because as reiterated in the case of Jalosjos v. COMELEC, when the ineligibility was held to be void ab initio, no legal effect is produced. Hence among the qualified candidates for position, Maquiling who garnered the highest votes should be declared as winner.

Poe v. Macapagal-Arroyo PET Case No. 002 March 2005

Facts: On June 24, 2004, the Congress as the representatives of the sovereign people and acting as the National Board of Canvassers, in a near-unanimous roll-call vote, proclaimed Mrs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) as the duly elected President of the Philippines. She obtained the highest votes, followed by the second-placer, Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ). She then took her Oath of Office before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on June 30, 2004.

genuine will of the electorate in the 2004 elections.

Issue: Whether the widow may substitute/intervene for the protestant who died during the pendency of the latter’s protest case. Ruling: No. The court held in Vda. de De Mesa that while the right to a public office is personal and exclusive to the public officer, an election protest is not purely personal and exclusive to the protestant or to the protestee such that the death of either would oust the court of all authority to continue the protest proceedings. Hence, substitution and intervention is allowed but only by a real party in interest. A real party in interest is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, and the party who is entitled to the avails of the suit. Herein movant/intervenor, Mrs. FPJ, herself denies any claim to the august office of President. Thus, given the circumstances of this case, we can conclude that protestant’s widow is not a real party in interest to this election protest.

Refusing to concede defeat, Mr. FPJ, filed an election protest before the Electoral Tribunal. Both parties exchanged motions to rush the presentation of their respective positions on the controversy. Together with the formal Notice of the Death of Protestant on December 14, 2004, his counsel has submitted to the Tribunal, dated January 10, 2005, a "MANIFESTATION with URGENT PETITION/MOTION to INTERVENE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR DECEASED PROTESTANT FPJ," by the widow, Mrs. Jesusa Sonora Poe. She claims that because of the untimely demise of her husband and in representation not only of her deceased husband but more so because of the paramount interest of the Filipino people, there is an urgent need for her to continue and substitute for her late husband in the election protest initiated by him to ascertain the true and

20

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS

P.E.T. Case No. 001 February 13, 1996 MIRIAM DEFENSORSANTIAGO, protestant, vs. FIDEL VALDEZ RAMOS, protestee.

FACTS: The protestant, Santiago ran for presidency and lost against Fidel V Ramos in the May 1992 election. Santiago prayed that the revision in the remaining precincts of the pilot areas be dispensed with and the revision process in the pilot areas be deemed completed. The Court deferred its action on the motion and required, instead, the Santiago and Ramos to submit their respective memoranda on the issue of whether or not the case has been rendered moot and academic by the election of Miriam as Senator in the May 1995 election and her assumption of office on June 30, 1995.

= NOT a ground for dismissal of the protest. 3. De Castro vs Ginete- Just because a losing candidate concedes to the winner, it doesn't mean that the losing candidate is barred from questioning the validity of the election of the winner. 4. Moraleja vs. Relova- The acceptance by the protestee of an appointment to another position is NOT a ground for dismissal of the protest. SC’s rebuttal The cases she cited does not concur with the case at hand.

SANTIAGO’S CONTENTION NO, The court should still decide on the election contest because:

1. Sibulo vda. De Mesa vs. Mencias – the protestee had been proclaimed as the winner and assumed office and then died when the election protest was ongoing 2. Lomugdang vs. Javier- the protestant died during the ongoing protest 3. De Castro vs Ginete- the protestant congratulated the protestee after the protestee won 4. Moraleja vs. Relova- the election protest survived the protestant’s acceptance of temporary employment during the ongoing election protest

1. Election contest confirms the true choice of the electorate 2. The case at hand is imbued with public interest 3. It is only moot if the term of office has expired 4. Her election as Senator and assumption of office does not mean she abandoned the protest 5. The Court has abandoned the view that just because a case has been declared moot, it should be dismissed. CASES PRESENTED TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM

RAMOS’ CONTENTION:

1. Sibulo vda. De Mesa vs. Mencias - the death of the protestee did not stop the proceedings in the protest filed against him. A protest survives the death of the protestee, and must be prosecuted to final judgment. 2. Lomugdang vs. Javier- If the protest succeeds and the protestee is unseated

There is strong legal basis for the court to rule that the Protestant is deemed to have abandoned the instant protest and the case should still be decided 1. Public interest requires that the protest must be resolved because a) it involves a matter of paramount and grave public 21

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS interest, and b) the protest was filed in bad faith. 2. A resolution of the case would confirm his victory in the 1992 Presidential elections and prove that Miriam's protest is unfounded. 3. Resolving the case would establish guiding and controlling principles or doctrines with respect to presidential election protest cases, thereby educating the bench and the bar and prevent the indiscriminate filing of baseless protest cases.

dissipate the aura of uncertainty as to the results of the 1992 presidential elections, thereby enhancing the all too crucial political stability of the nation during this period of national recovery. The protestant effectively abandons or withdraws her protest after filing, campaigning and submitting herself to be voted upon. In so doing, she entered into a political contract with the electorate that if elected, she would assume the office of Senator, discharge its functions and serve her constituency as such for the term for which she was elected. These are givens which are in full accord with the principle enshrined in the Constitution that, public office is a public trust, and public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people and serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.

