Maquiling v. COMELEC (2013) Facts: There were three Mayoralty candidates in Lanao del Norte Balua, Arnado and Maquiling. Balua filed a Petition for Disqualification with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) against Arnado, a dual citizen who applied for repatriation, took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines in an Affidavit of Renunciation, but despite his oath, still continuously used his U.S. Passport even after filing his Certificate of Candidacy (COC). Arnado subsequently won in the elections, but the COMELEC First Division disqualified him but the COMELEC en banc ruled in his favor and upheld his repatriation. Doctrine: The Court held that Arnado is disqualified from running because while he satisfied the two requirements needed to qualify to run for a public office under Republic Act 9255 (i.e., taking the Oath of Allegiance and renouncing his foreign citizenship), his use of a foreign passport after renouncing his foreign citizenship is a positive and voluntary act of representation as to ones nationality and citizenship. By representing himself as an American citizen, Arnado voluntarily and effectively reverted to his earlier status as a dual citizen who is, under Sec. 40 of the Local Government Code, disqualified from running for any local elective position. As Arnaldo is barred from even being a candidate, his COC is rendered void from the beginning and the votes cast in his favor should not have even been counted. Maquiling is thus the qualified candidate who obtained the highest number of votes, making him the winner of the elections. The rule of succession under the Local Government Code will thus not apply.Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 203766, 2013) This case stemmed from 54 petitions for certiorari from Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51 other parties who were disqualified by the COMELEC in May 2013 as party-list for not being qualified as representatives for marginalized or underrepresented sectors. R.A. 7941 does not require national and regional parties or organizations to represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors. The phrase marginalized and underrepresented should refer only to those sectors in Section 5 that are, by their nature, economically marginalized and underrepresented. The nominees of the sectoral party either must belong to the sector, or must have a track record of advocacy for the sector represented. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.ATONG PAGLAUM v. COMELEC (2013) 1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (a) national parties or organizations, (b) regional parties or organizations, and (c) sectoral parties or organizations. 2. National parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any marginalized and underrepresented sector. 3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party that field candidates in legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing. 4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be marginalized and underrepresented or lacking in well-defined political constituencies. 5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the marginalized and underrepresented must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector they represent. 6. National, regional and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.

ELECTION LAW 2012 CasesI. Ineligibility of CandidateA. Foreign CitizenshipSobejana-Condon vs. Commission on Elections, 678 SCRA 267 held that a natural-born Filipino citizen who became a naturalized citizen of a foreign country and repatriated cannot ran for public office unless he executes a renunciation of foreign citizenships before an authorized public officer.B. Material MisrepresentationRomeo Lonzanida and Estelo Antipolo were opposing candidates for Municipal Mayor in 2010. A petition to deny due course or to cancel the certificate of candidacy of Romeo Lonzanida was filed on the ground that he had served as Mayor for four consecutive terms before the 2010 elections and made a false representation in his certificate of candidacy when he certified that he was eligible. In addition, he was convicted of ten counts of falsification under the Revised Penal Code, and the judgment became final on October 23, 2009. Romeo Lonzanida and Efren Aratea were proclaimed as the winning candidates for Mayor and Vice Mayor, respectively. The Commission on Elections ruled that Romeo Lonzanida was disqualified. Efren Aratea claimed that as elected Vice Mayor, he should succeed to the position of Mayor. HELD: Estelo Antipolo should be proclaimed Mayor. Since the certificate of candidacy of Romeo Lonzanida was void, he was never a candidate. All his votes were stray. Estelo Antipolo, the only qualified candidate, got the highest number of votes for the position of Mayor. The penalty for the conviction of Romeo Lonzanida automatically carried with it perpetual special disqualification to hold any public office. A candidate who is ineligible commits a false material representation if he states in his certificate of candidacy that he is eligible to run. (Aratea vs. Commission on Elections, 683 SCRA 105.)C. Invalidation of VotesRamon Talaga and Philip Castillo filed their certificates of candidacy for City Mayor. Ramon Talaga was disqualified, because he had been elected and had served as Mayor for three consecutive terms. Barbara Ruby Talaga filed her certificate of candidacy as substitute for Ramon Talaga. Votes cast in favor of Ramon Talaga were counted in favor of Barbara Ruby Talaga. She was proclaimed elected. Philip Castillo argued that Ramon Talaga could not be substituted, Ramon Talaga could not be considered as a candidate and that since he was the candidate who got the highest