1

ROBBE2014

USE AT YOUR OWN RISK

ELECTION LAW REVIEWER- ATTY GALLANT SORIANO

CHAPTER 2

Challenges to the right to register

Who may challenge? (Section 18 RA 8189)

Any Voter Candidate Representative of a registered political party

Requirement In writing Under oath Attached to the application Proof of notice of hearing State the ground

Procedure Hearing: third Monday of the month Decision: end of the month

Opposition (in form of answer)

Filed not later than second Monday

Petition Scheduled to be heard by ERB

Who may Any Voter Candidate Representative of a registered political party

When a. Any time b. Except 105 days prior to a regular

election and 75 days prior to a special election

When to decide 15 days after filing

Appeal Within five daysRTC RTC will decide within 10 days Decision is final and executory

Petition for exclusion

Reqs -Sworn petition with Name Address Precinct -Proof of Notice

When Any time Except 100 days prior to a regular election and 65 days prior to a special election

Election officers- part of their responsibility is to ensure the true and rightful list of voters

2

ROBBE2014

Political Party- Partner of COMELEC to ensure a peaceful and honest election and to ensure the

true and rightful list of voters

Why there is a difference of the time to file for inclusion (105 days prior to regular election;75

days special election) and exclusion (100 days prior to a regular election and 65 days prior to

a special election)

Annulment of book of voters Section 39 ra 8189

Requirements Verified petition 1. State the grounds

Grounds a. Not in accordance with RA 8189 b. Prepared through fraud, fraud, bribery,

forgery ,impersonation, intimidation, force or any similar irregularity

c. Contains data that are statistically improbable

Limitations a. Executed within 90 days b. Order of annulling book of voters is not

a ground for preproclamation controversy

3

ROBBE2014

CHAPTER 4

*MEMORIZE

Qualifications for National Elective Offices (CALVRES=Citizenship, Age, Literacy,

Voter, Residence)

President & VP Senate House of Representative

Basis (1987 Constitution)

Sec 2 Art VII Sec. 3 Art VI Sec. 6 Art VI

Citizenship Natural Born Citizen Natural Born Citizen Natural Born Citizen

Age At least 40 years old at the day of election

At least 35 years old at the day of election

At least 25 years old at the day of election

Literacy Able to read and write

Able to read and write

Able to read and write

Voter Registered Voter Registered Voter Registered Voter in the District which he shall be elected

Residence Resident of the Philippines for not less than 10 years immediately preceding the day of the election.

Resident of the Philippines for not less than 2 years immediately preceding the day of the election.

A resident of the district for a period of not less than 1 year immediately preceding the day of the election.

Why Natural born Citizen? On the justification that people who are voted on this election

must have an absolute and undivided allegiance

Residence? For Familiarity and acquaintance

Qualifications for Local Elective Offices

Governor and Vice Governor

Mayor HUC Mayor and Vice Mayor (City)

SP & SB

Basis Sec. 39 RA 7160

Sec. 39 RA 7160

Sec. 39 RA 7160

Sec. 39 RA 7160

Citizenship Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen

Age At least 23 Years old on election day

At least 23 Years old on election day

At least 21 Years old on election day

At least 18 Years old on election day

Literacy Able to read and write Filipino or any

Able to read and write Filipino or any

Able to read and write Filipino or any

Able to read and write Filipino or any

4

ROBBE2014

other local language or dialect

other local language or dialect

other local language or dialect

other local language or dialect

Voter Registration

Registered Voter

Registered Voter

Registered Voter

Registered Voter in the district

Residence 1 yr in the province where he intended to be elected 2 Years in the Philippines

1 yr in the province where he intended to be elected 2 Years in the Philippines

1 yr in the province where he intended to be elected 2 Years in the Philippines

1 yr in the province where he intended to be elected 2 Years in the Philippines

Are Naturalized Citizens allowed to run LEO? Yes

Definition of terms

Candidate Sec 79 (a) BP 881

1. Any person 2. Aspiring for or seeking an elective

office 3. Who has filed a certificate of

candidacy 4. By himself or through an accredited

political party, aggroupment , or coalition of parties

Qualification 1. a conditional circumstance 2. that must be met or complied with 3. to make a person suitable for a particular position

Disqualification 1. The quality of not being suitable 2. For a particular position

Natural Born Citizen 1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth

2. Without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect Citizenship

3. Those born befre January 17, 1973 of Filipino Mothers who elect Philippine citizenship at the age of majority

4.