SC’s rebuttal SC does not accept his view that just because Miriam filed her certificate of candidacy, Miriam forfeited her claim to the office of the President. There is no logic to Ramos' reasoning that the case should be resolved because of bad faith. Also, there is no reason to proceed with the case just to establish guidelines regarding election protests involving the office of the President or the Vice-President.

Also, the PET issued a resolution ordering the protestant to inform the PET within 10 days if after the completion of the revision of the ballots from her pilot areas, she still wishes to present evidence. Since Santiago has not informed the Tribunal of any such intention, such is a manifest indication that she no longer intends to do so.

ISSUE: WON the case has been rendered moot by the election of Miriam as a Senator in the May 1995 election and her assumption of office on June 30, 1995?

DISSENTING OPINIONS: JUSTICE PUNO Miriam did NOT abandon her protest when she ran for Senator and discharged her duties. Puno cited Black's Law Dictionary, saying that there can be no abandonment when there is no intent to abandon. The PET cannot resolve the question of fact regarding Miriam's intent to abandon her protest because it does not have evidence that she did. Also, Ramos has not produced evidence that Miriam intentionally abandoned her protest. The majority of the SC relied on a deduction to support their decision regarding Miriam's intent.

RULING: YES! The Court held that the election protest filed by Santiago has been abandoned or considered withdrawn as a consequence of her election and assumption of office as Senator and her discharge of the duties and functions thereof. The protestant abandoned her “determination to protest and pursue the public interest involved in the matter of who is the real choice of the electorate. Moreover, the dismissal of this protest would serve public interest as it would 22

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS JUSTICE KAPUNAN

The overarching object of an election contest is to seek and enforce the judgment of the people on who should govern them. The majority ruling is inconsistent with the doctrine that an election contest is concerned less with the private interest of the candidates but more with public interest. The majority strays away from this doctrien and dismisses the case at bar even if Miriam and Ramos are alive, the term of the 1992 presidential office has yet to expire, and even when BOTH Miriam and Ramos plead that the PET should determine the true will of the people by deciding the case on its merits.

The case is not moot and academic just because Miriam ran and won as Senator. When Miriam ran for the Senate in 1995, she was not the President and therefore, had nothing to relinquish/give up. When Miriam ran for Senate in 1992, she was not an elective official and there was NO position to abandon. Just because Miriam filed her certificate of candidacy to run for Senator, it does not mean that she abandoned her protest. She made it clear in her senatorial campaign that if she was proclaimed President in the 1992 elections, she would assume the Presidency and shorten her term as Senator.

ANG LADLAD v. COMELEC G.R. No. 190582

FACTS: Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transgendered individuals (LGBTs). They filed a Petition for registration with the COMELEC, arguing that the LGBT community is a marginalized and under-represented sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender identity; that LGBTs are victims of exclusion, discrimination, and violence; that because of negative societal attitudes, LGBTs are constrained to hide their sexual orientation; and that Ang Ladlad complied with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by this Court in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections. However, the COMELEC (Second Division) dismissed the petition on moral grounds. Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of accreditation, insofar as it justified the exclusion by using religious dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees against the establishment of religion. Ang Ladlad also claimed that the Assailed Resolutions contravened its constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well as constituted

violations of the Philippines’ international obligations against discrimination based on sexual orientation. In its Comment, the COMELEC reiterated that petitioner does not have a concrete and genuine national political agenda to benefit the nation and that the petition was validly dismissed on moral grounds. The COMELEC denied Ang Ladlad’s application for registration on the ground that the LGBT sector is neither enumerated in the Constitution and RA 7941, nor is it associated with or related to any of the sectors in the enumeration. ISSUE: Whether or not Ang Ladlad’s application for registration must be granted. RULING: Yes. Respondent (COMELEC) mistakenly opines that the ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani stands for the proposition that only those sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related to said sectors (labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals) may be registered under the party-list system. As we

23

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, "the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive". The crucial element is not whether a sector is specifically enumerated, but whether a particular organization complies with the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. Moreover, the Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that "[n]o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." At bottom, what the nonestablishment clause calls for is "government neutrality in religious matters." Clearly, "governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality." Thus, the Supreme Court finds that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to

justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. The COMELEC’s differentiation, and its unsubstantiated claim that Ang Ladlad cannot contribute to the formulation of legislation that would benefit the nation, furthers no legitimate state interest other than disapproval of or dislike for a disfavored group. From the standpoint of the political process, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender have the same interest in participating in the party-list system on the same basis as other political parties similarly situated. State intrusion in this case is equally burdensome. Hence, laws of general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to participate in the party-list system on the same basis as other marginalized and under-represented sectors.

