Pimentel v. HRET, Nov. 29, 2002

Facts: On March 3, 1995, the Party-List System Act took effect. On May 11, 1998, in accordance with the Party-List System Act, national elections were held which included, for the first time, the election through popular vote of party-list groups and organizations whose nominees would become members of the House. Proclaimed winners were 14 party-list representatives from 13 organizations, including petitioners from party-list groups Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC), Alyansang Bayanihan ng mga Magsasaka, Manggagawang Bukid at Mangingisda (ABA), NATCO Network Party (COOP-NATCCO), Akbayan! Citizens Action Party (AKBAYAN), and Abanse! Pinay (ABANSE). Due to the votes it garnered, APEC was able to send 2 representatives to the House, while the 12 other party-list groups had one representative each. Also elected were district representatives belonging to various political parties.

Subsequently, the House constituted its HRET and CA contingent by electing its representatives to these two constitutional bodies. In practice, the procedure involves the nomination by the political parties of House members who are to occupy seats in the HRET and the CA. From available records, it does not appear that after the May 11, 1998 elections the party-list groups in the House nominated any of their representatives to the HRET or the CA. As of the date of filing of the instant petitions, the House contingents to the HRET and the CA were composed solely of district representatives belonging to the different political parties.

On January 18, 2000, Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. wrote two letters addressed to then Senate President Blas F. Ople, as Chairman of the CA, and to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Jose A. R. Melo (now retired), as Chairman of the HRET. The letters requested Senate President Ople and Justice Melo to cause the restructuring of the CA and the HRET, respectively, to include party-list representatives to conform to Sections 17 and 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

In its meeting of January 20, 2000, the HRET resolved to direct the Secretary of the Tribunal to refer Senator Pimentel’s letter to the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives. On the same day, HRET Secretary Daisy B. Panga-Vega, in an Indorsement of even date, referred the letter to House of Representatives Secretary General Roberto P. Nazareno.

On February 2, 2000, petitioners filed with this Court their Petitions for Prohibition, Mandamus and Preliminary Injunction (with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order) against the HRET, its Chairman and Members, and against the CA, its Chairman and Members. Petitioners contend that, under the Constitution and the Party-List System Act, party-list representatives should have 1.2 or at least 1 seat in the HRET, and 2.4 seats in the CA. Petitioners charge that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to act positively on the letter of Senator Pimentel. In its Resolution of February 8, 2000, the Court en banc directed the consolidation of G.R. No. 141490 with G.R. No. 141489.

On February 11, 2000, petitioners filed in both cases a motion to amend their petitions to implead then Speaker Manuel B. Villar, Jr. as an additional respondent, in his capacity as Speaker of the House and as one of the members of the CA. The Court granted both motions and admitted the amended petitions.

Senator Pimentel filed the instant petitions on the strength of his oath to protect, defend and uphold the Constitution and in his capacity as taxpayer ‘and as a member of the CA. He was joined by 5 party-list representatives from APEC, ABA, ABANSE, AKBAYAN and COOP-NATCCO as co-petitioners.

In their Reply to Consolidated Comment, petitioners alleged that, following the Solicitor General’s computation, the LP and LAKAS were over-represented in the HRET and the CA. Petitioners particularly assail the presence of one LP representative each in the HRET and the CA, and maintain that the LP representatives should be ousted and replaced with nominees of the 14 party-list representatives.

Issues: 1. WHETHER THE PRESENT COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION BECAUSE THERE ARE NO PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES IN THE HRET.

2. WHETHER THE PRESENT MEMBERSHIP OF THE HOUSE IN THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION BECAUSE THERE ARE NO PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES IN THE CA.

3. WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF THE HRET AND THE CA TO RECONSTITUTE THEMSELVES TO INCLUDE PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES CONSTITUTES GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions for prohibition and mandamus are DISMISSED.

Ratio Decidendi: The court cannot resolved the issue because it is a well-settled rule that a constitutional question will not be heard and resolved by the courts unless the following requirements of judicial inquiry concur: (1) there must be an actual controversy; (2) the person or party raising the constitutional issue must have a personal and substantial interest in the resolution of the controversy; (3) the controversy must be raised at the earliest reasonable opportunity; and (4) the resolution of the constitutional issue must be indispensable to the final determination of the controversy.

