ASG Law

Tag: COMELEC

  • Ballot Integrity: Challenging Election Results and Preserving Voter Intent

    In election protest cases, demonstrating the integrity of ballots is paramount to overturning official counts. The Supreme Court emphasizes that the party contesting election returns bears the initial burden of proving that the ballots were handled with such care as to preclude tampering. This means providing solid evidence that the ballots examined during revision are the same ones cast by voters. This requirement ensures that revisions accurately reflect voter intent and maintains the integrity of electoral processes, upholding the sanctity of democratic elections.

    When Discrepancies Arise: Who Bears the Burden of Proving Ballot Integrity?

    The case of Jaime C. Regio v. Commission on Elections and Ronnie C. Co revolved around a contested punong barangay (barangay captain) election. After the October 25, 2010, elections, Jaime C. Regio was proclaimed the winner. Ronnie C. Co, his opponent, filed an election protest citing irregularities. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) initially dismissed Co’s protest, affirming Regio’s win. However, upon appeal, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc reversed the MeTC’s decision, declaring Co the duly elected punong barangay. Regio then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, questioning whether the COMELEC properly assessed the integrity of the ballots during the revision process.

    The Supreme Court addressed whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Co had successfully proven the integrity of the ballots subjected to revision. At the heart of the matter was the apparent discrepancy between the initial election returns and the results of the ballot revision. To resolve this, the Court leaned on the established doctrine in Rosal v. COMELEC. This doctrine outlines the standards for evaluating election contests where the accuracy of election returns is challenged due to alleged irregularities. It establishes a hierarchy of evidence, with ballots taking precedence only when their integrity is demonstrably preserved.

    The doctrine underscores that ballots can only supersede the official count in election returns if it’s affirmatively shown that the ballots were preserved meticulously. This preservation should preclude any possibility of tampering, substitution, or alteration. The burden of proof rests squarely on the protestant—in this case, Ronnie Co—to demonstrate that the integrity of the ballots was maintained. This involves providing credible evidence that the ballots recounted during the revision were the very same ones cast and counted on election day. This safeguard is crucial to prevent post-election manipulation and ensure that the final count accurately reflects the voters’ choices.

    Referencing various provisions in the Omnibus Election Code, specifically Sections 160, 217, 219, and 220, the Court emphasized the importance of preserving and safeguarding ballots. These provisions outline procedures for the secure handling of ballots from the moment they are cast until they are presented as evidence in an election protest. Compliance with these procedures is critical in establishing the credibility of the ballots. Therefore, any deviation from the prescribed modes of preservation must be thoroughly scrutinized.

    The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions is a cornerstone of election law. Echoing this principle, the Supreme Court emphasized that the official results of the canvassing, as reflected in the election returns, are presumed valid. This presumption remains unless compelling evidence demonstrates otherwise. Consequently, even when discrepancies arise between the official canvassing results and those of a revision, the former are initially given greater weight. The rationale behind this is to prevent frivolous challenges to election outcomes based on unsubstantiated claims of irregularities.

    In this context, the burden of proof shifts to the protestee—Regio—only if the protestant—Co—successfully proves that the recounted ballots are indeed the same ones counted during the elections. If Co had presented convincing evidence of ballot integrity, the burden would have shifted to Regio to demonstrate actual tampering or a likelihood thereof. However, without sufficient proof from Co, the presumption of regularity stands, reinforcing the reliability of the original election returns. The COMELEC’s role is to meticulously assess whether these burdens have been met by each party.

    Furthermore, the Court highlighted the significance of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, which establishes disputable presumptions related to election procedures and paraphernalia. These presumptions provide a framework for evaluating the validity of election results unless contradicted by other evidence. The Court noted that Co failed to present any testimonial evidence to prove that the election paraphernalia inside the protested ballot boxes had been preserved. Co relied mainly on the report of the revision committee but failed to provide independent, direct, or indirect evidence to substantiate the preservation of the ballots and other election paraphernalia. The Supreme Court stressed that the absence of such independent evidence meant that Co failed to discharge his burden under the Rosal doctrine.

    The Supreme Court found Co’s arguments insufficient to prove that the ballots had been preserved. Co pointed to the absence of reports of irregularities or ballot-box snatching, the secure storage of ballot boxes, and the confirmation of the ballots’ genuineness by the Technical Examination Report. However, the Court held that these factors alone did not constitute sufficient evidence of preservation. The Court underscored that Co could not simply rely on the alleged absence of evidence of untoward incidents to conclude that the ballots had been preserved. Concrete pieces of evidence, independent of the revision proceedings, were necessary to demonstrate that the ballots counted during the revision were the very same ones cast by the public. The absence of such evidence proved fatal to Co’s case.

    Consequently, the Court found that the COMELEC En Banc erred in demanding direct proof of actual tampering from Regio. The protestee’s duty to provide such evidence arises only after the protestant has successfully proven that the ballots have been secured to prevent tampering. Since Co failed to provide evidence of the integrity of the ballots, the need for Regio to present proof of tampering never arose. By reversing the COMELEC 1st Division’s ruling and reinstating the MeTC decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the importance of adhering to established rules of evidence in election protest cases.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the COMELEC correctly assessed the integrity of the ballots during the revision process in an election protest case. The court needed to determine if the protestant had successfully proven that the ballots were handled with sufficient care to prevent tampering.
    What is the Rosal doctrine? The Rosal doctrine sets the standards for election contests where the accuracy of election returns is challenged. It states that ballots can only overturn the official count if it is shown that they were preserved with care to preclude tampering.
    Who bears the burden of proving ballot integrity? The protestant, the party challenging the election results, bears the burden of proving that the integrity of the ballots has been preserved. They must provide evidence that the ballots recounted are the same ones cast during the election.
    What type of evidence is required to prove ballot integrity? Independent, direct, or indirect evidence is required to prove ballot integrity, such as testimonial evidence from custodians of the ballot boxes. The absence of reports of irregularities alone is insufficient.
    What is the significance of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC? A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC establishes disputable presumptions related to election procedures and paraphernalia. These presumptions guide the evaluation of election results unless contradicted by other evidence.
    When does the burden of proof shift to the protestee? The burden of proof shifts to the protestee, the winning candidate, only after the protestant has successfully proven the integrity of the ballots. Then, the protestee must prove actual tampering or a likelihood thereof.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case? The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in finding that the protestant, Co, had discharged the burden of proving the integrity of the ballots. It reinstated the MeTC decision affirming Regio’s win.
    Why was the COMELEC En Banc‘s resolution nullified? The COMELEC En Banc‘s resolution was nullified because it failed to adhere to established rules of evidence in election protest cases. It incorrectly demanded proof of tampering from the protestee before the protestant had proven ballot integrity.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Regio v. COMELEC serves as a potent reminder of the critical importance of preserving the integrity of ballots in election contests. The ruling reinforces the principle that those challenging election returns must provide solid evidence that the ballots were handled with utmost care. By upholding the initial count in the absence of such evidence, the Court reaffirms the sanctity of the electoral process. This provides clear guidance for future election disputes, emphasizing the need for scrupulous adherence to established rules of evidence.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: JAIME C. REGIO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND RONNIE C. CO, G.R. No. 204828, December 03, 2013

  • Residency Redefined: Upholding Election Results Despite Challenges to Candidate’s Domicile

    In the Philippines, proving residency for electoral candidacy is not just about owning property, but demonstrating a genuine connection and presence in the community. The Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized that while residency is a crucial requirement to ensure candidates are familiar with the needs of their constituents, it should not be interpreted so rigidly as to disenfranchise the will of the electorate. The decision underscores that substantial evidence of residency, even without property ownership, coupled with the mandate of the people, can outweigh challenges to a candidate’s qualifications. Ultimately, this ruling protects the sanctity of elections by preventing technicalities from undermining the democratic process, affirming that the voice of the people should prevail when eligibility is contested.

    From Senator to Mayor: Did Osmeña Truly Call Toledo City Home?

    This case, Lina Dela Peña Jalover, Georgie A. Huiso And Velvet Barquin Zamora vs. John Henry R. Osmeña And Commission On Elections (COMELEC), revolves around the contested residency of John Henry Osmeña, a former senator, who ran for mayor of Toledo City, Cebu. The petitioners sought to invalidate Osmeña’s candidacy, claiming he misrepresented his residency in his Certificate of Candidacy (COC). They argued that Osmeña had not resided in Toledo City for the required one year prior to the election, as stipulated by the Local Government Code. The core legal question was whether Osmeña had sufficiently established his residency in Toledo City, despite not owning property there and allegedly being ‘hardly seen’ in the area, and whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding his candidacy.