QUINTO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010)

Public appointive officials can continue discharging the powers, prerogatives, and functions of their office notwithstanding their entry into the political arena. Filing of CoC by public appointive officials is not equal to resignation FACTS: Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr contend that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it issued a Resolution violating the equal protection clause when they accord differential treatment to elective and appointive officials. They aver that the advance filing of CoCs for the 2010 elections is intended merely for the purpose of early printing of the official ballots in order to cope with time limitations. Such advance filing does not automatically make the person who filed the CoC a candidate at the moment of filing. Petitioners further posit that the provision considering them as ipso facto resigned from office upon the filing of their CoCs is discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause in the Constitution.

ISSUE: Are appointed officials considered resigned upon filing of their certificates of candidacy? Is Section 13 of RA 9369 violative of the equal protection clause? RULING: No to the first question and yes to the second. “ANY PERSON WHO FILES HIS CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY WITHIN THIS PERIOD SHALL ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS A CANDIDATE AT THE START OF THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD FOR WHICH HE FILED HIS COC.” The said proviso seems to mitigate the situation of disadvantage afflicting appointive officials by considering persons who filed their CoCs as candidates only at the start of the campaign period, thereby, conveying the tacit intent that persons holding appointive positions will only be

24

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS considered as resigned at the start of the campaign period when they are already treated by law as candidates.

The Court finds that the differential treatment of persons holding appointive offices as opposed to those holding elective ones is not germane to the purposes of the law. There is thus no valid justification to treat appointive officials differently from the elective ones. The classification simply fails to meet the test that it should be germane to the purposes of the law.

In considering persons holding appointive positions as ipso facto resigned from their posts upon the filing of their CoCs, but not considering as resigned all other civil servants, specifically the elective ones, the law unduly discriminates against the first class.

Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728 July 5, 2016

Facts: This is a motion for reconsideration filed by the herein respondents when the court has decided and granted in favor of the herein petitioners in issuing TRO for the COMELEC in pushing to remove the tarpaulins posted by the herein petitioners and the declaring that the letters dated February 22 and 27, 2013 are both void and unconstitutional. The case arose from when the Diocese of Bacolod posted 2 tarpaulins within its compound stating its opposition on RH law, with the message “IBASURA RH LAW” and another entitled “CONSCIENCE VOTE WITH THE LIST OF CANDIDATES CATEGORIZING TEAM BUHAY AND TEAM PATAY” with a check mark and “X” mark. The COMELEC on its letter dated February 22 and 27, 2013 was ordering the removal of the 2 tarpaulins for the reasons that it is in violation of the election law and the constitution for it is an election propaganda that can be regulated by them. The respondents reiterating in this motion for reconsideration that

the rule remedies

on

exhaustion

of

administrative

2.) that the tarpaulin is an election propaganda thus falls within the regulation of the COMELEC ; 3. ) that Notwithstanding that petitioners are not political candidates, the subject tarpaulin is subject to the COMELEC's regulation because petitioners' objective in posting the same is clearly to persuade the public to vote for or against the candidates and party-list groups named therein, depending on their stand on the RH Law, which essentially makes the subject tarpaulin a form of election propaganda and 4.) that the size limitation is a valid contentneutral regulation on election propaganda. As such, only a substantial governmental interest is required under the intermediate test. Issues: 1.

1.) the notice and letters are not final orders of the COMELEC En Banc thus it not subject to the Court’s review, that it is in their jurisdiction pursuant to the constitutional provision Article IX-C, Section 2(3) of the Constitution on its power to decide "all questions affecting elections." And thus petitioners have violated

2.

25

WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION WHEN IT ELEVATED THE ISSUE TO THE SUPREME COURT RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE ISSUE TO THE COMELEC; WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBJECT TARPAULINS FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS

3.

4.

OF ELECTION PROPAGANDA AND THUS CAN BE REGULATED BY THE COMELEC; WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN ORDERING THE REMOVAL OR REGULATION OF THE TARPAULINS WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER OF THE REMOVAL IS A CONTENT BASED OR CONTENT-NEUTRAL REGULATION.

and the regulation, if applied in this case, fails the reasonability test. 3. Petitioners are not candidates. They are asserting their right to freedom of expression.31 We acknowledged the "chilling effect" of the assailed notice and letter on this constitutional right in our Decision, thus: Nothing less than the electorate's political speech will be affected by the restrictions imposed by COMELEC. Political speech is motivated by the desire to be heard and understood, to move people to action. It is concerned with the sovereign right to change the contours of power whether through the election of representatives in a republican government or the revision of the basic text of the Constitution. The zeal with which we protect this kind of speech does not depend on our evaluation of the cogency of the message. Neither do we assess whether we should protect speech based on the motives of COMELEC. We evaluate restrictions on freedom of expression from their effects. We protect both speech and medium because the quality of this freedom in practice will define the quality of deliberation in our democratic society.

