ELECTION LAW Congress has an unlimited power to enact laws

relative to the exercise of suffrage.

Suffrage: the right to vote in the election of
officers chosen by the people and in the Theories on Suffrage:
determination of questions submitted to the people.
It includes ELECTION, PLEBISCITE, 1. As a right- expression of sovereign will of
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. the people
2. As Privilege- Not granted to everybody but
ELECTION: people choose their official for a to such person who may exercise it for
definite and fixed period, to whom they entrust the common good
power of the government. REGULAR AND 3. As a Duty- which every citizen owes his
SPECIAL ELECTION country

B. Theories on Suffrage. Kinds of Election:

1. Natural right theory: Suffrage is a natural and 1. Regular

inherent right of every citizen who is not 2. Special
disqualified by reason of his own reprehensible
conduct or unfitness. Election Period

2. Social expediency: Suffrage is a public office or 90 days before the election and ends in 30 days
function conferred upon the citizen for reasons of thereafter.
social expediency; conferred upon those who are fit Campaign Period:
and capable of discharging it.
Pres and VP 90 days
3. Tribal theory: It is a necessary attribute of Congress 45 days
membership in the State. Local 45 days
Brgy Election 15 days
4. Feudal theory: It is an adjunct of a particular Special Election 45 days
status, generally tenurial in character, i.e., a vested
privilege usually accompanying ownership of land.
Campaign period does not include the day before
5. Ethical theory: It is a necessary and essential and the day of election.
means for the development of society
KAtipunan ng KAbataan 15-30 years old
Suffrage is both a PRIVILEGE and an
OBLIGATION SK Election: Chairman and 7 member. Secretary
and Treasurer shall be appointed from Katipunan ng
AUSTRALIAN SYSTEM, Francis Dutton kabataan. Chairma: 18-24 years old
Purpose of Election:

To give the voters direct participation in the affairs E. Constitutional mandate on Congress [Sec. 2,
of their government, either in determining who shall Art. V, Constitution]:
be their public officials or in deciding some
question of public interest. 1. To provide a system for securing the secrecy and
sanctity of the ballot, and for absentee voting by
Regulation: qualified Filipinos abroad.
RA 7166: provides for absentee voting but only 2. Exclusive Jurisdiction over PRE-
limited to PRESIDENT, VP, SENATORS, and PROCLAMATION controversis for national
limited to members of the Armed Forces of the and local elections.
Philippines and the Philippine National Police
and other government officers and employees Decision: majority vote of all of its members.
who are duly registered voters and who, on JURISDICTION OF COMELEC
election day, may temporarily be assigned in
connection with the performance of election In DIVISION:
duties to places where they are not registered
1. Petition for Certiorari from the decision of
voters
RTC and MTC
RA 9189: OVERSEES ABSENTEE VOTING 2. Cases appealed from RTC and MTC
ACT OF 2003. 3. Petition to cancel COC
4. Pre-proclamation contests
2. To design a procedure for the disabled and the
illiterate to vote without the assistance of other EN- BANC
persons.
1. MR for the decision of Division
F. Election period. Unless otherwise fixed by the 2. Petition for correction of manifest error due
Comelec in special cases, the election period shall to copying of figures from election returns
commence 90 days before the day of the election to Statement of Votes by precinct
and shall end 30 days thereafter [Sec. 9, Art. IX-C, 3. Cases involve Violation of Election Laws
Constitution]. 4. Cases when they did not exercise
adjudicatory power (administrative in
nature)
COMMISSION ON ELECTION APELLATE JURISDICTION only from the
- IT is an independent tribunal composed of a decision of Trial Courts and not in Division.
Chairman and 6 commissioner who must be: For intra-party disputes, COMELEC may intervene
1. Natural Born Citizen only when necessary in the discharge of their
2. At least 35 years old constitutional function involves ascertainment of
3. College degree political party and its legitimate officer.
4. Not a candidate of immediately preceding
election JURISDICTION OF Right to suffrage: MTC and
5. Majority shall be a member of the bar with Metc not COMELEC.
atleast 10 years of experience
A final order of COMELEC may be brought by
aggrieved party to SUPREME COURT via
certiorari under Rule 65 within 30days from notice
The president shall appoint with the concurrence of of judgment.
Commission of appointment for 7 years without re
appointment. POWERS AND FUNCTION OF COMELEC

EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION: 1. Ensure free, honest, credible and peaceful

election.- It do not have the power to annul
1. ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS relative to the election from Senate to Presidential
conduct of election. election, their power is merely
 PREVENTIVE and not CURATIVE. If they 3. Residence: who shall have resided in the
did not prevent other agency is charge to Philippines for at least one year and in the
remedy election fraud. place wherein they propose to vote for at
2. Rule Making Power- least six months immediately preceding the
3. Enforcement and Administration of election. – except for qualified Filipino
election laws Abroad
4. Exclusive control and supervision over the
Automated Election System
5. Power to punish in contempt and issue Any person who transfer residence to another city,
subpoena municipality or country by reason of occupation,
6. Power to issue auxillary writs and processes profession or employment SHALL NOT be deemed
7. Power to decide election cases within its to have lost his original residence.
jurisdiction in the exercise of Quasi-Judicial
Function. 4. No literacy, property, or other substantive
Specific Powers: requirement shall be imposed on the
exercise of suffrage
1. Power to declare failure of election 5. Not otherwise disqualified by law
2. To call for special election via statutory
grant DISQUALIFICATION/ DISQUALIFY TO
3. To postpone election REGISTER
4. To correct manifest errors in election 1. A person sentence to suffer imprisonment
5. To order- recanvass of votes for not less than 1 year unless granted
6. To annu or suspend the proclamation of amnesty or plenary pardon: BUT RIGHT IS
candidates REACQUIRED UPON EXPIRATION OF 5
7. To annul an illegal canvass YEARS AFTER SERVICE OF
8. To transfer polling places SENTENCE.
9. To transfer venue of canvassing votes 2. Adjudged by final judgment of any crime
10. To order opening of ballot boxes involving disloyalty to government or
11. To conduct Initiative. Referendum, recall against national security: reacquired after 5
and plebiscites. years of service of sentence
12. To investigate and prosecute election 3. Insane or incompetent person as declared by
offenses competent authority
13. To deputize enforcement agencies

VOTERS QUALIFICATION AND

REGISTRATION REGISTRATION OF VOTERS

A. Qualifications for suffrage: “Suffrage may - He must be registered in the permanent list
be exercised by: of voters in the City or Municipality. It does
1. Citizenship- all citizens of the Philippines not confer the right to vote but only a
not otherwise disqualified by law, condition precedent to the exercise of right
2. Age-who are at least eighteen years of age at
System of Continuing Registration- conducted daily
the date of election, and
bin the office of election officer but no registration
shall be conducted 120 days before the regular INSTANCES WHEN THE LIST OF VOTERS
election and 90 days before special election. WILL BE ALTERED:

ILLITERATE AND DISABLED VOTERS: DEACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION:

Assisted by ELECTION OFFICER or citizens arm.
Application may be prepared by relative within 4 th 1. A person sentence to suffer imprisonment
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of by for not less than 1 year unless granted
election officier or accredited citizen arm. amnesty or plenary pardon: BUT RIGHT IS
REACQUIRED UPON EXPIRATION OF 5
ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD: There YEARS AFTER SERVICE OF
shall be in each city and municipality as many SENTENCE.
Election Registration Boards as there are election 2. Adjudged by final judgment of any crime
officers therein. The Board shall be composed of involving disloyalty to government or
the against national security: reacquired after 5
years of service of sentence
a. Election Officer as chairman, 3. Insane or incompetent person as declared by
b. and as members, the public school official
competent authority
most senior in rank 4. ANY person who did not vote in the two
c. and the local civil registrar, or in his
successive preceding regular election as
absence, the city or municipal treasurer. shown by their voting records
5. Any person who has been ordered excluded
d. No member of the Board shall be related to by the court
each other or to any incumbent city or 6. Any person who has lost his Filipino
municipal elective official within the fourth Citizenship
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.
Every registered party and such REACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION: Must
organizations as may be authorized by the file a sworn application stating that the grounds no
Commission shall be entitled to a watcher in longer exist for reactivation not later than 120 days/
every registration board. 90 days

