Election Laws

Construction and Limitations of Election Laws By: Shiela Mae B. Basadre

MARUHOM vs. COMELEC FACTS: Maruhom and Dimaporo were both candidates for Mayor in the Municipality of Marogong, Lanao del Sur in the 1998 automated elections. During the counting of votes, serious irregularities, anomalies and electoral frauds were committed at the instance of petitioner. Some official ballots were refused or rejected by the counting machine. The watchers or representatives of Dimaporo have requested and insisted that the ballots bevre-fed to the automated machine but were refused by the election officers. As a result of the foregoing irregularities, anomalies and electoral frauds, the Maruhom was illegally proclaimed as winner. Dimaporo filed an election protest for the manual counting of the ballots. Dimaporo maintains that the automated counting of ballots does not preclude the filing of the election protest for the judicial recount and revision of ballots. ISSUE: WON COMELEC is precluded from conducting a manual count when the automated counting system fails? NO. HELD: Section 2 (1) of Article IX of the Constitution gives the COMELEC the broad power to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall." There can hardly be any doubt that the text and intent of this constitutional provision is to give COMELEC all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. In accordance with this intent, the Court has been liberal in defining the parameters of the COMELECs powers in conducting elections. Succinctly stated, laws and statutes governing election contests especially the appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities.[23] An election protest is imbued with public interest so much so that the need to dispel uncertainties which becloud the real choice of the people is imperative,[24] much more so in this case considering that a mere twenty (20) votes separates the winner from the loser of the contested election results. PENA vs COMELEC Pena and Abueg were contenders for the Congressional office in the May 8, 1995 elections. Abueg was proclaimed by HRET as the winner. Pena questioned the election of Abueg as a member of the House of Representatives representing the province of Palawan. Pena, as protestant, filed a petition and averred that the elections in the precincts of the Second District of Palawan were tainted with massive fraud, widespread vote-buying, intimidation and terrorism and other serious irregularities committed before, during and after the voting, and during the counting of votes and the preparation of election returns and certificates of canvass which affected the results of the election. Abueg filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the fact that the petition failed to allege the precincts where the massive fraud and disenfranchisement of voters occurred, nor did it point out how many votes would be

gained by the protestant as a result of the same. The Protestant failed to specify which are the 700 precincts, out of the said 743 precincts, that are included in his protest; he even failed to allege the municipalities where the protested precincts are located. Consequently, Pena filed a Summary of contested Precincts in order to amend the original petition. The HRET granted Abuegs Motion to Dismiss due to failure of the petition (Protest) is fatally insufficient in form and substance. ISSUE: WON the HRET should grant Abuegs Motion to Dismiss due to failure of the petition to specify the precincts where irregularities allegedly occurred? YES HELD: The defect in the instant case arises from the failure to allege the contested precincts. Only a bare allegation of massive fraud, widespread intimidation and terrorism and other serious irregularities, without specification, and substantiation, of where and how these occurences took place, appears in the petition. We cannot allow an election protest based on such flimsy averments to prosper, otherwise, the whole election process will deteriorate into an endless stream of crabs pulling at each other, racing to disembank from the water. Although Abueg filed a Summary of contested Precincts. Still it did not cure the defect because it was was submitted only after the Motion to Dismiss had been filed. The Court has already ruled in Joker P. Arroyo vs. HRET, [7] that substantial amendments to the protest may be allowed only within the same period for filing the election protest, which, under Rule 16 of the HRET Rules of Procedure is ten (10) days after proclamation of the winner. Date of Declaration: May 12, 1995 Deadline for filing the protest and amendments: May 22, 2012 Date of filing the protest: May 22, 2012 (ok) Date of submitting the Summary of Conteted precincts: June 22, 2012 (not ok-filed beyond the deadline) While it is conceded that statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by mere technical questions, the rule likewise stands, that in an election protest, the protestant must stand or fall upon the issues he had raised in his original or amended pleading filed prior to the lapse of the statutory period for filing of the protest.[8] Admittedly, the rule is well-established that the power to annul an election should be exercised with the greatest care as it involves the free and fair expression of the popular will. BINCE- refer to SIGMA transcriptions TRINIDAD vs COMELEC FACTS: Petitioner Trinidad won the May 1995 elections. Private respondent Sunga filed a disqualification case against petitioner and asking the COMELEC to proclaim him as the duly elected mayor. COMELEC promulgated it decision on June 22, 1998, disqualifying Trinidad. Petitioner filed a Motion For Reconsideration claiming that he was deprived of due process. Petitioner was again proclaimed winner in the