Finally, the issues raised in the petitions have been rendered academic by subsequent events. On May 14, 2001, a new set of district and party-list representatives were elected to the House. The Court cannot now resolve the issue of proportional representation in the HRET and the CA based on the "present composition" of the House of Representatives as presented by petitioners and the Solicitor General. With the May 14, 2001 elections, it is certain that the composition of the House has changed.

Laban v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161265. February 24, 2004

Digested by Mr. Jared

Facts: Prior to the MAy 2004 elections, the LAban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) has been divided because of a struggle of authority between Party Chair Edgardo Angara and Part Secretary General Agapito Aquino, both having endorsed two differentsets of candidates under the same party, LDP.

The matter was brought to the COMELEC. The Commission in its resolution, has recognized the factions creating two sub-parties: LDP Angara Wing and LDP Aquino Wing.

Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion in recognizing the two sets of nominations and endosements by the same party.

Held: The COMELEC erred in its resolution. Only those Certificates of Candidacy (COC) signed by the LDP Party Chairman Angara or his duly authorized representative/s shall be recognized.

Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, October 6, 2000.

digested by Mr. Sid

Facts: On May 11, 1998, the party-list election was held simultaneously with the national election. A total of 123 parties, organizations and coalitions participated but only 13 party-list representatives from 12 parties and organizations which obtained at least two percent of the total number of votes cast for the party-list system were proclaimed. The COMELEC enbanc determined that COCOFED (Philippine Coconut Planters Federation Inc.), was entitled to one party-list seat for having garnered 2.04% of the total votes cast for the part-list system. Thereafter, several party-list organization filed a petition to the COMELEC to proclaim the said winner under the Constitution which was later on granted by the COMELEC in division and affirmed by COMELEC en banc. Consequently, several petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with prayers for the issuance of the temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction were filed to the Supreme Court by the parties who also obtained at least two percent votes cast for party-list system.

Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC commit grave abused of discretion in ruling that 38 parties, organizations, and coalitions are entitled to a party-list seat.

Held: The COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the 38 herein respondents are each entitled to a party-list seat because it glaringly violated two requirements of RA7941 which is the two percent threshold and proportional representation.

Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, June 26, 2001

digested by: Ms. She

Facts: Petitioner under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 issued by the COMELEC, approving the participation of 154 organizations and parties and denying several others.

Petitioners seek to disqualify the private respondents from participating in the party-list election on the ground that it was intended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented; and not the mainstream political parties, the non-marginalized or overrepresented.

Issues: Whether or not the Commission committed a grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Omnibus Resolution No. 3785.

Held: SC stated that the Comelec failed to appreciate fully the clear policy of the law and the Constitution. It is their duty as a quasi-judicial body to apply the law as they find it, not to reinvent or second guess it.

However, the petitions for disqualification cannot be granted outright because there should be a factual determination first.

SC laid down the following guidelines for screening party-list participants.

1. The political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other words, it must show ¾ through its constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and track record¾ that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of its membership should belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. And it must demonstrate that in a conflict of interests, it has chosen or is likely to choose the interest of such sectors.

2. While even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling “Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of Representatives.” In other words, while they are not disqualified merely on the ground that they are political parties, they must show, however, that they represent the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented.

3. The religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system.

4. A party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941.

5. The party or organization must not be an adjunt of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the government.

6. The party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so.

7. Not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees. To repeat, under Section 2 of RA 7941, the nominees must be Filipino citizens “who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.”

8. As previously discussed, while lacking a well-defined political constituency, the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.”