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION

PROCEEDINGS AND CORRECTION OF
CHALLENGES TO RIGHT TO REGISTER: NAMES: (FICTITIOUS) The petition shall be
Any voter, candidate or representative of registered heard and decided within 10 days from the date of
political party may challenge in writing any its filing. Cases appealed to the RTC shall be
application for registration. Must be under oath. decided within 10 days from receipt of the appeal.
Must be filed every not later than SECOND In all cases, the court shall decide these petitions not
MONDAY of the month and heard every THIRD later than 15 days before the election and the
MONDAY AND decision SHALL BE AT THE decision shall become final and executor
END OF THE MONTH.
JURISDICTION: MTC APPEALABLE TO rtc
BIOMETRIC REGISTRATION is constitutional. WITHIN 5 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF NOTICE
and the RTC shall decide within 10 days from
receipt. It iwill be final and no MR.

PETITION FOR INCLUSION: Names that has

been stricken off from the list or disapproved for
registration may file 105/75 days prior. MTC and LGU: Filipino Citizen, registered voter, able to read
MeTC Jurisdication appealable to RTC within 5 and write, 23,21, 18, resident for atleast 1 year.
days and RTC shall decide within 10 days and it
shall be final and executor.

PETITION FOR EXCLUSION: Any REGISTER WHEN SHOULD BE POSSESSED: upon

VOTER, or REPRESENTATIVE of Political Party proclamation and the day that his terms begins
or Election Officer may file at any time except DISQUALIFICATION:
100/65 days prior
1. Incompetent or Insane
2. Sentenced by final judgment for
CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION: those subversion, insurrection, rebellion or any
who have died as certified by Civil Registrar offense with penalty of more than 18
months imprisonment
ANNULMENT OF BOOK OF VOTERS: Those 3. MORAL TURPITUDE: BP 22, Violation
not prepared in accordance with RA 8189, prepared of Anti- Fencing Law, bribery, libel
thru fraud, bribery, forgery, impersonation and 4. Permanent Resident or immigrant of
force or contains statistically improbable data. foreign country (holder of green card)

ADDITIONAL DISQUALIFICATION

CANDIDATES; CERTIFICATES OF 1. Who give money to induce or corrupt the

CANDIDACY voters
2. Who committed acts of terrorism to enhance
Candidate: one who filed COC or through an candidacy
accredited political party. 3. Who spent election campaign in excess of
Liable for election offenses only upon the start of what is allowed
the Campaign period. 4. One who solicited, received or made
contribution prohibited under Sec 89
(transportation, food and drinks, financial
institution, foreign source contribution)
QUALIFICATIONS: It is a continuing
5. One who violated provisions campaign
requirements during tenure, once any qualification
period, removal destruction of election
is lost his title to the office may be seasonably
propaganda
challenged.
6. One who is permanent resident of or
President: Nautral Born, registered voter. Able to immigrant to a foreign country
read or write. 40 years old. Resident atleast 10 7. Committed election offenses
years.