Residence 1. Indicate a place of abode whether permanent or temporary

(?????)

Domicile 1. For the exercise of civil rights and

5

ROBBE2014

Art 50 Civil Code fulfilment of civil obligations 2. The domicile of natural persons is

the place of their habitual residence

Disqualifications (Omnibus Election Code Sec.12)

1. has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent

2. sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion

3. sentenced by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude

Disqualifications applicable to LEO only (Sec 40 Ra 7160)

1. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an

offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after

serving sentence;

2. Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;

3. Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic;

4. Those with dual citizenship;

5. Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad;

6. Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to

reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code;

and

7. The insane or feeble-minded.

Father of LGC- Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr.

Can a Juridical person run for public office?

CHAPTER 6 CAMPAIGN ELECTION PROPAGANDA

ELECTION CAMPAIGN SECTION 29

A.an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a B.particular candidate or candidates to a public office

INCLUDED (1) Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign for or

6

ROBBE2014

against a candidate;

(2) Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a candidate;

(3) Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public office;

(4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support or oppose the election of any candidate; or

(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against a candidate.

NOT CONSIDERED A. if performed for the purpose of enhancing the chances of aspirants for nomination for candidacy to a public office by a political party, aggroupment, or coalition of parties B. shall not be considered as election campaign or partisan election activity.

PROHIBITION SECTION 80

engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period

EXCEPTION political parties may hold political conventions or meetings to nominate their official candidates within thirty days before the commencement of the campaign period and forty-five days for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election.

CASE LANOT V COMELEC for purposes of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code, only on 23 March 2004, the last day for filing certificates of candidacy. Applying the facts - as found by Director Ladra and affirmed by the COMELEC First Division - to Section 11 of RA 8436, Eusebio clearly did not violate Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code which requires the

7

ROBBE2014

existence of a "candidate," one who has filed his certificate of candidacy, during the commission of the questioned acts.

LAWFUL ELECTION PROPAGANDA

SECTION 82 SECTION 3 RA 9006

(a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers or other written or printed materials of a size not more than eight and one-half inches in width and fourteen inches in length;

(b) Handwritten or printed letters urging voters to vote for or against any particular candidate;

(c) Cloth, paper or cardboard posters, whether framed or posted, with an area exceeding two feet by three feet, except that, at the site and on the occasion of a public meeting or rally, or in announcing the holding of said meeting or rally, streamers not exceeding three feet by eight feet in size, shall be allowed: Provided, That said streamers may not be displayed except one week before the date of the meeting or rally and that it shall be removed within seventy-two hours after said meeting or rally; or

(d) All other forms of election propaganda not prohibited by this Code as the Commission may authorize after due notice to all interested parties and hearing where all the interested parties were given an equal opportunity to be heard: Provided, That the Commission's authorization shall be published in two newspapers of general circulation throughout the nation for at least twice within one week after the authorization has been granted.

3.1. Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals, stickers or other written or printed materials the size of which does not exceed eight and one half inches in width and fourteen inches in length;

3.2. Handwritten or printed letters urging voters to vote for or against any particular political party or candidate for public office;

3.3. Cloth, paper or cardboard posters, whether framed or posted, with an area not exceeding two (2) feet by three (3) feet, except that, at the site and on the occasion of a public meeting or rally, or in announcing the holding of said meeting or rally, streamers not exceeding three (3) feet by eight (8) feet in size, shall be allowed: Provided, That said streamers may be displayed five (5) days before the date of the meeting or rally and shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours after said meeting or rally;

3.4. Paid advertisements in print or broadcast media: Provided, That the advertisements shall follow the requirements set forth in Section 4 of this Act; and