Fariñas vs. Barba, G.R. No. 116763. April 19, 1996

Facts: Carlito B. Domingo was a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. On March 24, 1994, he resigned after going without leave to the United States. The Mayor, Angelo Barba, recommended Edward Farinas to fill the vacancy. He is also recommended by the Sangguniang Bayan of San Nicolas directed to the Mayor. The resolution regarding to the recommendation was submitted to Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte in compliance with Section 56 of the Local Government Code. Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved the resolution for the reason that the authority and power to appoint Sangguniang Bayan members are lodged to the Governor. On the other hand, despite the disapproval, the respondent still appointed Farinas. Later on, he took an oath. On June 14, 1994, petitioners filed with the RTC of Ilocos Norte a petition quo warranto and prohibition. The Trial Court uphold the appointment.

Issue: Who can appoint the replacement in case of a permanent vacancy in Sangguniang Bayan caused by the cessation from office of a member who does not belong to any political part.

Held: There is only one governing appointment to Sanggunian Bayan. Any vacancy therein caused by the cessation from office of a member with or without a political party must be made by the Governor upon the recommendtion of the said Sanggunian.

Navarro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141307. March 28, 2001

digested by Ms. Iola Vianka M. Pińon

Facts: On March 25, 1999, elected Mayor Calimlim died thus creating a vacancy in his position. By virtue of Section 44 of the Local Government Code, Vice Mayor Aquino succeeded him. Since a vacancy occurred inthe Sangguniang Bayan by the elevation of Tamayo, the highest ranking member of Sanggunian, to the Vice Mayor's position. Gov. Agbayani of Pangasinan appointed herein petitioner Navarro as member of the said Sanggunian. Navarro belonged to the same party as that of Tamayo. Private respondents filed an action to nullify the appointment of Navarro. They argued in the CA that the former Vice Mayor who created the permanent vacancy, thus, the appointees should come from the former Vice Mayor's political party. In the decision of the CA, it concluded that according to the hierarchy, it was the appointment of the 8th Counselor to the 7th position which created the vacancy, therefore, the appointee should come from his party.

Issue: Whether or not the appointment of Navarro as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan is valid.

Held: Yes. It is pursuant to Section 44 and 45 of the Local Government Code.

The reason behind the right given to a political party to nominate a replacement where a permanent vacancy occurs is to maintain the party representation as willed by the people in the election. Such appointment is required to have a nomination and certification or it would be null and void ab initio.

The term "last vacancy" by no means refers to the vacancy of the *th position in the Sangguniang Bayan. Such construction will result to absurdity.

Sinica v. Mula, G.R. No. 135691. Sept. 27, 1999

digested by: Ms. Joie Manuel

In this case, assailed was the COMELEC Resolution on Oct. 6, 1998 in SPA No. 98-292, declaring the substitution of mayoralty candidate Teodoro Sinaca, Jr. by petitioner Emmanuel D. Sinaca as invalid.

Facts:

In the May 1998 elections, petitioner Emmanuel Sinica was a substitute candidate for the mayoral post of the Matugas Wing after their original candidate, Teodoro Sinica, Jr., was disqualified for being convicted of bigamy. He was proclaimed winner after the canvassing.

(Matugas Wing was a faction in the LAKAS-NUCD-UMPD party, as well as the Barbers Wing. Each faction has separate candidates for the mayoral post in the Municipality of Malimono , Surigao del Norte.)

Respondent Mula (who got Sinica, Jr. disqualified) filed a disqualification case against Emmanuel Sinica before the COMELEC. He alleged that said substitution was invalid because:

a) Sinica was not member of the LAKAS party when he was nominated as a substitute; and

b) it lacks approval of Sen. Barbers as a joint signatory of the substitution.

The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the disqualification case. However, when respondent Mula filed a Motion for Reconsideration, COMELEC en banc set aside the resolution of the Second Division and disqualified EMMANUEL asserting that the substitution violated the provisions of Sec. 77 of the Omnibus Election Code that the substitute must belong to the same political party as the substituted candidate. Emmanuel D. Sinaca was not valid because he was an independent candidate for councilor prior to his nomination as substitute candidate in place of the withdrawing candidate who was a Lakas party member.

Therefore, this case before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

WON the substitution of Emmanuel Sinica was against the provisions of Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Decision:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed resolution of 6 October 1998 of the COMELEC en banc is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another one rendered declaring EMMANUEL SINACA as having been duly elected mayor of the Municipality of Malimono , Surigao del Norte.