Senator: Natural Born, registered voter. Able to

DISQUALIFICATION FOR LOCAL
read or write. 35 years old. Resident atleast 2 years.
GOVERNMENT UNITS
District Representative: Natural Born, registered
1. Those sentence by final judgment for an
voter in district in which he shall be elected, able to
offense involving moral turpitude or offense
read and write, 25 years old.
punishable by one year or more
imprisonment, within 2 years after serving
 sentence. PROBATIONED can be a DEATH, DISQUALIFICATION OR
candidate and not disqualified. WITHRAWAL OF CANDIDATE: - only a
2. Those removed from office as a result of person belonging to same political party may file
Administrative Case- those removed prior certificate of candidacy not later than the mid-day
to RA 7160 can still run, the provision of of the day of the election.
LGC shall not be given retro effect.
3. Convicted by final judgment for violating The withdrawal of the withdrawal for the
the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the purpose of reviving the COC must be made
Philippines. within the period provided by law.
4. Those with dual citizenship, means dual WITHDRAWAL may be filed not only in the
allegiance. Mere dual citizenship do not fall same office it was filed. It can be filed directly in
under disqualification. Upon filing of COC main office, Office of regional election director,
it renounces foreign citizenship. Those who provincial election supervisor of the province or
reacquired citizenship under RA9225 there office of municipal election officer.
must be an oath, mere filing of COC does
not suffice. SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATES:
5. Fugitive from justice in criminal and non-
Requisites:
political case here and abroad. FUGITIVE-
those who has been convicted and flee to 1. There is a valid COC
avoid prosecution 2. The original candidate died, withdrawn or
6. Permanent resident in foreign country or disqualified
those who acquired the right to reside 3. There is a valid withdrawal of the COC after
abroad (possession of green card) the last of filing
7. Insane and feebleminded 4. The substitute belongs to the same political
party
5. Substitute file not later than the mid day of
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY: election
6. The substitute qualifies for the position
Effects: Officials holding appointive offices shall
be considered as IPSO FACTO RESIGNED. It NOT ALLOWED SUBSTITUTION:
applies to GOCCs without an original charter
1. If independent candidate
For Elective Officials: not forfeit his seats 2. If the candidate has been denied due
otherwise known as Fair election Act- not course/ cancelled prior to attempted
considered resigned. substitution under Section 77 of OEC

FORMAL DEFECTS IN COC: such as lack of Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to
required oath, COC shall not be annulled or cause or cancel a certificate of candidacy. - A
disqualification. verified petition seeking to deny due
course or to cancel a certificate of
FILING OF TWO CERTIFICATES OF candidacy may be filed by the person
CANDIDACY: he becomes ineligible for either exclusively on the ground that any
position. He may withdraw one before the deadline material representation contained
for filing of COC. therein as required under Section 74
hereof is false. The petition may be filed
at any time not later than twenty-five
days from the time of the filing of the faithful determination of the true
certificate of candidacy and shall be will of the electorate.
decided, after due notice and hearing, 2. There is a petition to deny due course or
not later than fifteen days before the cancel the COC- material representation is
election false. Shall be filed within 25 days from the
filing of COC, and shall be decided after due
SAME SURNAME POLICY:.
notice and hearing not later than 15 days
The substitute for a candidate who died or is before election. Sec78
disqualified by final judgment may file COC 3. Filing of Disqualification case on any of the
from Dec 11 up to the Mid day provided the ground under Sec 68 (Sec. 68.
substitute has the SAME SURNAME. Disqualifications. - Any candidate
who, in an action or protest in
which he is a party is declared by
final decision of a competent court
MINISTERIAL DUTY OF COMELEC
guilty of, or found by the
DUTY OF COMELEC: shall only have ministerial Commission of having (a) given
duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of COC, IT money or other material
CANNOT DENY DUE COURSE OR CANCEL A consideration to influence, induce
coc FILED IN DUE FORM, it may not go into or corrupt the voters or public
officials performing electoral
matter not appearing on their face, only patent
functions; (b) committed acts of
defects. EXCEPTION:
terrorism to enhance his
1. Nuissance Candidates: to put election candidacy; (c) spent in his
process in mockery or disrepute, cause election campaign an amount in
confusion due to similarity of names, excess of that allowed by this
candidate has no bonafide intention to run. Code; (d) solicited, received or
Sec 69 (Sec. 69. Nuisance made any contribution prohibited
candidates. - The Commission may under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and
motu proprio or upon a verified 104; or (e) violated any of
petition of an interested party, Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261,
refuse to give due course to or paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc,
cancel a certificate of candidacy if subparagraph 6, shall be
it is shown that said certificate disqualified from continuing as a
has been filed to put the election candidate, or if he has been
process in mockery or disrepute or elected, from holding the office.
to cause confusion among the Any person who is a permanent
voters by the similarity of the resident of or an immigrant to a
names of the registered foreign country shall not be
candidates or by other qualified to run for any elective
circumstances or acts which office under this Code, unless said
clearly demonstrate that the person has waived his status as
candidate has no bona fide permanent resident or immigrant
intention to run for the office for of a foreign country in accordance
which the certificate of candidacy with the residence requirement
has been filed and thus prevent a provided for in the election laws.
 4. In cases a candidate is suffering accessory LONE CANDIDATE LAW (RA 8295)
penalty of disquppi5alification
Deemed elected.