3.5. All other forms of election propaganda not prohibited by the Omnibus Election Code or this Act.

CASE: ADIONG VS COMELEC 207 SCRA 712 ADIONG v. COMELEC G.R. No. 103956

8

ROBBE2014

March 31, 1992 FACTS: On January 13, 1992, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2347 pursuant to its powers granted by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Republic Acts Nos. 6646 and 7166 and other election laws. Section 15(a) of the resolution provides: Sec. 15. Lawful Election Propaganda. — The following are lawful election propaganda: (a) Pamphlets, leaflets, cards, decals… Provided, That decals and stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas provided in paragraph (f) of Section 21 hereof. Section 21 (f) of the same resolution provides: Sec. 21(f). Prohibited forms of election propaganda. It is unlawful:… (f) To draw, paint, inscribe, post, display or publicly exhibit any election propaganda in any place, whether public or private, mobile or stationary, except in the COMELEC common posted areas and/or billboards… Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong, a senatorial candidate in the May 11, 1992 elections assails the COMELEC’s Resolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and stickers in “mobile” places like cars and other moving vehicles. According to him such prohibition is violative of Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 11(a) of Republic Act No. 6646. ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC may prohibit the posting of decals and stickers on “mobile” places, public or private, and limit their location or publication to the authorized posting areas that it fixes. HELD: The petition is hereby GRANTED. The portion of Section 15 (a) of Resolution No. 2347 of the COMELEC providing that “decals and stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting areas provided in paragraph (f) of Section 21 hereof” is DECLARED NULL and VOID. The COMELEC’s prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on “mobile” places whether public or private except in designated areas provided for by the COMELEC itself is null and void on constitutional grounds. The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen’s fundamental right of free speech enshrined in the Constitution (Sec. 4, Article III). Significantly, the freedom of expression curtailed by the questioned prohibition is not so much that of the candidate or the political party. The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and, by displaying it on his car, to convince others to agree with him. Also, the questioned prohibition premised on the statute (RA 6646) and as couched in the resolution is void for overbreadth. The restriction as to where the decals and stickers should be posted is so broad that it encompasses even the citizen’s private property, which in this case is a privately-owned vehicle (The provisions allowing regulation are so loosely worded that they include the posting of decals or stickers in the privacy of one’s living room or bedroom.) In consequence of this prohibition, another cardinal rule prescribed by the Constitution would be violated. Section 1, Article III of the Bill of Rights provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. (The right to property may be subject to a greater degree of regulation but when this right is joined by a “liberty” interest, the burden of justification on the part of the Government must be exceptionally convincing and irrefutable. The burden is not met in this case.)

9

ROBBE2014

Additionally, the constitutional objective to give a rich candidate and a poor candidate equal opportunity to inform the electorate as regards their candidacies, mandated by Article II, Section 26 and Article XIII, section 1 in relation to Article IX (c) Section 4 of the Constitution, is not impaired by posting decals and stickers on cars and other private vehicles. It is to be reiterated that the posting of decals and stickers on cars, calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other moving vehicles needs the consent of the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the preference of the citizen becomes crucial in this kind of election propaganda not the financial resources of the candidate. In sum, the prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on “mobile” places whether public or private except in the authorized areas designated by the COMELEC becomes censorship which cannot be justified by the Constitution.

ABS CBN VS COMELEC GR 13486 JAN 28,2000

FACTS:

COMELEC issued a Resolution approving the issuance of a restraining order to

stop ABS CBN or any other groups, its agents or representatives from conducting exit

surveys. The Resolution was issued by

the Comelec allegedly upon "information from a reliable source that ABS-CBN (Lopez

Group) has prepared a project, with PR groups, to conduct radio-TV coverage of the

elections and to make an exit survey of the vote during the elections for national officials

particularly for President and Vice President, results of which shall be broadcasted

immediately.” The electoral body believed that such project might conflict with the

official Comelec count, as well as the unofficial quick count of the National Movement

for Free Elections (Namfrel). It also noted that it had not authorized or deputized ABS-

CBN to undertake the exit survey.

Two days before the elections on May 11, 1998, the Court issued the Temporary

Restraining Order prayed for by petitioner ABS-CBN. The Comelec was directed to

cease and desist, until further orders, from implementing the assailed Resolution or the

restraining order issued pursuant thereto, if any. In fact, the exit polls were actually

conducted and reported by media without any difficulty or problem.

ISSUE: W/N the Comelec, in the exercise of its powers, can absolutely

ban exit polls

ABS-CBN: The holding of exit polls and the nationwide reporting of their results

are valid exercises of the freedoms of speech and of the press

COMELEC:

10

ROBBE2014

1)The issuance thereof was "pursuant to its constitutional and statutory powers to

promote a clean, honest, orderly and credible May 11, 1998 elections"; and "to protect,

preserve and maintain the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot."