Ratio Decidendi:

NO. Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code only mandates that a substitute candidate should be a person belonging to and certified by the same political party as the candidate to be replaced.

Petitioner Emmanuel Sinaca, an independent candidate, had first withdrawn his certificate of candidacy for Sangguniang Bayan Member before he joined the LAKAS party and nominated by the LAKAS MATUGAS Wing as the substitute candidate. He had filed his certificate of candidacy and his certificate of nomination as LAKAS mayoralty candidate signed by Gov. Matugas with his written acceptance of the party's nomination. Therefore, he is a bona fide LAKAS member.

There is nothing in the Constitution or the statute which requires as a condition precedent that a substitute candidate must have been a member of the party concerned for a certain period of time before he can be nominated as such.

BANTAY v. COMELEC, May 4, 2007

digested by Ms. Roni

FACTS: Before the Court are two consolidated petitions for certiorari and mandamus to nullify and set aside certain issuances of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) respecting party-list groups which have manifested their intention to participate in the party-list elections on May 14, 2007.

A number of organized groups filed the necessary manifestations and subsequently were accredited by the Comelec to participate in the 2007 elections. Bantay Republic Act (BA-RA 7941) and the Urban Poor for Legal Reforms (UP-LR) filed with the Comelec an Urgent Petition to Disqualify, seeking to disqualify the nominees of certain party-list organizations. Docketed in the Comelec as SPA Case No 07-026, this urgent petition has yet to be resolved.

Meanwhile petitioner Rosales, in G.R. No. 177314, addressed 2 letters to the Director of the Comelec’s Law Department requesting a list of that groups’ nominees. Evidently unbeknownst then to Ms. Rosales, et al., was the issuance of Comelec en banc Resolution 07-0724 under date April 3, 2007 virtually declaring the nominees’ names confidential and in net effect denying petitioner Rosales’ basic disclosure request. Comelec’s reason for keeping the names of the party list nominees away from the public is deducible from the excerpts of the news report appearing in the April 13, 2007 issue of the Manila Bulletin, is that there is nothing in R.A. 7941 that requires the Comelec to disclose the names of nominees, and that party list elections must not be personality oriented according to Chairman Abalos.

In the first petition (G.R. No. 177271), BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR assail the Comelec resolutions accrediting private respondents Biyaheng Pinoy et al., to participate in the forthcoming party-list elections without simultaneously determining whether or not their respective nominees possess the requisite qualifications defined in R.A. No. 7941, or the "Party-List System Act" and belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector each seeks to.

In the second petition (G.R. No. 177314), petitioners Loreta Ann P. Rosales, Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay Katarungan Foundation impugn Comelec Resolution dated April 3, 2007.

While both petitions commonly seek to compel the Comelec to disclose or publish the names of the nominees of the various party-list groups named in the petitions, BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR have the additional prayers that the 33 private respondents named therein be "declare[d] as unqualified to participate in the party-list elections and that the Comelec be enjoined from allowing respondent groups from participating in the elections.

ISSUE:

1. Can the Court cancel the accreditation accorded by the Comelec to the respondent party-list groups named in their petition on the ground that these groups and their respective nominees do not appear to be qualified.

2. Whether respondent Comelec, by refusing to reveal the names of the nominees of the various party-list groups, has violated the right to information and free access to documents as guaranteed by the Constitution; and

3. Whether respondent Comelec is mandated by the Constitution to disclose to the public the names of said nominees.

HELD: The 1^st petition is partly DENIED insofar as it seeks to nullify the accreditation of the respondents named therein. However, insofar as it seeks to compel the Comelec to disclose or publish the names of the nominees of party-list groups, sectors or organizations accredited to participate in the May 14, 2007 elections, the 2 petitions are GRANTED. Accordingly, the Comelec is hereby ORDERED to immediately disclose and release the names of the nominees of the party-list groups,