1|Page

Election Laws
Construction and Limitations of Election Laws By: Shiela Mae B. Basadre

May 1998 elections. On October 13, 1998 COMELEC denied petitioners MR as well as annulling his proclamation as elected mayor. ISSUE: WON private respondent, as the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes, may be proclaimed as Mayor in the event of petitioners disqualification. HELD: NO. As earlier decided by the Supreme Court, the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is disqualified. That would be disenfranchising the electorate without any fault on their part and to undermine the importance and meaning of democracy and the peoples right to elect officials of their choice PUNZALAN vs COMELEC Danilo Manalastas, Ferdinand Meneses and Ernesto Punzalan were among the four (4) candidates for mayor of the municipality of Mexico, Pampanga during the May 8, 1995 elections. On May 24, 1995, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed Ferdinand Meneses as the duly elected mayor. Manalastas and Punzalan filed election protests questioning the election results. The election contests sought the nullification of the election of Meneses allegedly due to massive fraud, irregularities and other illegal electoral practices during the registration and the voting as well as during the counting of votes. Because of these irregularities, the trial court was constrained to examine the contested ballots and the handwritings appearing thereon and came up with the declaration that Punzalan was the winner in the elections. Meneses sought to annul the declaration of Punzalan as the winner. The former was annulled and the Commission declared Meneses as the Mayo with modification to the number of votes. Punzalan filed Punzalan filed a petition to set aside the COMELECs resolutions contending that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by declaring as valid the ballots credited to Meneses which did not bear the signature of the BEI chairman at the back. ISSUE: WON the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. NO. HELD: While Section 24[11] of Republic Act No. 7166, otherwise known as An Act Providing For Synchronized National and Local Elections and For Electoral Reforms, requires the BEI chairman to affix his signature at the back of the ballot, the mere failure to do so does not invalidate the same although it may constitute an election offense imputable to said BEI chairman. Nowhere in said provision does it state that the votes contained therein shall be nullified. It is a well-settled rule that the failure of the BEI chairman or any of the members of the board to comply with their mandated administrative responsibility, i.e., signing, authenticating and thumbmarking of ballots, should not penalize the voter with disenfranchisement, thereby frustrating the will of the people. In closing, we would like to stress a well-founded rule ensconced in our jurisprudence that laws and statutes governing election contests especially appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities. [30] An election protest is imbued with public interest so much so that the need to dispel uncertainties which becloud the real choice of the people is imperative.

BAUTISTA vs COMELEC FACTS: Sergio Bautista and Roberto Miguel were candidates for Barangay Captain at Barangay Teachers Village East, Quezon City. After canvass, petitioner Bautista was proclaimed the winner by the Barangay Board of Canvassers on May 17, 1982 with a plurality of two (2) votes. Miguel filed an election protest on the ground of fraud and illegal acts or practices allegedly committed by Bautista. A revision and recounting of the ballots was conducted which resulted in a tie. The trial court rendered a decision declaring Miguel to have received the same number of votes as the protestee Sergio Bautista. Miguel filed an appeal since there were ballots which were counted in favour of Bautista. These ballots were not duly authenticated by the absence of the signature of the Chairman of the Board of Election Tellers at the back thereof. An examination of the back portion of the ballots reveals that it is completely blank of any signature or initial. As a consequence, Miguel was declared as the elected Barangay Captain with a plurality of 24 votes over Bautista. Sergio Bautista filed the instant petition for review by certiorari questioning WON a ballot which does not contain the signature of the poll chairman be considered a valid ballot. HELD: NO. The mandatory requirement of authentication of ballots is found in Sec. 14 of B.P. 222 and in Sec. 36 of COMELEC Resolution No. 1539, and the legal consequence for the absence of such authentication is stated precisely in Sec. 36, sub-par. (f), and generally in Sec. 152 of the 1978 Election Code, . . . (p. 84, Rollo) (f) When ballot may be considered spoiled . Any ballot returned to the chairman with its coupon already detached, or which does not bear the signature of the chairman, or any ballot with a serial number that does not tally with the serial number of the ballot delivered to the voter as recorded in the voting record, shall be considered as spoiled and shall be marked and signed by the members of the board and shall not be counted . The law (Sec. 14 of B.P. 222) and the rules implementing it (Sec. 36 of Comelec Res. No. 1539) leave no room for interpretation. The absence of the signature of the Chairman of the Board of Election Tellers in the ballot given to a voter as required by law and the rules as proof of the authenticity of said ballot is fatal. This requirement is mandatory for the validity of the said ballot.

2|Page