HELD: 1. NO. Direct resort to this court is allowed to avoid such proscribed conditions. Rule 65 is also the procedural platform for raising grave abuse of discretion.32 The urgency posed by the circumstances during respondents' issuance of the assailed notice and letter-the then issue on the RH Law as well as the then upcoming elections-also rendered compliance with the doctrine on exhaustion of administrative remedies as unreasonable. 2. NO. the tarpaulin consists of satire of political parties that "primarily advocates a stand on a social issue; only secondarily-even almost incidentally-will cause the election or non-election of a candidate."34 It is not election propaganda as its messages are different from the usual declarative messages of candidates. The tarpaulin is an expression with political consequences, and "[t]his court's construction of the guarantee of freedom of expression has always been wary of censorship or subsequent punishment that entails evaluation of the speaker's viewpoint or the content of one's speech."35

COMELEC's notice and letter affect preferred speech. Respondents' acts are capable of repetition. Under the conditions in which it was issued and in view of the novelty of this case, it could result in a "chilling effect" that would affect other citizens who want their voices heard on issues during the elections. Other citizens who wish to express their views regarding the election and other related issues may choose not to, for fear of reprisal or sanction by the COMELEC.

We recognize that there can be a type of speech by private citizens amounting to election paraphernalia that can be validly regulated.36 However, this is not the situation in this case. The twin tarpaulins consist of a social advocacy,

4. The regulation is content-based. The Decision discussed that "[t]he form of expression is just as important as the

26

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS information conveyed that it forms part of the expression, and size does matter.

RAMON LABO V. COMELEC AND LUIS LARDIZABAL (GR NO. 86564; August 1, 1989)

SUBJECT:SUCCESSION/ WINNER - LOSER

Allegiance in Australia, he claimed that it is a condition because he was married to an Australian.

Facts: In 1988, Labo was elected Mayor of Baguio City. However his opponent, Lardizabal, filed a Petition for Quo Warranto. Lardizabal alleged that Labo is a foreigner (Australian) and is not a Filipino Citizen. This allegation was based on the fact that Labo married an Australian. Under the Australian Law, it provides that “As the spouse of an Australian citizen, he was not required to meet normal requirements for the grant of citizenship and was granted Australian citizenship.”

Issues: 1. Whether Labo is a Filipino Citizen and is entitled to the position. 2. Whether the private respondent, who filed the Quo Warranto, can replace the petitioner as mayor.

Ruling: 1. No. The annulment of his naturalization in Australia does not immediately restore his Philippine Citizenship. His contention cannot stand against the provisions of CA No. 63, which enumerates the modes by which Philippine Citizenship may be lost. This includes subscribing an oath of allegiance to support the constitution and by laws of another country. Labo was not a Filipino Citizenship during and after the elections. Even during the course of the proceedings. The electorate had no power to permit a foreigner owing his total allegiance to the Queen of Australia, or at least a stateless individual owing no allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, to preside over them as mayor of their city. Only citizens of the Philippines have that privilege over their countrymen.

There were two administrative decisions on the question of Labo’s citizenship. One was decided by the Commission on Election (COMELEC). COMELEC rendered a decision claiming that Labo is a Filipino Citizen. The other was decided by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID). CID rendered a decision claiming that Labo is NOT a Filipino Citizen. The COMELEC dismissed the petition without prejudice to the issue of Labo’s citizenship being raised anew in a proper case. During the proceeding before the COMELEC, there was no direct proof that Labo was naturalized as a citizen of Australia. While for the CID, its decision was based on the official statement of the Australian Government that Labo is still an Australian Citizen. Labo asserted that his naturalization in Australia was annulled after it was found that his marriage to the Australian Citizen was bigamous. And that, when he took an oath of

2.No. The simple reason is that as he obtained only the second highest number of votes in the election, he was obviously not the choice of the

27

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND ELECTION LAWS people of Baguio city. As held in the case of Topacio v. Paredes:

later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the elective office. The votes cast for a dead, disqualified, or non-eligible person may not be valid to vote the winner into office or maintain him there. However, in the absence of a statute which clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative policy on the matter, if the votes were cast in the sincere belief that the candidate was alive, qualified, or eligible, they should not be treated as stray, void or meaningless.”

“ ... it would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a winner and imposed as the representative of a constituency, the majority of which have positively declared through their ballots that they do not choose him. …The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is

28