    The petitioners, Jalover, Huiso, and Zamora, presented evidence such as certifications from the Toledo City Assessor’s Office indicating Osmeña’s lack of property ownership, photos of his alleged dilapidated residence, and affidavits from residents claiming he was rarely seen in the city. Osmeña countered with evidence that he had purchased land in Toledo City as early as 1995, built houses on the property, transferred his voter registration to Toledo City in 2006, and maintained business interests and political linkages in the area. He also presented affidavits attesting to his residence and socio-civic involvement in Toledo City.

    The COMELEC’s Second Division initially dismissed the petition, finding that Osmeña had adequately explained his residency and complied with the requirements. This decision was later affirmed by the COMELEC en banc, which emphasized that property ownership is not a prerequisite for establishing residency and that living in a rented house or a relative’s residence is sufficient. Dissatisfied with the COMELEC’s ruling, the petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding Osmeña’s candidacy.

    The Supreme Court began its analysis by reiterating the limited scope of review in certiorari petitions involving COMELEC decisions. The Court emphasized that it could only intervene if the COMELEC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the factual findings of the COMELEC, if supported by substantial evidence, are final and non-reviewable. The Court then proceeded to examine the nature of the case, which was a petition to deny due course or cancel Osmeña’s COC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.

    The Court underscored that a false representation in a COC must pertain to a material fact, such as the candidate’s qualifications for elective office, and must be made with a deliberate intent to mislead the electorate. To fully understand the requirements, the Court quoted the relevant sections of the Omnibus Election Code:

    SEC. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. – [States the required information in the COC, including residence and a declaration that the facts are true.]

    SEC. 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.

    Analyzing the evidence presented, the Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The Court noted that Osmeña had demonstrated a clear intent to establish a domicile in Toledo City, evidenced by his acquisition of land, construction of a residence, transfer of voter registration, and establishment of headquarters in the area. While the petitioners argued that Osmeña was ‘hardly seen’ in Toledo City, the Court dismissed this as insufficient evidence to negate his residency, as the law does not require a person to be constantly present in their residence. The Court emphasized that residency does not necessitate constant physical presence and that the evidence presented by the petitioners did not conclusively prove Osmeña’s lack of residency.

    Building on this principle, the Court cited the case of Fernandez v. House Electoral Tribunal, emphasizing that sporadic absences do not invalidate residency if there is other evidence of intent to establish a domicile. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that property ownership is not a requirement for establishing residency. It is enough that a person lives in the locality, even in a rented house or the residence of a a friend or relative.

    The Court also addressed the petitioners’ argument that Osmeña’s alleged dilapidated residence was inconsistent with his stature, the Court emphasized that such subjective standards should not be used to determine residency. Instead, the Court focused on the objective evidence of Osmeña’s intent to establish a domicile in Toledo City. The Court noted that Osmeña’s actual physical presence in Toledo City was established not only by a place he could live in, but also by the affidavits of various persons in Toledo City. This demonstrated his substantial and real interest in establishing his domicile of choice.

    Finally, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of upholding the will of the electorate. The Court reiterated the principle that in cases involving a challenge to the qualifications of a winning candidate, courts should strive to give effect to the will of the majority. Citing Frivaldo v. Comelec, the Court stated that it is sound public policy to ensure that elective offices are filled by those chosen by the majority.

    With all that stated, the Supreme Court emphasized the will of the electorate should be considered, but it cannot supersede the constitutional and legal requirements for holding public office. If there is a conflict between the material qualifications of elected officials and the will of the electorate, the former must prevail. However, because the Court found that Osmeña had met all the requirements, they affirmed that the people of Toledo City had spoken in an election where the issue of residency was squarely raised, and their voice erased any doubt about their verdict on Osmeña’s qualifications.

    Lastly, the Court addressed the petitioners’ claim that the COMELEC showed partiality by admitting Osmeña’s Answer and Amended Memorandum. The Court found no evidence to support this claim, noting that the petitioners failed to establish when Osmeña was served with summons and that the amendments to the memorandum involved mere technical errors that were necessary to correct omissions. Amendments, in general, are favored in order to allow the complete presentation of the real controversies, as cited in Contech Construction Technology and Dev’t Corp. v. Court of Appeals.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether John Henry Osmeña, who ran for mayor of Toledo City, Cebu, had sufficiently established his residency in the city to meet the legal requirements for candidacy, despite challenges to his domicile.
    What is the residency requirement for local elections in the Philippines? An elective local official must be a resident of the local government unit where they intend to be elected for at least one year immediately preceding the day of the election. This requirement is stipulated in Section 39 of the Local Government Code.
    Does owning property equate to residency? No, property ownership is not a strict requirement for establishing residency. The Supreme Court has affirmed that living in a rented house or the residence of a friend or relative within the locality is sufficient.
    What evidence did Osmeña present to prove his residency? Osmeña presented evidence including his purchase of land in Toledo City, construction of a residence, transfer of voter registration, establishment of a campaign headquarters, and affidavits from residents attesting to his presence.
    What did the petitioners argue to challenge Osmeña’s residency? The petitioners argued that Osmeña did not own property in Toledo City, his alleged residence was dilapidated, and that residents had rarely seen him in the city, implying that he did not meet the residency requirement.
    What was the Supreme Court’s basis for upholding Osmeña’s residency? The Supreme Court determined that Osmeña had demonstrated a clear intent to establish a domicile in Toledo City, as evidenced by his actions and the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The actions included his land ownership, residence construction, and voter registration transfer.
    How does the principle of ‘will of the electorate’ factor into this decision? The Supreme Court recognized the importance of upholding the will of the electorate, emphasizing that courts should strive to give effect to the choice of the majority. However, the court clarified that the will of the electorate cannot supersede constitutional and legal requirements for holding public office.
    What is the significance of Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code? Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code allows for the filing of a petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy if there is a false representation of a material fact, as required under Section 74 of the same code. The false representation must be a deliberate attempt to mislead the electorate.
    What constitutes a ‘material misrepresentation’ in a COC? A material misrepresentation in a COC refers to a false statement regarding a candidate’s qualifications for elective office, such as citizenship, age, or residency, that is deliberately made with the intent to deceive the electorate.

    The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of residency as a qualification for local office, while also recognizing the need for a flexible approach that considers the totality of the circumstances. This ruling serves as a reminder that the will of the people, as expressed through the ballot box, should be given due weight, especially when challenges to a candidate’s qualifications are based on technicalities rather than substantial evidence of ineligibility.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: LINA DELA PEÑA JALOVER VS. JOHN HENRY R. OSMEÑA, G.R. No. 209286, September 23, 2014

  • Standing to Sue: Associations, Flood Victims, and the Limits of Legal Action in Philippine Courts

    In the case of Association of Flood Victims v. Commission on Elections, the Supreme Court of the Philippines clarified the requirements for an association to have the legal standing to sue. The Court ruled that an unincorporated association, lacking a distinct juridical personality, cannot bring a suit in its name. This decision underscores that only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law, may be parties in a civil action, ensuring that legal proceedings are pursued by those with a legitimate interest and capacity to represent themselves or others.

    When Disaster Strikes, Who Has the Right to Sue? Examining Legal Standing After Floods

    This case originated from a challenge to a resolution by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) following the 2010 national elections. The Association of Flood Victims, along with Jaime Aguilar Hernandez, filed a petition for certiorari and/or mandamus against the COMELEC, Alay Buhay Community Development Foundation, Inc., and Weslie Ting Gatchalian. The petitioners questioned COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 12-0859, which confirmed the re-computation of party-list seat allocations and proclaimed Alay Buhay as a winning party-list group. The core legal question revolved around whether the Association of Flood Victims had the legal capacity to sue and whether the COMELEC could be compelled to publish the contested resolution.

    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, primarily because the Association of Flood Victims lacked the legal capacity to sue. The Court referred to Sections 1 and 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which stipulate that only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law, can be parties in a civil action. Furthermore, Article 44 of the Civil Code identifies juridical persons, emphasizing that associations for private interest or purpose must be granted juridical personality by law to be considered separate and distinct entities.