2)It contends that "the conduct of exit surveys might unduly confuse and influence the

voters," and that the surveys were designed "to condition the minds of people and

cause confusion as to who are the winners and the losers in the election," which in turn

may result in "violence and anarchy."

3)"exit surveys indirectly violate the constitutional principle to preserve the sanctity of

the ballots," as the "voters are lured to reveal the contents of ballots," in violation of

Section 2, Article V of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Omnibus Election

Code. It submits that the constitutionally protected freedoms invoked by petitioner "are

not immune to regulation by the State in the legitimate exercise of its police power,"

such as in the present case.

4) "[p]ress freedom may be curtailed if the exercise thereof creates a clear and present

danger to the community or it has a dangerous tendency." It then contends that "an exit

poll has the tendency to sow confusion considering the randomness of selecting

interviewees, which further make[s] the exit poll highly unreliable. The probability that

the results of such exit poll may not be in harmony with the official count made by the

Comelec x x x is ever present. In other words, the exit poll has a clear and present

danger of destroying the credibility and integrity of the electoral process."

SUPREME COURT: The COMELEC Resolution on exit polls ban is nullified and

set aside.

1) Clear and present danger of destroying the integrity of electoral processes

Speculative and Untenable. First, by the very nature of a survey, the interviewees

or participants are selected at random, so that the results will as much as possible be

representative or reflective of the general sentiment or view of the community or group

polled. Second, the survey result is not meant to replace or be at par with the official

Comelec count. It consists merely of the opinion of the polling group as to who the

electorate in general has probably voted for, based on the limited data gathered from

polled individuals. Finally, not at stake here are the credibility and the integrity of the

elections, which are exercises that are separate and independent from the exit polls.

The holding and the reporting of the results of exit polls cannot undermine those of the

elections, since the former is only part of the latter. If at all, the outcome of one can only

be indicative of the other.

11

ROBBE2014

2) Overbroad

The Comelec's concern with the possible noncommunicative effect of exit polls --

disorder and confusion in the voting centers -- does not justify a total ban on them.

Undoubtedly, the assailed Comelec Resolution is too broad, since its application

is without qualification as to whether the polling is disruptive or not.[44] Concededly, the

Omnibus Election Code prohibits disruptive behavior around the voting

centers.[45] There is no showing, however, that exit polls or the means to interview

voters cause chaos in voting centers. Neither has any evidence been presented proving

that the presence of exit poll reporters near an election precinct tends to create disorder

or confuse the voters. Moreover, the prohibition incidentally prevents the collection of

exit poll data and their use for any purpose. The valuable information and ideas that

could be derived from them, based on the voters' answers to the survey questions will

forever remain unknown and unexplored. Unless the ban is restrained, candidates,

researchers, social scientists and the electorate in general would be deprived of studies

on the impact of current events and of election-day and other factors on voters' choices.

3) Violation of Ban Secrecy

The contention of public respondent that exit polls indirectly transgress the

sanctity and the secrecy of the ballot is off-tangent to the real issue. Petitioner does not

seek access to the ballots cast by the voters. The ballot system of voting is not at issue

here.

The reason behind the principle of ballot secrecy is to avoid vote buying through

voter identification. Thus, voters are prohibited from exhibiting the contents of their

official ballots to other persons, from making copies thereof, or from putting

distinguishing marks thereon so as to be identified. Also proscribed is finding out the

contents of the ballots cast by particular voters or disclosing those of disabled or

illiterate voters who have been assisted. Clearly, what is forbidden is the association of

voters with their respective votes, for the purpose of assuring that the votes have been

cast in accordance with the instructions of a third party. This result cannot, however, be

achieved merely through the voters' verbal and confidential disclosure to a pollster of

whom they have voted for.

In exit polls, the contents of the official ballot are not actually exposed.

Furthermore, the revelation of whom an elector has voted for is not compulsory, but

voluntary. Voters may also choose not to reveal their identities. Indeed, narrowly

tailored countermeasures may be prescribed by the Comelec, so as to minimize or

suppress incidental problems in the conduct of exit polls, without transgressing the

12

ROBBE2014

fundamental rights of our people.##

An exit poll is a species of electoral survey conducted by qualified individuals or

groups of individuals for the purpose of determining the probable result of an election by

confidentially asking randomly selected voters whom they have voted for, immediately

after they have officially cast their ballots. The results of the survey are announced to

the public, usually through the mass media, to give an advance overview of how, in the

opinion of the polling individuals or organizations, the electorate voted. In our electoral

history, exit polls had not been resorted to until the recent May 11, 1998 elections.