number of votes, he should be proclaimed elected. HELD: After Barbara Ruby Talaga substituted Ramon Talaga, elections proceeded with her being regarded by the electorate as a bona fide candidate. Since Philip Castillo was not the candidate who got the highest number of votes, he could not assume the office of City Mayor. The Commission on Elections found the substitution by Barbara Ruby Talaga invalid after the elections. Since a permanent vacancy in the office of Mayor resulted, it should be filled by the Vice Mayor pursuant to the law on succession. (Talaga vs. Commission on Elections, 683 SCRA 197.)Dominador Jalosjos, Jr. and Agapito Cardio were opposing candidates for City Mayor. Agapito Cardio filed a petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of Dominador Jalosjos, Jr., since he was disqualified because he had been convicted of robbery by final judgment and had not yet served his sentence. HELD: Since the perpetual special disqualification of Dominador Jalosjos, Jr. arising from his final conviction was a proper ground for the cancellation of his candidacy, his certificate of candidacy was void. Agapito Cardio is the only qualified candidate who got the highest number of votes. (Jalosjos, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 683 SCRA 1.)II. Nuisance CandidateThe Commission on Elections issued a resolution considering as stray the votes cast in favor of candidates who were disqualified or whose certificates of candidacy were cancelled or denied due course that whose names still appeared in the certified list of candidates.Casmiro dela Cruz ran for Vice Mayor. Aurelio dela Cruz ran for the same office. Although he was declared as a nuisance candidate, his name was not deleted in the certified list of candidates. Casmiro dela Cruz asked the Commission on Elections to direct that all votes cast for Aurelio dela Cruz be credited in his favor. The Commission on Elections instead ruled the votes cast in his favor be considered as stray.During the canvassing of votes, the 532 votes cast for Aurelio dela Cruz were considered stray. Casmiro dela Cruz lost to the winner by 39 votes. HELD: Aurelio dela Cruz was declared a nuisance candidate long before the elections. The votes cast for him should not have been considered stray but counted in favor of Casmiro dela Cruz. (Dela Cruz vs. Commission on Elections, 685 SCRA 347.)III. Election ProtestA. Preliminary Conference BriefPedro Borjal and Isabelita Gravides were opposing candidates for Punong Barangay. Isabelita Gravides was proclaimed the winner by two votes. Pedro Borjal filed an election protest. When the case was set for preliminary conference, upon motion of Isabelita Gravides, the election protest was dismissed, because the contents of the preliminary conference brief he filed did not comply with the requirements of the Rules of Procedure on Election Contests. HELD: The counsel of Pedro Borjal was misled by the Notice of Preliminary Conference issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court, which erroneously applied the provision on pre-trial brief under the Rules of Civil Procedure. His mistake in complying with the directive of the court should not prejudice his cause. Another important consideration is that only two votes separated Isabelita Gravides from Pedro Borjal. (Gravides vs. Commission on Elections, 685 SCRA 382.)B. Recounting of VotesAntonia Ceron and Romeo Arcillla were candidates for Barangay Kagawad. The candidates who received the seven highest numbers of votes were proclaimed elected. Antonia Ceron was ranked sixth, while Romeo Arcilla was ranked eighth. Romeo Arcilla protested the election of Antonia Ceron. He alleged that in the tabulation of the election return for a certain precinct, the total number of votes Antonia Ceron received was indicated by figures as 50, but the written words erroneously indicated that she received 56 votes. The Court dismissed the election protest for failure to specify the total number of precincts involved in the protest. Romeo Arcilla did not appeal.The three members of the board of election tellers involved in the disputed election return filed a petition with the Commission on Elections to order a correction of the election return, because the election return erroneously recorded that Antonio Ceron got 56 votes instead of 50 votes because of too much noise during the counting of the votes. The Commission on Elections ordered the correction. Antonia Ceron argued that a recounting of the votes should instead be ordered. HELD: The discrepancy between the written words and figures is apparent on the face of the election return. It can be corrected without the need of opening the ballot box. (Ceron vs. Commission on Elections, 680 SCRA 441.)C. AppealBienvenido William Lloren and Rogelio Pua, Jr. were opposing candidates for Municipal Vice Mayor. Rogelio Pua, Jr. was proclaimed the winner. Bienvenido William Lloren filed an election protest in the Regional Trial Court. The election protest was dismissed on November 17, 2010. On November 17, 2010, Bienvenido William Lloren filed a notice of appeal and paid the appeal fee to the Regional Trial Court. On December 2, 2010, he paid the appeal fee of P3,200.00 due to the Commission on Elections. The Commission on Elections dismissed the appeal for failure of Bienvenido William Lloren to pay the appeal fee within five (5) days from the day of his receipt of the decision of the Regional Trial Court. HELD: Resolution No. 8486 of the Commission on Elections allowed the appellant to pay the appeal fee due within fifteen (15) days from the time of the filing of the notice of appeal with the Regional Trial Court. Bienvenido William Lloren perfected his appeal. (Lloren vs. Commission on Elections, 681 SCRA 167.)