    The Court noted that the Association of Flood Victims was “in the process of formal incorporation,” meaning it had not yet attained juridical personality. This is critical because, without this legal recognition, the association cannot sue in its own name. An unincorporated association is not a legal entity distinct from its members, and thus, all members must be parties in the civil action. As the Court stated,

    Petitioner Association of Flood Victims is an unincorporated association not endowed with a distinct personality of its own. An unincorporated association, in the absence of an enabling law, has no juridical personality and thus, cannot sue in the name of the association.

    Building on this principle, the Court also addressed the capacity of Jaime Aguilar Hernandez to bring the suit. Hernandez claimed to be the lead convenor of the Association of Flood Victims. However, he failed to provide proof that he was authorized by the association to represent them in the petition. The Court emphasized that without valid authority, members of an association cannot represent it in legal proceedings. This point was underscored by citing Dueñas v. Santos Subdivision Homeowners Association, where the Court held that an unincorporated association lacks capacity to sue in its own name, and its members cannot represent it without valid authority.

    Moreover, the Court rejected Hernandez’s attempt to sue as a taxpayer. To have standing as a taxpayer, one must demonstrate that there was an illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. Hernandez failed to show either of these conditions. Adding to the complexities, the Supreme Court also addressed the issue of locus standi, or legal standing, which requires a party to have a personal and substantial interest in the case, sustaining a direct injury as a result of the governmental act being challenged. As the Supreme Court elucidated,

    x x x a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The term “interest” means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest.

    The Court found that neither the Association of Flood Victims nor Hernandez had the requisite locus standi. The association was not a party-list candidate in the 2010 elections and, therefore, could not have been directly affected by COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 12-0859. Consequently, the petition was dismissed due to the petitioners’ lack of legal capacity to sue and absence of legal standing.

    The ruling underscores the importance of proper legal formation and authorization when associations seek to engage in legal action. It ensures that only those with a legitimate and direct interest in the outcome of a case can pursue legal remedies. This case serves as a reminder that procedural rules and requirements are in place to maintain order and fairness in the legal system, preventing frivolous or unauthorized suits.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the Association of Flood Victims had the legal capacity and standing to challenge a COMELEC resolution regarding the allocation of party-list seats.
    Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the petition? The Court dismissed the petition because the Association of Flood Victims was an unincorporated association without juridical personality, and neither the association nor its representative had legal standing.
    What is an unincorporated association? An unincorporated association is an organization that has not been formally registered or recognized as a legal entity, lacking a separate juridical personality from its members.
    What does it mean to have ‘legal standing’ in a case? Legal standing, or locus standi, requires a party to have a personal and substantial interest in the case, demonstrating a direct injury as a result of the challenged governmental act.
    Can an individual represent an association in court without authorization? No, an individual cannot represent an association in court without valid and legal authority from the association’s members.
    What must a taxpayer show to have standing in a lawsuit? A taxpayer must show either an illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.
    What is the significance of juridical personality? Juridical personality grants an entity the legal capacity to enter into contracts, own property, and sue or be sued in its own name, separate from its members.
    How does Article 44 of the Civil Code relate to this case? Article 44 of the Civil Code lists the juridical persons with capacity to sue, and the Court used it to determine that an association must have juridical personality granted by law.

    This case highlights the critical importance of understanding legal standing and the requirements for associations to bring legal actions in the Philippines. Associations must ensure they are properly incorporated or authorized by law to have the capacity to sue. This ruling reinforces the principle that legal proceedings should be initiated by those with a direct and substantial interest in the outcome.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD VICTIMS VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 203775, August 05, 2014

  • Navigating COMELEC Divisions: Understanding Jurisdiction and Preliminary Injunctions in Election Protests

    In Villarosa v. Festin, the Supreme Court clarified the procedural requirements for assailing orders from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) divisions. The Court emphasized that a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc is generally required before elevating a case to the Supreme Court via certiorari. This ruling highlights the importance of exhausting administrative remedies within the COMELEC framework before seeking judicial intervention, ensuring that the COMELEC has the first opportunity to correct any errors.

    Special Divisions and Election Disputes: Did COMELEC Overstep Its Authority?

    The heart of the dispute in Jose Tapales Villarosa v. Romulo de Mesa Festin and Commission on Elections revolved around the 2013 mayoral election in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. Villarosa protested the election results, alleging irregularities such as pre-marked ballots. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in Villarosa’s favor, declaring him the duly elected mayor and voiding Festin’s proclamation. However, Festin appealed to the COMELEC, which then issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and later a preliminary injunction against the RTC’s decision. Villarosa questioned the legality of the COMELEC’s actions, specifically the formation of a “Special First Division” that issued the injunction, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed Villarosa’s petition, upholding the COMELEC’s authority and emphasizing the necessity of exhausting all administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief.

    The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on several key aspects of election law and administrative procedure. First, the Court addressed the propriety of resorting to a writ of certiorari to challenge the COMELEC’s rulings. Citing Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, the Court reiterated that certiorari is generally available only against final orders, rulings, and decisions of the COMELEC en banc. The Court underscored the importance of filing a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc as a prerequisite to seeking judicial review, stating:

    Rule 65, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, requires that there be no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A motion for reconsideration is a plain and adequate remedy provided by law. Failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for dismissal of the petition.

    In like manner, a decision, order or resolution of a division of the Comelec must be reviewed by the Comelec en banc via a motion for reconsideration before the final en banc decision may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari. The pre-requisite filing of a motion for reconsideration is mandatory.

    This requirement ensures that the COMELEC has the opportunity to correct any errors it may have committed before the matter is brought before the courts. Building on this principle, the Court distinguished the case from Kho v. COMELEC, where a direct resort to the Court was allowed. The Court clarified that the exception in Kho was based on the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which differed significantly from the current rules. Under the 1993 Rules, the COMELEC en banc lacked the power to resolve motions for reconsideration regarding interlocutory orders issued by a division. However, the current rules, specifically COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, mandate that all motions for reconsideration of decisions, resolutions, orders, and rulings of COMELEC divisions are automatically referred to the COMELEC en banc.

    The Court then addressed the legality of forming the “Special First Division.” The Court highlighted that COMELEC’s actions were grounded in Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, which empowers the COMELEC to sit en banc or in two divisions and to promulgate its rules of procedure. Pursuant to this mandate, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 7808, which allows for the substitution of members in a division when a member is on leave, seriously ill, or otherwise unable to sit in a case. This substitution is further elaborated in Resolution No. 9636. According to the Court, the formation of the Special Divisions was a practical measure to address temporary vacancies in the COMELEC due to Commissioners attending to overseas absentee voting concerns.

    The Court emphasized that the term “special” merely indicated that the commissioners were sitting in a temporary capacity or via substitution and that the COMELEC did not create a separate division. The COMELEC First Division retained jurisdiction over the cases assigned to it, including Villarosa’s case, and the subsequent formation of the Special First Division only entailed a change in the composition of magistrates. The Supreme Court thus held that the COMELEC’s actions were within its constitutional and legal authority, and there was no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction. It is important to note that the practical implications of this ruling is that parties involved in election disputes must carefully navigate the procedural requirements of the COMELEC, ensuring that they exhaust all available remedies within the Commission before seeking judicial intervention.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the COMELEC (First Division) committed grave abuse of discretion when it did not find that the Special First Division lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction.
    Why did the petitioner file a Petition for Certiorari? The petitioner filed the petition because he believed the COMELEC’s Special First Division lacked the authority to issue a preliminary injunction against the execution of the RTC’s decision in his favor.
    What did the Supreme Court ultimately decide? The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the formation of the Special First Division and the issuance of the injunction were within the COMELEC’s constitutional and legal authority.
    What is the significance of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804? COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 mandates that all motions for reconsideration of decisions, resolutions, orders, and rulings of the COMELEC divisions are automatically referred to the COMELEC en banc.
    What does “grave abuse of discretion” mean in this context? Grave abuse of discretion implies that the COMELEC exercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner, amounting to a virtual refusal to perform its duty as mandated by law.
    What is a preliminary injunction, and why was it issued in this case? A preliminary injunction is a court order restraining a party from performing certain acts. In this case, it was issued to prevent the execution of the RTC’s decision pending the COMELEC’s review of the election protest.
    Was the formation of the COMELEC Special First Division legal? Yes, the Supreme Court found that the formation of the Special First Division was legal, as it was authorized by the COMELEC’s rules of procedure and the Constitution to address temporary vacancies within the Commission.
    What is the key takeaway for those involved in election disputes? The key takeaway is that parties must exhaust all administrative remedies within the COMELEC before seeking judicial review. They must file a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc before elevating a case to the Supreme Court.