SORIANO PPT: The holding of exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press. Hence, the Comelec cannot ban them totally in the guise of promoting clean, honest, orderly and credible elections

Social Weather Stations v. COMELECG.R. No. 147571May 5, 2001FACTS: On the one hand, Social Weather Stations (SWS) is an institution conducting surveysin various fields. Kamahalan Publishing Corp., on the other hand, publishes theManila Standard which is a newspaper of general circulation and features items of information including election surveys. Both SWS and Kamahalan are contesting thevalidity and enforcement of R.A. 9006 (Fair Election Act), especially section 5.4which provides that surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published 15days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not bepublished 7 days before the election.SWS wanted to conduct an election survey throughout the period of the electionsboth at the national and local levels and release to the media the results of suchsurvey as well as publish them directly. Kamahalan, for its part, intends to publishelection survey results up to the last day of the elections on May 14, 2001. ISSUE: Whether or not the restriction on the publication of election survey constitutes aprior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and presentdanger to justify such restraint RULING/RATIO: Yes, Section 5.4 of R.A. 9006 constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of speech, expression, and the press. The power of the COMELEC over media franchises is limited to ensuring equalopportunity, time, space, and the right to reply, as well as to fix reasonable rates of charge for the use of media facilities for public information and forms amongcandidates.Here, the prohibition of speech is direct, absolute, and substantial. Nor does thissection pass the O’brient test for content related regulation because (1) itsuppresses one type of expression while allowing other types such as editorials,etc.; and (2) the restriction is greater than what is needed to protect governmentinterest because the interest can e protected by narrower restrictions such assubsequent punishment.Note: Justice Kapunan’s dissenting opinion basically says that the test of clear andpresent danger is inappropriate to use in order to test the

13

ROBBE2014

validity of this section.Instead, he purports to engage in a form of balancing by weighing and balancingthe circumstances to determine whether public interest is served by the regulationof the free enjoyment of the rights. However, he failed to show why, on the balance,the other considerations (for example, prevention of last minute pressure on voters)should outweigh the value of freedom of expression

CHAVEZ VS COMELEC

LIMITATIONS ON EXPENSES SECTION 13 RA 7166

PRESIDENT AN VICE PRESIDENT P10.00 FOR EVERY VOTER

OTHER P3.00

INDEPENDENT P5.00 FOR EVERY VOTER

POLITICAL PARTY P5 FOR EVERY VOTER CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE CONSTITUENCY OR CONSTITUENCIES WHERE IT HAS OFFICIAL CANDIDATES

STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION RA 7166 SEC 14

WHO Every candidate and treasurer of the political party

WHAT file in duplicate with the offices of the Commission the full, true and itemized statement of all contributions and expenditures in connection with the election.

WHEN within thirty (30) days after the day of the election,

SANCTIONS Shall not enter upon the duties of his office until he has filed the statement of contributions and expenditures herein required.

ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITIES 1st offense- p1000 to 30000 2nd offense- p2000 to 60000 + perpetual disqualification to hold public office

FILING OF TWO CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY

GENERAL RULE SEC 73 BP 881

No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the same election, and if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one office, he shall not be eligible for any of them.

EXCEPTION However, before the expiration of the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy, the person who was filed more than one certificate of candidacy may declare under oath the office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other office or offices.

LORETO GO V COMELEC

14

ROBBE2014

The filing of the affidavit of withdrawal with the election officer of Baybay, Leyte, at 12:28 a.m., 1 March 2001 was a substantial compliance with the requirement of the law

DUTY OF COMELEC BP881 SEC 76

OFFICERS Commission, Provincial election supervisor, Election registrar or Officer designated by the Commission or Board of election inspectors

NATURE shall have the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy

CIPRIANO V COMELEC august 2004 A. COMELEC may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form B. When a candidate files his certificate of candidacy, the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge its receipt. This is provided in Sec. 76 of the Omnibus Election Code,

ABCEDE V IMPERIAL Section 37 of the Revised Election Code imposes upon the commission the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge certificates of candidacy, the law leaves to the Commission a measure:of discretion on whether to give due course to a particular certificate of candidacy should it find said certificate of candidacy to have been filed not bona fide.