1. The Court is unable to grant the desired plea of petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR for cancellation of accreditation on the grounds thus advanced in their petition. The exercise would require the Court to make a factual determination, a matter which is outside the office of judicial review by way of special civil action for certiorari. In certiorari proceedings, the Court is not called upon to decide factual issues and the case must be decided on the undisputed facts on record. The sole function of a writ of certiorari is to address issues of want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and does not include a review of the tribunal’s evaluation of the evidence. (note that nowhere in R.A. No. 7941 is there a requirement that the qualification of a party-list nominee be determined simultaneously with the accreditation of an organization. )

2. Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, viz:

Sec.7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

Section 28, Article II of the Constitution reading:

Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

COMELEC’s basis of its refusal to disclose the names of the nominees of subject party-list groups, Section 7 of R.A. 7941,which last sentence reads: "[T]he names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list" is certainly not a justifying card for the Comelec to deny the requested disclosure. There is absolutely nothing in R.A. No. 7941 that prohibits the Comelec from disclosing or even publishing through mediums other than the "Certified List" of the names.

It has been repeatedly said in various contexts that the people have the right to elect their representatives on the basis of an informed judgment. While the vote cast in a party-list elections is a vote for a party, such vote, in the end, would be a vote for its nominees, who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit in the House of Representatives. The Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law or rules that would hinder in any way the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election

3. COMELEC has a constitutional duty to disclose and release the names of the nominees of the party-list groups named in the herein petitions. The right to information is a public right where the real parties in interest are the public, or the citizens to be precise, but like all constitutional guarantees, however, the right to information and its companion right of access to official records are not absolute. The people’s right to know is limited to "matters of public concern" and is further subject to such limitation as may be provided by law. But no national security or like concerns is involved in the disclosure of the names of the nominees of the party-list groups in question. Doubtless, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing the legitimate demands of the petitioners for a list of the nominees of the party-list groups subject of their respective petitions. Mandamus, therefore, lies.

BANAT v. COMELEC August 7, 2009

digested by Ms. Araceli Gloria

Facts: This is a petition for Prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction filed by petitioner Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) Party List (petitioner) assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9369 (RA 9369)and enjoining respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from implementing the statute.

RA 9369 is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2231 and House Bill No. 5352 passed by the Senate on 7 December 2006 and the House of Representatives on 19 December 2006.On 23 January 2007, less than four months before the 14 May 2007 local elections.


On 7 May 2007, petitioner, a duly accredited multi-sectoral organization, filed this petition for prohibition alleging that RA 9369 violated Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution.Petitioner also assails the constitutionality of Sections 34, 37, 38, and 43 of RA 9369.According to petitioner, these provisions are of questionable application and doubtful validity for failing to comply with the provisions of the Constitution.

Petitioner argues the following:

1. the title of RA 9369 is misleading because it speaks of poll automation but contains substantial provisions dealing with the manual canvassing of election returns.Petitioner also alleges that Sections 34, 37, 38, and 43are neither embraced in the title nor germane to the subject matter of RA 9369.

2. Sections 37 and 38 violate the Constitution by impairing the powers of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET).According to petitioner, under the amended provisions, Congress as the National Board of Canvassers for the election of President and Vice President (Congress), and the COMELECen banc as the National Board of Canvassers (COMELEC en banc), for the election of Senatorsmay now entertain pre-proclamation cases in the election of the President, Vice President, and Senators.Petitioner concludes that in entertaining pre-proclamation cases, Congress and the COMELEC en banc undermine the independence and encroach upon the jurisdiction of the PET and the SET.

3. Section 43 is unconstitutional because it gives the other prosecuting arms of the government concurrent power with the COMELEC to investigate and prosecute election offenses.

4. section 34 which fixes the per diem of poll watchers of the dominant majority and dominant minority parties at Pon election day.Petitioner argues that this violates the freedom of the parties to contract and their right to fix the terms and conditions of the contract they see as fair, equitable and just. Petitioner adds that this is a purely private contract using private funds which cannot be regulated by law.


Issue/s:


Whether or not RA 9369 is unconstitutional.

-Sections 37 and 38 violate Section 17, Article VI and Paragraph 7, Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution;

-Section 43 violates Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the Constitution

-Section 34 violates Section 10, Article III of the Constitution


Ruling: The petition is denied.RA 9369 is constitutional.