    This case serves as a reminder of the importance of following established procedures in election disputes. It also reaffirms the COMELEC’s authority to manage its internal operations and ensure the efficient resolution of election-related cases. The decision underscores the need for parties to exhaust all available administrative remedies before resorting to judicial intervention, thus promoting the efficient and orderly administration of justice in electoral matters.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Jose Tapales Villarosa, PETITIONER, VS. Romulo De Mesa Festin, G.R. No. 212953, August 05, 2014

  • Reapportionment and Term Limits: Can Renaming a District Reset the Clock?

    The Supreme Court ruled that renaming a legislative district, without significantly altering its composition, does not reset the three-term limit for elected officials. This decision reinforces the principle that term limits aim to prevent the consolidation of political power, even when district boundaries are redrawn. The ruling clarifies that the focus is on the substance of representation rather than merely the name of the district, thus upholding the intent of the Constitution to ensure regular renewal in public office and prevent entrenchment.

    Navigating Reapportionment: When Does a New District Truly Mean a Clean Slate?

    The case of Angel G. Naval v. Commission on Elections and Nelson B. Julia (G.R. No. 207851) revolves around the complex interplay between reapportionment of legislative districts and the constitutional three-term limit for local elected officials in the Philippines. Angel G. Naval, a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial Board) of Camarines Sur, sought re-election for a fourth consecutive term. The issue arose when the legislative district he represented underwent reapportionment, leading to the question of whether his previous terms should count towards the three-term limit in the newly configured district. This case hinges on interpreting the scope and application of Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and Section 43(b) of the Local Government Code (LGC), which imposes term limits on elective local officials.

    From 2004 to 2010, Naval served two consecutive terms as a member of the Sanggunian for the Second District of Camarines Sur. In 2009, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9716 was enacted, reapportioning the legislative districts in the province. Critically, the old Second District, where Naval previously served, was essentially renamed as the Third District. While a few towns were reassigned, the core constituency remained largely the same. In the 2010 elections, Naval ran and won as a member of the Sanggunian for the Third District, and again in 2013. Nelson B. Julia, a rival candidate, filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to cancel Naval’s Certificate of Candidacy (COC), arguing that Naval had already served three consecutive terms, violating the constitutional term limit.

    The COMELEC Second Division cancelled Naval’s COC, a decision upheld by the COMELEC en banc, leading Naval to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The COMELEC argued that Naval was effectively running for the same government post for the fourth time, emphasizing the territorial jurisdiction and the electorate remained substantially the same. Naval countered that the Third District was a new district, distinct from the old Second District, thereby entitling him to run for two more terms. He invoked Article 94 of Administrative Order No. 270, highlighting that Sanggunian members are elected by districts, thus his election in 2013 was only his second term for the Third District.

    The Supreme Court denied Naval’s petition, affirming the COMELEC’s resolutions. The Court emphasized that the three-term limit rule is an inflexible constitutional objective designed to prevent the accumulation of excessive political power. While acknowledging that reapportionment aims to equalize representation, the Court found that R.A. No. 9716 created a new Second District, but merely renamed the other four, including the district Naval sought to represent. The court stated: “Verba legis non est recedendum. The terms used in a legal provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the framers mean what they say.”

    The Court highlighted the importance of strict adherence to the term limit rule, stating that any exceptions must be viewed cautiously to prevent undermining the rule’s primary objective: to foster political renewal and broader participation. The Supreme Court underscored that the essence of elections in a democratic and republican state lies in ensuring the electoral process aligns with the fundamental principles of representation and renovation. This means the citizenry selects public functionaries who derive their mandate from the people and act on their behalf for a limited period, promoting responsible governance.

    Justice Reyes writing for the Court cited Aldovino, Jr. v. COMELEC, emphasizing the inflexibility of the three-term limit rule:

    As worded, the constitutional provision fixes the term of a local elective office and limits an elective official’s stay in office to no more than three consecutive terms. This is the first branch of the rule embodied in Section 8, Article X.

    Further, the Court stated that, the intent to create a sole new district in that of the Second, while merely renaming the rest.

    The Court reasoned that reapportionment should not serve as a loophole to circumvent term limits. The slight difference in population between the old Second District and the renamed Third District (less than 10%) did not alter the fundamental reality that Naval was, in substance, representing the same constituency for a fourth consecutive term. Allowing Naval to run again would undermine the constitutional mandate to achieve equality of representation among districts, as it would effectively permit him to hold the same office for an extended period, contrary to the drafters’ intent. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC, upholding the presumed competence of the commission to resolve matters falling within its jurisdiction. Thus, maintaining the integrity of constitutional and statutory term limits.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the reapportionment of legislative districts in Camarines Sur reset the three-term limit for Angel G. Naval, a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The Court needed to determine if Naval’s previous terms in the old Second District counted towards the limit in the renamed Third District.
    What is the three-term limit rule? The three-term limit rule, as enshrined in Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and Section 43(b) of the LGC, prohibits local elective officials from serving more than three consecutive terms in the same position. This rule aims to prevent the accumulation of excessive political power and foster political renewal.
    What was the effect of R.A. No. 9716 on the districts of Camarines Sur? R.A. No. 9716 reapportioned the legislative districts in Camarines Sur, creating a new Second District by merging towns from the old First and Second Districts. The old Second District, where Naval had previously served, was essentially renamed as the Third District, with only minor changes in its composition.
    How did the Court interpret the term “rename” in R.A. No. 9716? The Court interpreted the term “rename” in Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 9716 to mean that the lawmakers intended the old Second District to be merely renamed as the current Third District. The Court found no intention to create a completely new district, distinguishing it from the newly created Second District.
    Why did the Court deny Naval’s petition? The Court denied Naval’s petition because it found that the current Third District was essentially the same as the old Second District, where Naval had already served two terms. Allowing Naval to run again would undermine the three-term limit rule and create a dangerous precedent.
    What is the significance of the Latasa v. COMELEC case? The Latasa v. COMELEC case (463 Phil. 296) was mentioned to draw a parallel with the conversion of a municipality into a city, where the Court held that the change in status did not reset the term limit. In both cases, the Court looked at the substance of the representation rather than the mere change in designation.
    What is reapportionment and what is its purpose? Reapportionment is the realignment or change in legislative districts brought about by changes in population. Its primary purpose is to equalize population and voting power among districts, ensuring fair and equal representation.
    What does the decision mean for other elected officials facing similar situations? The decision reinforces the principle that renaming or slightly reconfiguring a district does not automatically reset the three-term limit for elected officials. The focus is on whether the core constituency and territorial jurisdiction remain substantially the same.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Naval v. COMELEC clarifies the application of the three-term limit rule in the context of reapportioned legislative districts. It underscores the importance of adhering to the constitutional objective of preventing the consolidation of political power and promoting political renewal. The ruling serves as a reminder that the substance of representation, rather than mere technicalities, should guide the interpretation of election laws.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: ANGEL G. NAVAL, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND NELSON B. JULIA, G.R. No. 207851, July 08, 2014

  • Can a Certificate of Candidacy Be Cancelled After Election Day? Examining Residency Requirements for Local Elections

    The Supreme Court has affirmed that a candidate’s certificate of candidacy (CoC) can be canceled even after an election if it’s proven they made false statements about their eligibility. This means that even if a candidate wins an election, their victory can be nullified if they misrepresented key qualifications, such as residency. This decision underscores the importance of honesty and accuracy in election filings and ensures that only genuinely qualified individuals hold public office, upholding the integrity of the electoral process. It also clarifies the Comelec’s authority to continue proceedings regarding a candidate’s qualifications even after the election.

    From Voter to Victor: When Residency Disputes Upend Election Results

    This case revolves around the 2013 mayoral election in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, where Gamal S. Hayudini won the election but later had his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) canceled. The core legal question is whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) acted within its authority to cancel Hayudini’s CoC after the election, based on a supervening event—a court decision that removed him from the voter’s list due to residency issues. The court grappled with whether the will of the electorate should prevail, or whether the COMELEC was right to prioritize legal qualifications for holding office, even if it meant overturning the election results.