ELECTION LAW 2013-2014 CasesI. DISQUALIFICATIONKamarudin Ibrahim ran for vice mayor. Because of the recommendation of the Law Department that he be disqualified because he was not a registered voter, the Commission on Elections disqualified him. He got the majority of the votes, but the board of canvassers suspended his proclamation because of the issue regarding his qualification. HELD: The Commission on Elections disqualified Kamarudin Ibrahim although no petition was filed against him. The board of canvassers had no authority to suspend his proclamation. (Ibrahim vs. Commission on Elections, 688 SCRA 129.)II. SUBSTITUTIONEdna Sanchez and Osmundo Maligaya were opposing candidates for mayor. Armando Sanchez, the husband of Edna Sanchez and candidate for governor, died. Edna Sanchez withdrew her certificate of candidacy for mayor and filed her certificate of candidacy for governor as substitute for her husband. On May 5, 2010, Renato Federico filed his certificate of candidacy as substitute for mayor because of the withdrawal of Edna Sanchez.The Commission on Elections gave due course to the certificates of candidacy of Edna Sanchez and Renato Federico as substitute candidates. By that time, the official ballots had already been printed with Edna Sanchez as official candidate for mayor. On May 11, 2010, the board of canvassers proclaimed her as the winning candidate for mayor. Later on, the board of canvassers proclaimed Renato Federico as the winning candidate for mayor. On June 1, 2010, Osmundo Maligaya, the opposing candidate, filed a petition to annul his proclamation as mayor on the ground that it was illegal. Renato Federico argued that his filing of his certificate of candidacy was valid, because under the law he had until noon of election day to file his certificate of candidacy. HELD: Republic Act No. 9369 empowered the Commission on Elections to set the dates for certain pre-election proceedings. As automated election had been mandated by law, there was a need for the early printing of ballots. Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9006 provided that to avoid confusion, the surname of the substitute candidate should as much as possible be the same as that of the substituted candidate.Resolution No. 8678 provided that the substitute for a candidate who withdrew may file his certificate of candidacy not later than December 14, 2009. However, the substitute for a candidate who died, suffered permanent incapacity or was disqualified may file his certificate of candidacy up to noon of election day. The substitution by Renato Federico for Edna Sanchez as mayoralty candidate was not valid.The petition of Osmundo Maligaya was filed on time. He became aware of the proclamation of Renato Federico only on May 27, 2010. He had ten (10) days from that date to file his petition. His petition was filed on time.As Osmundo Maligaya is the only candidate for mayor, he should be proclaimed as the duly elected mayor. (Federico vs. Commission on Elections, 689 SCRA 134.)Richard Gomez ran for congressman of the fourth legislative district of Leyte. His opponent, Buenaventura Juntilla, filed a petition for his disqualification on the ground that he was a resident of Ormoc City and failed to meet the one-year residency requirement. The Commission on Elections granted the petition. Richard Gomez accepted the decision with finality to facilitate his substitution. His wife, Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez, filed her certificate of candidacy as the substitute candidate. The Commission on Elections approved the substitution. Buenaventura Juntilla filed a motion for reconsideration.The name of Richard Gomez remained in the ballot. He received the highest number of votes. His votes were credited in favor of Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez. She was proclaimed elected. Buenaventura Juntilla filed a petition for quo warranto against her on the ground that she failed to comply with the one-year residency requirement and that she did not validly substitute for Richard Gomez. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal dismissed the petition. HELD: The law requires that one must have validly filed a certificate of candidacy to be considered a candidate. Only an official candidate may be substituted. If the certificate of candidacy has been denied due course or was cancelled, the candidate cannot be substituted. Richard Gomez was disqualified due to his failure to comply with one-year residency requirement. The petition to disqualify Richard Gomez for non-compliance with the one-year residency requirement actually involved the denial of due course or cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of Richard Gomez. Consequently, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal should not have sanctioned the