DENIAL OR CANCELLATION OF COC

PROCEDURE AND GROUND SEC 78

verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.

WHERE TO FILE COMELEC RULE OF PROCEDURE

A. JURISDICTION OVER A PETITION TO CANCEL A COURT OF CANDIDACY B. LIES WITH THE COMELEC SITTING IN DIVISION

WHEN TO FILE at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.

15

ROBBE2014

GARVIDA VS SALES

, jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy lies with the COMELEC sitting in Division, not en banc. Cases before a Division may only be entertained by the COMELEC en banc when the required number of votes to reach a decision, resolution, order or ruling is not obtained in the Division. Moreover, only motions to reconsider decisions, resolutions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC in Division are resolved by the COMELEC en banc.[16] It is therefore the COMELEC sitting in Divisions that can hear and decide election cases. This is clear from Section 3 of the said Rules thus:

"Sec. 3. The Commission Sitting in Divisions. -- The Commission shall sit in two (2) Divisions to hear and decide protests or petitions in ordinary actions, special actions, special cases, provisional remedies, contempt and special proceedings except in accreditation of citizens' arms of the Commission."

LOONG VS COMELEC

CHAPTER 7 WATCHERS

Entity Entitled to

a. Each Candidate b. Political Party or Coalition of

political parties registered in COMELEC

c. Party List

a. 2 watchers b. Serve alternately c. In every polling place

a. Candidates for Sangguniang Panglalawigan, SP,SB belonging to the same party

b. Duly accredited citizen’s arms of COMELEC

c. Civic, religious, professional, business, service, youth and other similar organizations with prior authority to COMELEC

1 watcher for every polling place

Qualifications 1. Qualified voter of city or municipality 2. Good reputation 3. Never convicted by final judgment

of any election protest or any other crime

4. Knows how to read and write Filipino, English or of the prevailing local dialect

5. Not related within 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to the

16

ROBBE2014

chairman or member of BEI in the polling place where he seeks appointment

Rights and duties 1. Stay in the polling place 2. Witness the proceedings of the BEI 3. Take note, photograph of the

proceedings 4. File protest against any irregularity

or violation of law which they believe may have been committed by BEI

5. Furnished with certificate of vote cast for each candidate duly signed and thumb marked by BEI

CHAPTER 9 ACTIVITIES DURING THE ELECTION

CASTING OF VOTES

Illiterate or Disabled BP 881 Sec 196

a. Can be assisted b. By a relative, by affinity or

consanguinity within the fourth civil degree or

c. if he has none, by any person of his confidence who belong to the same household or

d. any member of the board of election inspectors,

Requisites That he is an illiterate voter Must be indicated in his registration card Safeguard: res ipsa loquitor Persons with disabilities can be distinguished with naked eye

Limitation a. Assistor cannot assist more than three times except member of BEI

b. Assistor must under oath bind himself in a formal document under oath to fill out the ballot strictly in accordance with the instructions of the voter and not to reveal the contents of the ballot prepared by him.

BALLOT

Authentication of ballot Sec 24 ra 7166 a. Before delivering official ballot to the voter

b. Chairman of BEI shal affix signature at the back

17

ROBBE2014

c. Failure to so authenticate shall be noted in the minutes of the board of election inspectors and shall constitute an election offense punishable under 263 and 264 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Failure to authenticate a. Ballot is not deemed spurious b. Ballot is valid

Illustrative cases Libanan vs. HRET Punzalan vs COMELEC

ILLEGAL VOTER

Challenge of Illegal Voter BP881 Sec 199

a. Any voter, or watcher b. may challenge any person offering

to vote for not being registered, c. for using the name of another or

suffering from existing disqualification.

Other grounds BP 881 SEC 200

a. The challenged person shall take a prescribed oath before the board of election inspectors that he has not committed any of the acts alleged in the challenge.

b. Upon the taking of such oath, the challenge shall be dismissed and the challenged voter shall be allowed to vote, but in case of his refusal to take such oath, the challenge shall be sustained and he shall not be allowed to vote.