    The petitioner, Gamal S. Hayudini, argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by revisiting a final resolution and by canceling his CoC, which led to the nullification of his proclamation as mayor. He contended that the COMELEC should have dismissed the petition to cancel his CoC due to the failure of the opposing party, Mustapha J. Omar, to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. Furthermore, Hayudini asserted that his proclamation should not have been nullified because no separate petition for annulment was filed.

    However, the Supreme Court dismissed Hayudini’s petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The Court emphasized the principle that election laws should be liberally construed to ensure the true will of the people is realized. While procedural rules exist, they should not be rigidly applied to defeat the ultimate goal of ensuring free, orderly, and credible elections.

    The Court addressed Hayudini’s argument regarding the COMELEC’s alleged procedural missteps in admitting Omar’s petition. It acknowledged that Omar’s petition was indeed filed beyond the prescribed period and lacked sufficient explanation for not serving the petition personally to Hayudini. However, the Court upheld the COMELEC’s decision to liberally treat Omar’s petition, citing the COMELEC’s power to interpret or even suspend its rules in the interest of justice. This underscores the COMELEC’s mandate to protect the integrity of elections, even if it means relaxing procedural rules in certain cases.

    Building on this principle, the Court considered the supervening event of the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) decision, which ordered the deletion of Hayudini’s name from the voter’s list. This decision was deemed final and executory, rendering Hayudini ineligible to run for mayor. The RTC’s decision was a game-changer, as it occurred after the COMELEC’s initial dismissal of Omar’s petition to cancel Hayudini’s CoC. The Court found that the finality of the RTC decision constituted a valid supervening event, which justified the COMELEC’s subsequent cancellation of Hayudini’s CoC.

    The Court explained that a supervening event refers to facts and events that transpire after a judgment or order becomes executory, affecting or changing the substance of the judgment and rendering its execution inequitable. Here, the RTC’s decision, which came after the dismissal of Omar’s first petition, was deemed a supervening event that would make it unjust to uphold the COMELEC’s earlier ruling. The decision to exclude Hayudini from the voter’s list was non-existent when the COMELEC first dismissed Omar’s petition, highlighting the significance of the RTC’s later decision.

    The Court then turned to the issue of whether Hayudini made a false representation in his CoC. Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code requires candidates to state under oath that they are eligible for the office they seek. A candidate is eligible if they have the right to run, which includes being a registered voter in the municipality where they intend to be elected. In Hayudini’s case, he declared in his CoC that he was a resident of Barangay Bintawlan, South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, when he was not a registered voter there. This, the Court found, was a clear and material misrepresentation.

    The Court emphasized that the false representation must pertain to a material fact, not a mere innocuous mistake. These material facts relate to a candidate’s qualifications for elective office, such as citizenship, residence, and status as a registered voter. A candidate who falsifies such a material fact cannot run, and if elected, cannot serve. This underscores the importance of honesty and accuracy in election filings, ensuring that only genuinely qualified individuals hold public office.

    The Court also addressed Hayudini’s argument that the COMELEC erred in declaring his proclamation null and void, arguing that no petition for annulment of his proclamation was ever filed. However, the Court clarified that the nullification of Hayudini’s proclamation was a necessary legal consequence of the cancellation of his CoC. A CoC cancellation proceeding essentially partakes of the nature of a disqualification case, rendering the votes cast for the candidate whose CoC has been canceled as stray votes.

    The Court cited the case of Aratea v. COMELEC, where it was held that a canceled certificate of candidacy void ab initio cannot give rise to a valid candidacy, and much less to valid votes. In that case, the winning mayoralty candidate’s certificate of candidacy was void ab initio, meaning he was never a candidate at all, and all his votes were considered stray votes. The Court then proclaimed the second placer, the only qualified candidate who actually garnered the highest number of votes, for the position of Mayor.

    The Court found the factual situation of the Aratea case applicable to Hayudini’s case. Because Hayudini was never a valid candidate for the position of Municipal Mayor of South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, the votes cast for him were considered stray votes. Consequently, the COMELEC properly proclaimed Salma Omar, who garnered the highest number of votes among the remaining qualified candidates, as the duly-elected Mayor of South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of complying with all legal requirements for candidacy, including residency and voter registration. It reinforces the COMELEC’s authority to ensure the integrity of elections, even if it means overturning election results based on supervening events or material misrepresentations in a candidate’s CoC. This decision serves as a reminder to all candidates to be truthful and accurate in their election filings and to ensure they meet all legal qualifications for holding office.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the COMELEC acted correctly in canceling Hayudini’s CoC after the election, based on the RTC’s decision to remove him from the voter’s list due to residency issues.
    What is a Certificate of Candidacy (CoC)? A CoC is a formal document filed by individuals announcing their candidacy for an elected position. It includes statements under oath about their eligibility, such as citizenship, residency, and voter registration.
    What is a supervening event? A supervening event refers to facts or events that occur after a judgment or order has become final and executory, affecting or changing the substance of the judgment and rendering its execution inequitable.
    What happens if a candidate makes a false representation in their CoC? If a candidate makes a false material representation in their CoC, it can lead to the denial of due course to or cancellation of their CoC, preventing them from running or serving if elected.
    What does it mean for votes to be considered “stray votes”? When a candidate’s CoC is canceled, votes cast in their favor are considered “stray votes” and are not counted in determining the winner of the election.
    Who becomes mayor if the winning candidate’s CoC is canceled? In this case, because Hayudini was deemed to have never been a valid candidate, the COMELEC proclaimed Salma Omar, the candidate with the next highest number of votes among the remaining qualified candidates, as the duly-elected mayor.
    What is the role of the COMELEC in ensuring fair elections? The COMELEC has the power to interpret and even suspend its rules in the interest of justice to ensure the integrity of elections. It also has the authority to continue proceedings regarding a candidate’s qualifications even after the election.
    Why is residency important in local elections? Residency is a key qualification for local elections because it ensures that candidates are familiar with the needs and concerns of the community they seek to represent. It also demonstrates a commitment to the locality.
    What is the Aratea ruling and how did it apply to this case? The Aratea ruling established that a cancelled certificate of candidacy is void from the start, meaning the candidate was never validly running. In the present case, as Hayudini’s CoC was canceled, all votes in his favor were considered stray, and the next eligible candidate, Salma Omar, was declared the rightful mayor.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the importance of integrity and accuracy in the electoral process. It serves as a reminder to candidates to be honest about their qualifications and to voters to be informed about the candidates they support. Ensuring that only qualified individuals hold public office is essential for maintaining public trust and effective governance.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: MAYOR GAMAL S. HAYUDINI VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MUSTAPHA J. OMAR, G.R. No. 207900, April 22, 2014

  • Residency Requirements for Public Office: Establishing True Domicile and the Impact of False Declarations

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed the critical issue of residency requirements for candidates seeking public office. The Court affirmed the cancellation of Svetlana P. Jalosjos’ certificate of candidacy for failing to meet the one-year residency requirement in Baliangao, Misamis Occidental. This ruling underscores that mere physical presence or temporary stays do not equate to residency, and that false declarations of eligibility can lead to disqualification, even after an election. Furthermore, it clarifies that the second-placer can assume the office when the first-placer’s candidacy was void from the start due to ineligibility.

    From Punta Miray to Tugas: Unpacking the Residency Puzzle in Baliangao

    This case revolves around Svetlana P. Jalosjos’ bid for mayor of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental in the 2010 elections. The central legal question is whether she met the one-year residency requirement to qualify for the position. Challengers Edwin Elim Tupag and Rodolfo Y. Estrellada argued that Jalosjos did not reside in Baliangao for the requisite period before the election. Jalosjos claimed residency in Brgy. Tugas, Baliangao, but her opponents presented evidence suggesting otherwise, leading to a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court.

    The controversy hinged on Jalosjos’ actual physical presence and intent to establish domicile in Baliangao. The court scrutinized the evidence, particularly the joint affidavit of Jalosjos’ witnesses. The witnesses claimed she had been a resident of Brgy. Tugas since 2008. However, their affidavit also stated that Jalosjos stayed at Mrs. Lourdes Yap’s house in Brgy. Punta Miray while her house in Brgy. Tugas was under construction. This discrepancy became a focal point in determining Jalosjos’ true place of residence.