substitution. (Tagolino vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 693 SCRA 574.)III. DISQUALIFICATION AFTER PROCLAMATIONArmado Rommel, a natural born Filipino citizen, became a naturalized American citizen. He repatriated and renounced his allegiance to the United States. He filed his certificate of candidacy for municipal mayor. His opponent filed a petition to disqualify him or to cancel his certificate of candidacy, because he used his American passport four times to travel abroad after his renunciation of his allegiance to the United States. He was proclaimed as the winning candidate. Afterwards, he was declared disqualified. HELD: Cesar Maquiling became the winner and obtained the highest number of votes among the qualified candidates. The second placer is actually the first placer among the qualified candidates. The disqualification of Armado involved his citizenship. It does not involve the commission of election offenses, the effect of which is to disqualify him from continuing as a candidate or from holding office, If he has already been elected. (Maquiling vs. Commission on Elections, 696 SCRA 420.)Svetlana Jalosjos was proclaimed elected as municipal mayor. There was a pending petition for cancellation of her certificate, because she was not a resident of the municipality. HELD: The falsity of her representation in her certificate of candidacy shows that she has not been a resident of the municipality for at least one year before the election and justified the cancellation. She was never a valid candidate from the very beginning. She was a de facto officer by virtue of the ineligibility. The eligible candidate who garnered the highest number of votes must assume the office. The rule on succession in the Local Government Code cannot apply. The ouster of the de facto officer cannot create a permanent vacancy, because it was the de jure officer, the rightful winner in the election, who has the right to assume the position. (Jalosjos vs. Commission on Elections, 699 SCRA 507.)IV. ELECTION CONTESTSLiwayway Vinzons-Chato and Elmer Panotes were opposing candidates for representative of the second legislative district of Camarines Norte. Elmer Panotes was proclaimed the winner. Liwayway Vinzons-Chato filed an election protest claiming that there were irregularities in the condition of the ballot boxes. Elmer Panotes moved that the picture images of the ballots in the data storage device for the questioned precincts be printed. The motion was granted. Liwayway Vinzons-Chato argued that the picture images of the ballots could not be regarded as the equivalent of the original paper ballots. HELD: During the demonstration tests, the system captured the images of the ballots in encrypted format which when decrypted were found to be digitized representations of the ballots cast. The print outs of the ballots are the functional equivalent of the ballots and may be used for revision of votes in the election protest. (Vinzons-Chato vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 689 SCRA 107.)Homer Saquilayan and Emmanuel Maliksi were opposing candidates for mayor. Homer Saquilayan was proclaimed the winner. Emmanuel Maliksi filed an election protest in the Regional Trial Court. The Regional Trial decided in his favor. Homer Saquilayan appealed to the Commission on Elections. Without notifying the parties, the Commission on Elections decided to review the ballots through the use of the picture images of the ballots. HELD: The rules for the revision of ballots still consider the official ballots to be the best evidence of the will of the voters. The picture images are to be used only when it is shown that the official ballots are lost or their integrity has been compromised. The disregard of the right of Maliksi to be informed of the decision to print picture images of the ballots and to conduct the recount proceedings during the appellate stage denied Imannuel Maliksi due process. (Maliksi vs. Commission on Elections, 696 SCRA 272.)V. PLEBISCITERepublic Act No. 10360 created the Province of Davao Occidental. It was published in two newspapers on January 26, 2013. In view of the preparations for the election on May 13, 2013, the Commission on Elections decided to hold the plebiscite on the creation of the Province of Davao Occidental on October 28, 2013 together with the barangay elections. Douglas IV Caparas filed a petition for prohibition on the ground that Republic Act No. 10360 provided that the plebiscite shall be held within sixty days after the elections. HELD: Sections 5 and 6 of the Omnibus Election Code grant the Commission on Elections the power to set elections on another date. The logistic and financial responsibility of holding a plebiscite close to the elections is a case analogous to force majeure. (Cagas vs. Commission on Elections, 708 SCRA 672.)