Record of challenge and oath BP881 Sec 202

a. The poll clerk shall keep a prescribed record of challenges and oaths taken in connection therewith and the resolution of the board of election inspectors in each case and,

b. upon the termination of the voting, shall certify that it contains all the challenges made.

c. The original of this record shall be attached to the original copy of the minutes of the voting as provided in the succeeding section.

DURING ELECTION BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS

Composition a. Chairman b. Member

18

ROBBE2014

c. Poll clerk

Qualification a. Good moral character b. Registered voter c. Never convicted of election

offense d. Able to speak and write English

or the local dialect

BOARD OF ELECTION

Disqualification a. Must not be related within the fourth civil degree of election inspectors or candidate to be voted for in the polling place or his spouse

b. Must not engage in any partisan poll activity

Powers a. Conduct the voting and counting of votes in their respective polling places;

b. Act as deputies of the Commission in the supervision and control of the election in the polling places wherein they are assigned, to assure the holding of the same in a free, orderly and honest manner; and

c. Perform such other functions prescribed by this Code or by the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission.

COUNTING OF VOTES

Procedure BP 881 Section 206

a. As soon as the voting is finished, the board of election inspectors shall publicly count in the polling place the votes cast and ascertain the results

b. The board of election inspectors shall not adjourn or postpone or delay the count until it has been fully completed, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.

Manner of Counting RA 7166 Sec. 25

a. the chairman, the poll clerk and the third member shall assume such positions as to provide the watchers and the members of the public as

19

ROBBE2014

may be conveniently accommodated in the polling place,

b. an unimpeded view of the ballot being read by the chairman, of the election return and the tally board being simultaneously accomplished by the poll clerk and the third member respectively,

c. without touching any of these election documents.

d. The table shall be cleared of all unnecessary writing paraphernalia.

APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS

GENERAL RULE BP 881 SEC 211

a. Every ballot are presumed valid b. unless there is clear and good

reason to justify its rejection

Other basic rule a. ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the voter if it could be determined with reasonable certainty

b. outmost liberality must be observed in the reading of ballot in order not to defeat the intention of voter

c. technical rule shall not be permitted to defeat the ballot

d. extreme caution shall be observed before a ballot is invalidated; in case of doubt , render in favor of validity

RULES ON APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS

1. Idem sonans

A name or surname incorrectly written but when it was read, has a sound similar

to the name or surname of a candidate when correctly written shall be counted in

his favor

2. Only the first name or surname is written

-vote for such candidate is valid if no candidate has the same first name or

surname

-if there are two or more candidate having the same first name, therefore invalid

20

ROBBE2014

3. First name of a candidate is written on the ballot which when read has sound similar

to the surname or firstname of a candidate

VALID

4. Two words are written on the ballot one of which is the first name of the candidate

and the other is the name of opponent

NOT VALID FOR EITHER

5.Ballots which contain prefixes such as "Sr.", "Mr.", "Datu", "Don", "Ginoo", "Hon.",

"Gob." or suffixes like "Hijo", "Jr.", "Segundo"

VALID

6. Nicknames and appellations or affections and friendship if accompanied by the first

name or the surname of the candidate

a. does not annul such vote

b. except when they are used as an identifying voter

7. If the candidates voted for exceed the number of those to be elected, the ballot is

valid, but the votes shall be counted only in favor of the candidates whose names were

firstly written by the voter within the spaces provided for said office in the ballot until the

authorized number is covered.

8. First name + surname of opponent

Ballot in favor of the candidate whose surname is the first name of his opponent

9. 2 or more words are surnames of two or more candidates

Ballot cannot be counted in favor of either

Except when one of the candidates is an incumbent, in which case it will be

counted in his favor

10. In case the candidate is a woman who uses her maiden or married surname or both

and there is another candidate with the same surname, a ballot bearing only such

surname shall be counted in favor of the candidate who is an incumbent.

Why do incumbent enjoy this favor? Familiarity

ELECTION RETURNS

Preparations BEI shall prepare Simultaneously with the counting of votes

Result of Elections BP 881 SEC 213

a. upon completion of election returns b. chairman of BEI shall c. orally and publicly announce the total number of votes received in the election in

21

ROBBE2014

the polling place by each and every one of the candidates, stating their corresponding office.