    The Supreme Court examined whether Jalosjos’ stay in Brgy. Punta Miray could be considered as part of her residency in Baliangao. The court emphasized that a temporary stay does not equate to establishing residence. Residence, in the context of election law, requires not only physical presence but also an intention to remain in the place. As the court stated:

    Petitioner’s stay in the house of Mrs. Yap in Brgy. Punta Miray, on the other hand, was only a temporary and intermittent stay that does not amount to residence. It was never the intention of petitioner to reside in that barangay, as she only stayed there at times when she was in Baliangao while her house was being constructed. Her temporary stay in Brgy. Punta Miray cannot be counted as residence in Baliangao.

    The court also noted inconsistencies in the timeline of Jalosjos’ claimed residency. Jalosjos claimed to have resided in Brgy. Tugas for at least six months before registering as a voter on May 7, 2009. However, records showed that she only purchased the property in Brgy. Tugas on December 9, 2008. The court concluded that her claim was false. This misrepresentation in her voter registration further undermined her claim of meeting the residency requirement.

    Building on this principle, the court addressed the issue of deliberate misrepresentation in Jalosjos’ certificate of candidacy (COC). The COMELEC found that Jalosjos lacked the one-year residency requirement, directly contradicting her sworn declaration in her COC that she was eligible to run for office. The Supreme Court agreed with the COMELEC’s assessment. The Court emphasized that:

    When the candidate’s claim of eligibility is proven false, as when the candidate failed to substantiate meeting the required residency in the locality, the representation of eligibility in the COC constitutes a “deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide the fact” of ineligibility.

    The court also addressed the argument that the COMELEC lost jurisdiction to decide the petition for cancellation of Jalosjos’ COC after she was proclaimed the winner. The court dismissed this argument, citing Aquino v. COMELEC, which established that the COMELEC retains the power to hear and decide questions relating to the qualifications of candidates even after the elections. This principle is enshrined in Section 6 of R.A. 6646, which allows disqualification cases to continue even after the election.

    The court then turned to the critical question of who should assume the office vacated by Jalosjos. The court distinguished between situations where the certificate of candidacy was valid at the time of filing but later canceled due to a subsequent violation or impediment, and situations where the certificate of candidacy was void from the beginning. In the latter case, the court ruled that the person who filed the void certificate was never a valid candidate. The court further explained in Jalosjos, Jr. that:

    Decisions of this Court holding that the second-placer cannot be proclaimed winner if the first-placer is disqualified or declared ineligible should be limited to situations where the certificate of candidacy of the first placer was valid at the time of filing but subsequently had to be cancelled because of a violation of law that took place, or a legal impediment that took effect, after the filing of the certificate of candidacy.

    In Jalosjos’ case, her certificate of candidacy was deemed void from the start due to her failure to meet the residency requirement. As such, the votes cast for her were considered stray votes. The court clarified that the eligible candidate who garnered the highest number of votes, Agne V. Yap, Sr., should assume the office. The court reasoned that Jalosjos was a de facto officer due to her ineligibility, and the rule on succession under the Local Government Code does not apply when a de jure officer is available to take over.

    This case clarifies that residence, as a requirement for public office, demands more than just physical presence. It requires establishing a domicile with the intention to remain. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of truthful declarations in certificates of candidacy and affirms the COMELEC’s authority to resolve qualification issues even after elections. Finally, the ruling settles the question of succession, ensuring that the candidate who was truly eligible and received the most valid votes assumes the office.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Svetlana P. Jalosjos met the one-year residency requirement to run for mayor of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental. The court examined if her stay in the municipality satisfied the legal definition of residence for electoral purposes.
    What did the court find regarding Jalosjos’ residency? The court found that Jalosjos did not meet the residency requirement because her stay in Brgy. Punta Miray was temporary and her claim of residency in Brgy. Tugas was not substantiated. The evidence indicated she hadn’t established a true domicile in Baliangao for the required period.
    Why was Jalosjos’ certificate of candidacy canceled? Her certificate of candidacy was canceled because she made a false material representation regarding her eligibility, specifically her residency. The court deemed this a deliberate attempt to mislead the electorate.
    Did the COMELEC have the authority to cancel her COC after the election? Yes, the court affirmed that the COMELEC retains jurisdiction to resolve questions of candidate qualifications even after the election. This authority is granted under Section 6 of R.A. 6646.
    Who assumed the office after Jalosjos was disqualified? Agne V. Yap, Sr., the eligible candidate who garnered the next highest number of votes, was declared the duly elected mayor. This was because Jalosjos’ candidacy was deemed void from the beginning.
    What is the difference between a de facto and a de jure officer? A de facto officer is someone who holds office but lacks legal right to it, whereas a de jure officer has the legal right to the office. Jalosjos was considered a de facto officer due to her ineligibility.
    What constitutes residency for election purposes? Residency requires both physical presence in a place and an intention to remain there, establishing a domicile. Temporary stays, like Jalosjos’ stay in Mrs. Yap’s house, do not meet this definition.
    What is the significance of this ruling? The ruling reinforces the importance of meeting residency requirements for public office and truthful declarations in certificates of candidacy. It also clarifies the succession process when a candidate’s COC is void from the beginning.

    In conclusion, the Jalosjos case serves as a crucial precedent on residency requirements for public office in the Philippines. It emphasizes the importance of establishing true domicile and the consequences of making false declarations in certificates of candidacy. This decision ensures that only eligible candidates hold public office, thereby upholding the integrity of the electoral process.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: SVETLANA P. JALOSJOS VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, EDWIN ELIM TUPAG AND RODOLFO Y. ESTRELLADA, G.R. No. 193314, June 25, 2013

  • Nicknames and Election Law: Defining Material Misrepresentation in Certificates of Candidacy

    The Supreme Court ruled that a candidate’s use of a nickname in their Certificate of Candidacy (COC), even if it resembles a relative’s name, does not constitute a material misrepresentation that warrants the COC’s cancellation unless it’s a deliberate attempt to mislead voters about the candidate’s qualifications. This decision clarifies the scope of ‘material misrepresentation’ under the Omnibus Election Code, emphasizing that it primarily pertains to a candidate’s eligibility and qualifications for office. The ruling protects candidates from disqualification based on minor inaccuracies that don’t affect their qualifications or mislead the electorate.

    ‘LRAY JR.’: When a Nickname Doesn’t Mislead Voters

    This case revolves around the 2013 gubernatorial race in Camarines Sur, where Luis R. Villafuerte sought to disqualify his opponent, Miguel R. Villafuerte, by challenging the validity of Miguel’s Certificate of Candidacy (COC). Luis argued that Miguel’s use of the nickname “LRAY JR.-MIGZ” was a material misrepresentation because it resembled the nickname of Miguel’s father, the then-incumbent Governor LRay Villafuerte Jr. Luis contended that this was a deliberate attempt to confuse voters and gain an unfair advantage. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dismissed Luis’s petition, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court.

    At the heart of the matter is Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, which allows for the denial or cancellation of a COC if it contains any material representation that is false. Section 74 of the same code outlines the required contents of a COC. The critical question is whether the inclusion of a particular nickname can be considered a ‘material representation’ that could mislead voters about a candidate’s qualifications or eligibility. The Supreme Court clarified that not all misrepresentations justify canceling a COC.

    The Court emphasized that a misrepresentation must be material, meaning it must relate to the candidate’s qualifications for office. As the Court stated in Salcedo II v. Commission on Elections:

    As stated in the law, in order to justify the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy under Section 78, it is essential that the false representation mentioned therein pertain[s] to a material matter for the sanction imposed by this provision would affect the substantive rights of a candidate — the right to run for the elective post for which he filed the certificate of candidacy.

    Furthermore, such misrepresentation must be a deliberate attempt to deceive the electorate about the candidate’s qualifications. The Court referenced the case of Aratea v. Commission on Elections, noting that misrepresenting eligibility, such as violating term limits, is a ground to deny a COC.

    In a certificate of candidacy, the candidate is asked to certify under oath his eligibility, and thus qualification, to the office he seeks election. Even though the certificate of candidacy does not specifically ask the candidate for the number of terms elected and served in an elective position, such fact is material in determining a candidate’s eligibility, and thus qualification for the office.