1. RA 9369 is an amendatory act entitled An Act Amending Republic Act No. 8436, Entitled An Act Authorizing the Commission on Elections to Use an Automated Election System in the May 11, 1998 National or Local Elections and in Subsequent National and Local Electoral Exercises, to Encourage Transparency, Credibility, Fairness and Accuracy of Elections, Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as Amended, Republic Act No. 7166 and Other Related Election Laws, Providing Funds Therefor and For Other Purposes.Clearly, the subject matter of RA 9369 covers the amendments to RA 8436, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (BP 881),Republic Act No. 7166 (RA 7166),and other related election laws to achieve its purpose of promoting transparency, credibility, fairness, and accuracy in the elections.The provisions of RA 9369 assailed by petitioner deal with amendments to specific provisions of RA 7166 and BP 881, specifically: (1) Sections 34, 37 and 38 amend Sections 26, 30 and 15 of RA 7166, respectively; and(2) Section 43 of RA 9369 amends Section 265 of BP 881.Therefore, the assailed provisions are germane to the subject matter ofRA 9369 which is to amend RA 7166 and BP 881, among others.

2. The COMELEC maintains that the amendments introduced by Section 37 pertain only to the adoption and application of the procedures on pre-proclamation controversies in case of any discrepancy, incompleteness, erasure or alteration in the certificates of canvass.The COMELEC adds that Section 37 does not provide that Congress and the COMELEC en bancmay now entertain pre-proclamation cases for national elective posts.

3. Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the Constitution vests in the COMELEC the power to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.COMELEC has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute election offenses, it likewise authorizes the COMELEC to avail itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government. In the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the authority of the COMELEC was subsequently qualified and explained.

4. The OSG argues that petitioner erroneously invoked the non-impairment clause because this only applies to previously perfected contracts.In this case, there is no perfected contact and, therefore, no obligation will be impaired. Both the COMELEC and the OSG argue that the law is a proper exercise of police power and it will prevail over a contract.According to the COMELEC, poll watching is not just an ordinary contract but is an agreement with the solemn duty to ensure the sanctity of votes.The role of poll watchers is vested with public interest which can be regulated by Congress in the exercise of its police power.The OSG further argues that the assurance that the poll watchers will receive fair and equitable compensation promotes the general welfare.The OSG also states that this was a reasonable regulation considering that the dominant majority and minority parties will secure a copy of the election returns and are given the right to assign poll watchers inside the polling precincts.



Note/s:

1. Section 34 which provides:



SEC. 34. Sec. 26 of Republic Act No. 7166 is hereby amended to cralawread as follows:

SEC. 26. Official Watchers. - Every registered political party or coalition of political parties, and every candidate shall each be entitled to one watcher in every polling place and canvassing center: Provided That, candidates for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlunsod, or Sangguniang Bayan belonging to the same slate or ticket shall collectively be entitled to only one watcher.

The dominant majority party and dominant minority party, which the Commission shall determine in accordance with law, shall each be entitled to one official watcher who shall be paid a fixed per diem of four hundred pesos (400.00)
There shall also recognized six principal watchers, representing the six accredited major political parties excluding the dominant majority and minority parties, who shall be designated by the Commission upon nomination of the said parties. These political parties shall be determined by the Commission upon notice and hearing on the basis of the following circumstances:

(a) The established record of the said parties, coalition of groups that now composed them, taking into account, among other things, their showing in past election;
(b) The number of incumbent elective officials belonging to them ninety cralaw(90) days before the date of election;

(c) Their identifiable political organizations and strengths as evidenced by their organized/chapters;

(d) The ability to fill a complete slate of candidates from the municipal level to the position of President; and

(e) Other analogous circumstances that may determine their relative organizations and strengths.