Certificate of votes a. upon request b. BEI shall issue certificate of votes c. signed and thumb marked

PREPROCLAMATION CONTROVERSIES Refers to any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings or the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition of political parties before the board of directors with COMELEC or any matter raised

Purpose Prevent the nefarious practice known as Grab the proclamation prolong the protest

Jurisdiction COMELEC –Exclusive Jurisdiction -no pre-proclamation case allowed for National Position: PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, SENATORS, CONGRESS ^ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL * SECTION 15 of RA 7166

Issues which may be raised (a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;

---file immediately when BOC begun to act as such or at the time of the appointment of the member whose capacity to sit as such is objected to , if it comes after the canvassing of the Board, or immediately when the proceedings become illegal

(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;

(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and

---LAGUMBAY V COMELEC 16 SCRA

22

ROBBE2014

175

(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates.

LAGUMBAY Doctrine We opined that the election result to said precincts as reported was utterly improbable and clearly incredible. For it is not likely, in the ordinary course of things, that all the electors of one precinct would, as one man, vote for all the eight candidates of the Liberal Party, without giving a single vote to one of the eight candidates of the Nacionalista Party. Such extraordinary coincidence was quite impossible to believe, knowing that the Nacionalista Party had and has a nationwide organization, with branches in every province, and was, in previous years, the party in power in these islands.

*Not based on Atty. Soriano’s lecture

*ELECTION CONTEST Any matter adversary proceeding by which matters involving title or claim of title to an elective office, made before or after the proclamation of the winner, is settled whether or not contestant is claiming office in dispute

Jurisdiction a. Supreme Court:President and Vice president b. Senate electoral tribunal:Senate c. HRET: Rerpesentatives d.COMELEC: Regional, Provincial, City elective officials e.Regional Trial Court: Municipal elective officials f. MTC: Barangay /SK g. DILG:SK (alunan vs. mirasol)

PROTEST GROUNDS

The following are the grounds for filing an Election Protest: Fraud

23

ROBBE2014

Terrorism Irregularities; or Illegal acts, committed before, during or after the casting and counting of votes

Death of protestant If it is the protestant who died, he should be substituted by the public official who would have succeeded him (De Castro vs COMELEC)

***Ronald Allan Poe V Gloria Macapagal Arroyo P.E.T. Case no. 002, 29 March 2005

We are not unaware that a contest before election tribunals has two aspects. First, it is in pursuit of one’s right to a public office, and second, it is imbued with public interest.

Indeed the personal aspect of the case is inextricably linked with the public interest. For an election protest involves not merely conflicting private aspirations but is imbued with public interest which raises it into a plane over and above ordinary civil actions.[17]But herein movant/intervenor, Mrs. FPJ, has overly stressed that it is with the “paramount public interest” in mind that she desires “to pursue the process” commenced by her late husband. She avers that she is “pursuing the process” to determine who truly won the election, as a service to the Filipino people. We laud her noble intention and her interest to find out the true will of the electorate. However, nobility of intention is not the point of reference in determining whether a person may intervene in an election protest. Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court is the applicable rule on intervention in the absence of such a rule in the PET Rules. In such intervention, the interest which allows a person to intervene in a suit must be in the matter of litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the effect of the judgment. In this protest, Mrs. FPJ will not immediately and directly benefit from the outcome should it be determined that the declared president did not truly get the highest number of votes. We fully appreciate counsel’s manifestation that movant/intervenor herself claims she has no interest in assuming the position as she is aware that she cannot succeed to the presidency, having no legal right to it. Yet thus far, in this case, no real parties such as the vice-presidential aspirants in the 2004 elections, have come forward to intervene, or to be substituted for the deceased protestant. In our view, if persons not real parties in the action could be allowed to intervene, proceedings will be unnecessarily complicated, expensive and interminable – and this is not the policy of the law. It is far more prudent to abide by the existing strict limitations on intervention and substitution under the law and the rules.

*ELECTION OFFENSES (BP 881 Section 261)

MEMORIZE

Defense of good faith Good faith is not a defense in election offenses Election offenses are mala prohibita. Criminal intent is not necessary

24

ROBBE2014

Jurisdiction COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases involving violations of election laws RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal actions or proceedings for violation of election laws bp881 sec 268 MTC by way of exception exercises jurisdiction over offenses relating to failure to register or to vote

Prescription BP 881 Sec 267

Five years from the date of commission