    In the Villafuerte case, the Court found that Miguel’s use of “LRAY JR.-MIGZ” did not constitute a material misrepresentation. The Court reasoned that the nickname did not pertain to Miguel’s qualifications for office, such as his age, residency, or citizenship. Additionally, there was no evidence that Miguel intended to deceive voters or mislead them about his identity. The Court noted the COMELEC’s finding that Miguel was known to the voters of Camarines Sur as the son of the incumbent governor who was popularly known as “LRAY”. This negated any intent to mislead or misinform the voters.

    The petitioner, Luis Villafuerte, relied on the case of Villarosa v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal to argue that Miguel’s COC should be canceled. However, the Supreme Court distinguished the two cases. In Villarosa, the candidate used the nickname of her husband, the incumbent representative, in a way that was deemed a deliberate ploy to confuse voters. In contrast, the Court found that Miguel’s use of “LRAY JR.-MIGZ” was not intended to mislead voters and did not violate the requirement of using only one nickname.

    The Court also rejected Luis’s argument that Miguel’s nickname undermined the requirement of alphabetical listing of candidates on the ballot. The Court acknowledged that Miguel’s name would appear before Luis’s name on the ballot. However, the Court found that this was not a sufficient reason to disqualify Miguel or assume that voters would be confused.

    The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the COMELEC’s decision, holding that Miguel Villafuerte’s use of the nickname “LRAY JR.-MIGZ” in his COC was not a material misrepresentation that warranted the cancellation of his candidacy. The Court emphasized that the focus of Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code is on misrepresentations that relate to a candidate’s qualifications and eligibility for office, not on minor inaccuracies that do not mislead the electorate.

    This case highlights the importance of distinguishing between material and immaterial misrepresentations in election law. While candidates must provide accurate information on their COCs, minor errors or stylistic choices that do not affect their qualifications or mislead voters are not grounds for disqualification. This principle ensures that candidates are not unfairly penalized for technicalities and that the will of the electorate is respected.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a candidate’s use of a nickname in their Certificate of Candidacy (COC) constituted a material misrepresentation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. Specifically, the Court examined whether using a nickname similar to a relative’s could mislead voters.
    What is a Certificate of Candidacy (COC)? A Certificate of Candidacy (COC) is a formal document required by election law in the Philippines. It serves as a declaration by an individual that they are running for a specific elective office and that they meet the legal qualifications to hold that office.
    What is considered a ‘material misrepresentation’ in a COC? A material misrepresentation in a COC refers to a false statement about a candidate’s qualifications or eligibility for office. This includes factors like citizenship, residency, age, or any other legal requirement for holding the position.
    Can a COC be canceled due to a false statement? Yes, a COC can be canceled if it contains a material misrepresentation. Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code provides a mechanism for filing a petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC based on false information.
    What was the basis for the petition against Miguel Villafuerte’s COC? The petition argued that Miguel Villafuerte’s use of the nickname “LRAY JR.-MIGZ” was a material misrepresentation because it resembled his father’s nickname, potentially misleading voters. The petitioner argued it was a deliberate ploy to confuse voters.
    How did the Supreme Court rule on the nickname issue? The Supreme Court ruled that Miguel Villafuerte’s use of the nickname was not a material misrepresentation. The Court found no evidence that it was intended to deceive voters or that it related to his qualifications for office.
    What is the significance of the Villarosa case in this context? The Villarosa case involved a candidate using her husband’s nickname to gain an unfair advantage. The Supreme Court distinguished it from the Villafuerte case, finding no similar intent to mislead voters in the latter.
    What is the key takeaway from this case for future elections? The key takeaway is that not all inaccuracies in a COC warrant cancellation. Only material misrepresentations that relate to a candidate’s qualifications or eligibility and are intended to deceive voters can lead to disqualification.

    This ruling offers important clarity on the interpretation of election laws concerning Certificates of Candidacy and the use of nicknames. While accuracy in these documents is crucial, the Supreme Court’s decision confirms that election authorities must focus on genuine attempts to deceive voters about a candidate’s qualifications, rather than penalizing inconsequential errors or stylistic choices. This helps to ensure fair elections where candidates are not unfairly disqualified on technicalities.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MIGUEL R. VILLAFUERTE, G.R. No. 206698, February 25, 2014

  • Safeguarding Suffrage: Counting Votes for Disqualified Party-Lists in Philippine Elections

    In Philippine elections, ensuring fair representation in the party-list system is crucial. The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether votes cast for party-list groups subsequently disqualified should be included in the total count for seat allocation. The Court decided that if a party-list group is disqualified after the elections but was included on the ballot, the votes cast for them should still be counted in the total, unless the disqualification was final before the elections and voters were informed. This ruling aims to protect the voters’ right to choose and ensures proportional representation, balancing electoral integrity with the constitutional right to suffrage.

    Ballot Choices vs. Legal Hurdles: Who Decides the People’s Representatives?

    The Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction, Inc., (ARARO), a party-list group, questioned the formula used by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to determine winning party-list groups in the 2010 national elections. ARARO argued that the COMELEC’s interpretation of the formula in BANAT v. COMELEC was flawed, particularly concerning the divisor used to calculate the percentage of votes garnered by each party-list. The central issue revolved around whether votes cast for party-list groups, later disqualified, should be included in the total votes used to determine seat allocation. ARARO contended that all votes cast, whether valid or invalid, should be included to accurately reflect the will of the electorate.

    The COMELEC, however, maintained that only valid votes should be considered, excluding those cast for disqualified party-list groups. This position was based on previous rulings and aimed to ensure that only qualified parties were represented in the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court was tasked with resolving this dispute, balancing the need for electoral integrity with the constitutional mandate of proportional representation.

    At the heart of the controversy were Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 7941, also known as the Party-List System Act. These sections provide guidelines for allocating seats to party-list representatives. Section 11(b) states that parties receiving at least two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system are entitled to one seat, with additional seats for those garnering more votes. Section 12 mandates the COMELEC to tally all votes for party-list groups and allocate seats proportionately based on the percentage of votes obtained against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list system.

    The petitioner, ARARO, argued that the COMELEC’s interpretation created a distinction between valid and invalid votes, effectively disenfranchising voters whose choices were later deemed ineligible. ARARO emphasized that the term “total votes cast for the party-list system” should encompass all votes, regardless of their validity. This interpretation, according to ARARO, would align with the law’s intent to provide the broadest possible representation in the House of Representatives.

    In its defense, the COMELEC contended that including invalid or stray votes would contradict established jurisprudence and undermine the requirement that only qualified parties should be represented. The COMELEC argued that voters who cast ballots for disqualified party-list groups could not be considered to have cast a vote “for the party-list system.” This position aimed to uphold the integrity of the electoral process and prevent the allocation of seats to parties that did not meet the legal requirements.

    The Supreme Court acknowledged that the case was technically moot and academic due to the expiration of the term of office for the 2010 party-list representatives and the subsequent elections in 2013. However, the Court recognized the importance of the issues raised, particularly the potential for repetition and the need for guidance for future elections. Citing Mendoza v. Villas, the Court noted that it could address moot cases if they involved grave constitutional violations, exceptional public interest, or required the formulation of controlling principles.

    Despite finding the case moot, the Supreme Court proceeded to address the substantive issues. It first noted that ARARO lacked legal standing to bring the suit, as its proposed alternative formula would not have changed its outcome in the 2010 elections. A real party in interest, as defined by the Rules of Court, is one who stands to benefit or be injured by the judgment, and ARARO’s interest was neither direct nor substantial.

    Turning to the central question, the Court addressed the interpretation of the phrase “total votes cast for the party-list system.” The Court emphasized that this phrase does not include invalid votes, such as those spoiled due to improper shading or stray marks. However, the Court clarified that votes cast for party-list groups listed on the ballot should be included, even if those groups are subsequently disqualified. This nuanced approach aimed to balance the integrity of the electoral process with the protection of voters’ rights.

    The Court reasoned that voters rely on the official ballot as a representation of their choices. They are entitled to expect that the candidates and groups listed have been properly vetted by the COMELEC. To exclude votes cast for subsequently disqualified party-list groups would disenfranchise voters who acted in good faith, believing their choices were qualified. This approach aligns with the fundamental tenet of representative democracy that the people should be allowed to choose their representatives.

    However, the Supreme Court carved out an exception: If a party-list group is disqualified with finality before the elections, and the COMELEC has reasonably informed the voters of this disqualification, votes cast for that group should not be included in the total count. This exception acknowledges the importance of respecting final disqualification orders and preventing voters from unknowingly casting ballots for ineligible groups.