Section 37 which provides:

SEC. 37.Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7166 is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 30. Congress as the National Board of Canvassers for the Election of President and Vice President: The Commission en banc as the National Board of Canvassers for the election of senators: Determination of Authenticity and Due Execution of Certificates of Canvass. Congress and the Commission en banc shall determine the authenticity and due execution of the certificate of canvass for president and vice president and senators, respectively, as accomplished and transmitted to it by the local boards of canvassers, on a showing that: (1) each certificate of canvass was executed, signed and thumbmarked by the chairman and members of the board of canvassers and transmitted or caused to be transmitted to Congress by them; (2) each certificate of canvass contains the names of all of the candidates for president and vice president or senator, as the case may be, and their corresponding votes in words and their corresponding votes in words and in figures; (3) there exits no discrepancy in other authentic copies of the certificates of canvass or any of its supporting documents such as statement of votes by city/municipality/by precinct or discrepancy in the votes of any candidate in words and figures in the certificate; and (4) there exist no discrepancy in the votes of any candidate in words and figures in the certificates of canvass against the aggregate number of votes appearing in the election returns of precincts covered by the certificate of canvass: Provided, That certified print copies of election returns or certificates of canvass may be used for the purpose of verifying the existence of the discrepancy.

When the certificate of canvass, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province, city of district, appears to be incomplete, the Senate President or the Chairman of the Commission, as the case may be, shall require the board of canvassers concerned to transmit by personal delivery, the election returns form polling places that were not included in the certificate of canvass and supporting statements. Said election returns shall be submitted by personal delivery within two (2) days from receipt of notice.

When it appears that any certificate of canvass or supporting statement of votes by city/municipality or by precinct bears erasures or alteration which may cast doubt as to the veracity of the number of votes stated herein and may affect the result of the election, upon requested of the presidential, vice presidential or senatorial candidate concerned or his party, Congress or the Commission en banc, as the case may be shall, for the sole purpose of verifying the actual number of votes cast for president, vice president or senator, count the votes as they appear in the copies of the election returns submitted to it.

In case of any discrepancy, incompleteness, erasure or alteration as mentioned above, the procedure on pre-proclamation controversies shall be adopted and applied as provided in Section 17,18,19 and 20.

Any person who present in evidence a simulated copy of an election return, certificate of canvass or statement of votes, or a printed copy of an election return, certificate of canvass or statement of votes bearing a simulated certification or a simulated image, shall be guilty of an election offense shall be penalized in accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. cralaw


Section 38 which provides:


38. Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166 is hereby amended to read as follows:

15. Pre-proclamation Cases in Elections for President, Vice President, Senator, and Member of the House of Representatives. - For purposes of the elections for president, vice president, senator, and member of the House of Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of election returns or the certificates of canvass, as the case may be, except as provided for in Section 30 hereof.However, this does not preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu proprio or upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before it.

Questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the board ofcanvassers may be initiated in the board or directly with the Commission in accordance with Section 19 hereof.

Any objection on the election returns before the city or municipal board of canvassers, or on the municipal certificates of canvass before the provincial board of canvassers or district board of canvassers in Metro Manila Area, shall be specifically noticed in the minutes of the respective proceedings.


Section 43 which provides:

43. Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 265. Prosecution. The Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have the power, concurrent with the other prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and to prosecute the same.

Nicolas-Lewis vs COMELEC, GR no. 162759 August 4, 2006

Facts: Petitioners are successful applicants for recognition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 which accords to such applicants the right of suffrage, among others. Long before the May 2004 national and local elections, petitioners sought registration and certification as "overseas absentee voter only to be advised by the Philippine Embassy in the United States that, per a COMELEC letter to the Department of Foreign Affairs dated September 23, 2003, they have yet no right to vote in such elections owing to their lack of the one-year residence requirement prescribed by the Constitution. The same letter, however, urged the different Philippine posts abroad not to discontinue their campaign for voter’s registration, as the residence restriction adverted to would contextually affect merely certain individuals who would likely be eligible to vote in future elections. Prodded for clarification by petitioner Loida Nicolas-Lewis in the light of the ruling in Macalintal vs. COMELEC on the residency requirement, the COMELEC wrote in response:Faced with the prospect of not being able to vote in the May 2004 elections owing to the COMELEC's refusal to include them in the National Registry of Absentee Voters, petitioner Nicolas-Lewis et al., filed on April 1, 2004 this petition for certiorari and mandamus. A little over a week before the May 10, 2004 elections, or on April 30, 2004, the COMELEC filed a Comment, therein praying for the denial of the petition. As may be expected, petitioners were not able to register let alone vote in said elections.On May 20, 2004, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Manifestation (in Lieu of Comment), therein stating that "all qualified overseas Filipinos, including dual citizens who care to exercise the right of suffrage, may do so" , observing, however, that the conclusion of the 2004 elections had rendered the petition moot and academic. The holding of the 2004 elections had, as the OSG pointed out, indeed rendered the petition moot and academic, but insofar only as petitioners’ participation in such political exercise is concerned. The broader and transcendental issue tendered or subsumed in the petition, i.e., the propriety of allowing "duals" to participate and vote as absentee voter in future elections, however, remains unresolved.