Votes cast under Nuiisance Candiated are not stray

votes. Sec 68 considered stray since no valid COC. REMEDIES BEFORE PROCLAMATION
While in Nuissance the vote shall be transferred to REMEDIES BEFORE PROCLAMATION:
another under the prescribed rules, unless the
candidate is 2 or more. 1. Petition to deny due course or to cancel
certificate of candidacy
SECTION 78: PETITION TO DENY DUE - Under Section 78 (False Misrepresentation)
COURSE OR CANCEL COC - Grounds: Info under Sec 74 is false
Those enumerated in Section 74 is false (material - Filed not later than 25 days from the filing
misrepresentation)- again not allowed substitution. of COC and decided not later than 15 days
Refers only to material matter such as AGE, before election
REGISTERED VOTER, CITIZENSHIP AND - JRISDICTION: COMELEC in DIVISION
RESIDENCY. False representation must be a 2. Under Sec 69 (Nuissance Candidate)-
deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide FILED 5 DAYS AFTER FILING OF
facts. COC
3. Petition for Disqualification: Sec 12 and
REMEDY: Sec68 of OEC and Sec 40 of LGC.
1. File a petition under Section 78
2. Criminal prosecution foir election offense
Sec. 12. Disqualifications. - Any person
Material Misrepresentation: if it refers to who has been declared by competent
qualification authority insane or incompetent, or has
been sentenced by final judgment for
EFFECT of VIOLATION OF Sec 78:
subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for
Considered as not candidate at all. COC is void
any offense for which he has been
ab initio. All votes are astray. 2 nd placer shall be
sentenced to a penalty of more than
declared as winner. (Maquiling Rule) eighteen months or for a crime
SEC 68: PETITION TO DISQUALIFY ON involving moral turpitude, shall be
ANY GROUND OF FINAL CONVICTION OF disqualified to be a candidate and to
hold any office, unless he has been
ELECTION OFFENSE UNDER SEC 68
given plenary pardon or granted
EFFECT: Second placer cannot be proclaimed. amnesty.
Rule on Succession shall apply.
Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following
If disqualify before election: considered Stray votes, persons are disqualified from running for any
2nd placer won. elective local position:

If disqualify after election: Rulo on succession shall (a) Those sentenced by final judgment
apply. for an offense involving moral turpitude
or for an offense punishable by one (1)
year or more of imprisonment, within
two (2) years after serving sentence;
 (b) Those removed from office as a GROUNDS:
result of an administrative case;
1. Illegal Compostition of Board of Canvasser
(c) Those convicted by final judgment 2. Illegal Proceedings of the BOC
for violating the oath of allegiance to the - Not applicable in Barangay and National
Republic; Election
- Exception for National Election:
(d) Those with dual citizenship;
Determination of the authenticity and due
(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or execution of certificate of canvass and
non-political cases here or abroad; Correction of Manifest Error

(f) Permanent residents in a foreign

country or those who have acquired the
right to reside abroad and continue to JRISDICTION TO CANCEL COC: COMELEC
avail of the same right after the DIVISION
effectivity of this Code; and
CAUSE: is due to material misrepresentation, 25
(g) The insane or feeble-minded. day after filing is applied strictly.