    In summary, the Supreme Court modified the formula used in BANAT v. COMELEC to clarify the divisor used in determining the winning party-list groups. The divisor should include all valid votes cast for the party-list system, including votes for party-list groups subsequently disqualified, unless the disqualification was final before the elections and voters were informed. This nuanced approach seeks to protect the right to suffrage while upholding the integrity of the electoral process.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether votes cast for party-list groups that were later disqualified should be included in the total number of votes used to determine seat allocation in the party-list system.
    What did the Supreme Court decide? The Supreme Court ruled that votes cast for party-list groups listed on the ballot should be included, even if those groups are subsequently disqualified, unless the disqualification was final before the elections and voters were informed.
    Why did the Court make this decision? The Court reasoned that voters rely on the ballot and have a right to expect that their choices are qualified, and excluding these votes would disenfranchise voters who acted in good faith.
    What happens if a party-list group is disqualified before the elections? If a party-list group is disqualified with finality before the elections and voters are informed, votes cast for that group should not be included in the total count.
    What are considered invalid votes? Invalid votes include those that are spoiled due to improper shading, stray marks, or tears in the ballot.
    What law governs the party-list system? The party-list system is governed by Republic Act No. 7941, also known as the Party-List System Act.
    What is proportional representation? Proportional representation is a system where seats in the legislature are allocated to parties in proportion to the number of votes they receive, ensuring fair representation of different groups.
    What is the significance of this ruling? This ruling clarifies the formula for determining winning party-list groups and aims to protect the right to suffrage while upholding the integrity of the electoral process.

    This case highlights the delicate balance between ensuring fair representation and maintaining the integrity of the electoral process. The Supreme Court’s ruling seeks to protect the rights of voters while respecting the finality of disqualification orders, providing a framework for future party-list elections.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction, Inc. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 192803, December 10, 2013

  • Elections and Financial Regulations: Analyzing the Limits of COMELEC’s Authority

    In Bankers Association of the Philippines v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution No. 9688, which imposed a “money ban” during the May 2013 elections. The Court ultimately dismissed the case as moot because the election period had passed, and the resolution was no longer in effect. This decision underscores the principle that judicial review is limited to actual, ongoing controversies and highlights the balance between ensuring fair elections and protecting constitutional rights related to due process and property.

    Curbing Vote-Buying: Did COMELEC Overstep its Authority with the Money Ban?

    The core issue revolved around whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) exceeded its constitutional authority by issuing Resolution No. 9688, also known as the “Money Ban Resolution.” This resolution aimed to prevent vote-buying by restricting cash withdrawals and possession during the election period. Petitioners, the Bankers Association of the Philippines and Perry L. Pe, argued that the COMELEC’s actions infringed upon the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ (BSP) regulatory powers and violated fundamental rights. The case brought into question the extent of COMELEC’s power to regulate financial institutions and the balance between election integrity and individual liberties.

    The COMELEC justified the Money Ban Resolution by citing its constitutional mandate to enforce election laws and supervise the enjoyment of franchises and privileges granted by the government. According to the COMELEC, this supervisory power extended to banks and financial institutions operating under the authority granted by the BSP. They argued that restricting large cash transactions was a necessary measure to deter vote-buying, a criminal offense under the Omnibus Election Code. The resolution specifically prohibited cash withdrawals exceeding P100,000 and the possession of cash exceeding P500,000, creating a presumption that such amounts were intended for vote-buying purposes. The AMLC was deputized to investigate transactions exceeding 500,000.

    However, the petitioners challenged the COMELEC’s interpretation of its constitutional powers. They contended that the COMELEC’s authority to supervise franchises and privileges did not extend to the BSP, which derives its regulatory powers directly from the Constitution and the General Banking Law of 2000. The petitioners also argued that the COMELEC’s power to deputize government agencies was limited to law enforcement agencies, and even then, required the President’s concurrence, which they claimed was not properly obtained. They emphasized that the BSP and the AMLC were not primarily law enforcement bodies.

    Furthermore, the petitioners raised concerns about potential violations of constitutional rights. They argued that the Money Ban Resolution infringed upon individuals’ rights to due process by unduly restricting the withdrawal, possession, and transportation of cash. They claimed that the restrictions impaired contractual obligations between banks and depositors, violating the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. The petitioners also challenged the presumption that possession of large amounts of cash implied an intent to engage in vote-buying, arguing that it violated the constitutional presumption of innocence. They said there are legitimate reasons for possessing such large amounts.

    In its defense, the COMELEC asserted that its actions were within the bounds of its constitutional authority to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. The COMELEC maintained that the BSP, as a government instrumentality, could be validly deputized to assist in implementing election laws. The agency further argued that Presidential concurrence was secured through Memorandum Order No. 52, which granted blanket concurrence to the deputation of all law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities. The COMELEC emphasized that the restrictions imposed by the Money Ban Resolution were reasonable and did not unduly oppress individuals, as they only affected cash transactions and did not prohibit other forms of financial transactions.

    Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on the substantive issues raised in the petition, dismissing it on the ground of mootness. The Court noted that the Money Ban Resolution was explicitly limited to the period of the May 13, 2013 elections. With the elections concluded, the resolution no longer had any practical effect, rendering the legal questions moot and academic. The Court reiterated the principle that judicial review is confined to actual cases or controversies, and that it would generally refrain from exercising jurisdiction over moot issues.

    The Court acknowledged established exceptions to the mootness doctrine, including cases involving grave violations of the Constitution, exceptional public interest, the need to formulate controlling principles, and situations capable of repetition yet evading review. However, the Court found that these exceptions did not apply to the present case. Specifically, the Court noted that the COMELEC had not implemented similar measures in subsequent elections, suggesting that the issue was unlikely to recur in the same manner. The Supreme Court said that the legislative branch could create laws to address such concerns.

    The Supreme Court also highlighted that the BSP and the Monetary Board retained sufficient authority to address concerns related to banking transactions without the need for a formal COMELEC resolution. The Court emphasized that Congress had the power to enact laws to address the issues raised by the Money Ban Resolution, rendering further judicial action unnecessary at that time. By dismissing the case as moot, the Supreme Court avoided a potentially far-reaching ruling on the scope of COMELEC’s regulatory powers and the balance between election integrity and individual rights. This leaves open the potential for future challenges should similar measures be implemented in subsequent elections.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether COMELEC exceeded its constitutional authority by issuing a resolution that restricted cash withdrawals and possession during the election period. This involved questioning the scope of COMELEC’s power to regulate financial institutions and its impact on individual rights.
    Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the case? The Supreme Court dismissed the case because it became moot and academic. The Money Ban Resolution was only effective during the May 2013 elections, and with the elections over, the resolution no longer had any practical effect.
    What is the mootness doctrine? The mootness doctrine states that courts should not decide cases where the issues are no longer alive or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. This principle prevents courts from issuing advisory opinions on abstract legal questions.
    Did the Supreme Court address the constitutionality of the Money Ban Resolution? No, the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Money Ban Resolution. Because the case was dismissed as moot, the Court did not reach the substantive legal issues raised by the petitioners.
    What arguments did the Bankers Association of the Philippines make? The BAP argued that COMELEC’s resolution infringed upon the BSP’s regulatory powers, violated individual rights to due process, and impaired contractual obligations between banks and depositors. They also challenged the presumption that possession of large amounts of cash implied an intent to engage in vote-buying.
    How did COMELEC justify the Money Ban Resolution? COMELEC justified the resolution by citing its constitutional mandate to enforce election laws and supervise the enjoyment of franchises and privileges granted by the government. They argued it was a necessary measure to deter vote-buying.
    What is the significance of this case? The case highlights the importance of balancing election integrity with individual rights and the limits of administrative agencies’ regulatory powers. It also demonstrates the application of the mootness doctrine in judicial review.
    Could a similar Money Ban Resolution be issued in future elections? While the Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of such a resolution, it remains a possibility. Any future implementation would likely face similar legal challenges regarding the scope of COMELEC’s authority and potential infringements on constitutional rights.

    While the Supreme Court’s decision in Bankers Association of the Philippines v. COMELEC did not provide definitive answers regarding the constitutionality of election-related financial restrictions, it underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing the powers of administrative bodies with individual rights. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear legal frameworks and the need for careful consideration of constitutional principles when implementing measures aimed at ensuring fair and credible elections.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Bankers Association of the Philippines vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206794, November 26, 2013