Issue: whether or not petitioners and others who might have meanwhile retained and/or reacquired Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. 9225 may vote as absentee voter under R.A. 9189.

Held: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court rules and so holds that those who retain or re‑acquire Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Re‑Acquisition Act of 2003, may exercise the right to vote under the system of absentee voting in Republic Act No. 9189, the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003.

Mercado vs Dysangco 385 SCRA 329, July 30, 2002

Facts: In a sworn complaint dated May 29, 1997, complainants Flordeliza C. Alejo, Arsenio L. Carpio, Cirilo I. Mercado, and Pedro V. Soriano charged Judge Hector F. Dysangco, Acting Presiding Judge of the 2^nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Natividad-Llanera, Nueva Ecija, and Teresita S. Esteban, Clerk of Court of the same court, with grave misconduct. The complainants alleged that prior to the Barangay Elections of May 12, 1997, forty-eight (48) persons filed with the said court separate petitions for inclusion in the voters’ list. Of these forty-eight (48) petitioners, nine (9) were supporters of complainant Cirilo I. Mercado, while thirty-nine (39) were supporters of his opponent Alejandro Gonzales. Mercado and Gonzales were candidates for the position of Barangay Chairman of Kabulihan, Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija. Consequently, Mercado and the other complainants filed an opposition to the petition of the thirty-nine (39) supporters of Gonzales. The hearings of the petitions were set on April 17, April 28, May 6, May 8, and May 9, 1997. The first three scheduled hearings were cancelled due to the absence of either respondent judge or petitioners’ counsel. The May 8 hearing proceeded but only the nine (9) petitioners supporting complainant Mercado presented their evidence. The thirty-nine (39) petitioners supporting Gonzales requested the postponement of the hearing to May 9. However, on that day, those petitioners and their counsel failed to appear in court. Thus, respondent judge dismissed their petitions in open court.On May 10 (Saturday), respondent judge, when approached by herein complainants, assured them that he did not issue any order for the inclusion of the thirty-nine (39) petitioners in the voters’ list of Barangay Kabulihan.However, on the day of the election, complainants were surprised to find thirty-four (34) of the thirty-nine (39) petitioners with an Order signed by respondent judge and attested by respondent clerk of court,² directing their inclusion in the voters’ list of Barangay Kabulihan.Complainants averred that the issuance of the Order by respondent judge was "highly anomalous, illegal, and patently of dubious origin" because not one of the thirty-nine (39) petitioners presented evidence or appeared in the scheduled hearings. Respondents, therefore, aided and abetted thirty-four (34) flying voters in violating the Election Laws and in influencing the result of the Barangay Elections in Kabulihan, Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija. Respondents filed separate comments on the complaint. Respondent judge denied committing any anomaly in ordering the inclusion of the thirty–four (34) petitioners in the voters’ list of Barangay Kabulihan. He explained that his Order was based on his interviews with those petitioners, who registered as voters in the said barangay during the registration on June 14-15 and 21-22, 1997, per Certification issued by the Office of the Election Officer.

Issue: whether or not Judge Dysangco is held for gross ignorance of law or procedure and gross misconduct constituting violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct

Held: WHEREFORE, for gross ignorance of law or procedure and gross misconduct constituting violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, respondent Judge HECTOR F. DYSANGCO, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija, then Acting Presiding Judge of the 2^nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Natividad-Llanera, same province, is SUSPENDED for four (4) months without salary and other benefits. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.