FILING OF DISQUALIFICATION CASE: shall

be in COURT OF JUSTICE and not with
- Shall be filed by any registered voter or any COMELEC.
duly registered political party NAY DAY
AFTER THE LAST DAY FOR FILING EFFECT OF DISQUALIFICATION CASE:
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY BUT shall not be voted for and vote cast shall not be
NOT LATER THAN THE DATE OF counted. If still pending and won the election, the
PROCLAMATION. court shall suspend the PROCLAMATION
- Substitution is allowed when the evidence of GUILT is strong.

When the decision is not yet final, his vote is still be

counted and tallied, if not it will amount to
4. POSPONEMENT OF ELECTION disenfranchising the electorate.
1. Violence
2. Terrorism
3. Loss or destruction of paraphernalia CAMPAIGN; ELECTION PROPAGANDA;
4. Force mAjeur CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES
5. Other analogous cases
ELECTION CAMPAIGN- refers to the act
Petition to annul on the ground of failure is under designed to promote the election to defeat particular
the jurisdiction of COMELEC ENBANC candidates. It must be during the campaign period.
5.PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSIES Sec 80.

- Proceedings before the Board of Canvasser raised VIOLATION OF SEC 80:

by any candidates or political party [a] a person engages in an election campaign or
- Intended to prevent nefarious practices known as partisan political activity as defined in Section 79;
grab the proclamation prolong the protest [b] the act is designed to promote the election or
defeat of a particular candidate; and
[c] the act is done outside the campaign period place; maintain order within the polling place and
its premises to keep access thereto open and
unobstructed and to enforce obedience to its lawful
PROHIBITED ELECTION PROPAGANDA orders, and
perform such other functions as prescribed by the
LIMITATIONS ON EXPENSES Code or by the rules of the Comelec

PRESIDENT AND VICE PRES: P10 for every Watchers. Each candidate and political party or
voter coalition of political parties duly registered with the
Commission and fielding candidates in the May 11,
OTHER CANDIDATE: P3 for every voter
1998 elections including those participating under
CANDIDATE without any POLITICAL the party-list system of representation, may appoint
PARTY: P5 two watchers, to serve alternately, in every polling
place. However, candidates for Sangguniang
POLITICAL PARTIES: P5 Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod and
Sangguniang Bayan, belonging to the same ticket or
Statement of contribution and expenses: shall
slate shall collectively be entitled to one watcher.
file 30 days after the election to the Commission an
Duly accredited citizens’ arms of the
itemized statement including those who withrew
Commission shall be entitled to appoint a watcher
their candidacy: If fail to file:
in every polling place. Other civic, religious,
1. Shall not perform duties professional, business, service, youth and any other
2. Administrative offense 1k to 30k similar
organizations, with prior authority from the
Commission, shall be entitled collectively to
BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS AND appoint one watcher in every polling place..
WATCHERS Qualifications: Qualified voter of the city or
Composition: A chairman, a member and a poll municipality, of good reputation, never been
clerk, who must be public school teachers. convicted of any election offense or any crime,
knows how to read and write English, Pilipino, or
Qualification: A member must be of good moral any of the prevailing local dialects, and not related
character and irreproachable reputation, a registered within the 4th civil degree by consanguinity or
voter of the City or municipality, never been affinity to any member of the BEI in the polling
convicted of any election offense or any other crime place where he seeks appointment as watcher.
punishable by more than 6 months imprisonment,
able to speak and write English or the local dialect. Rights and duties: Stay in the space reserved for
them inside the polling place; witness and inform
Disqualification, (a) Must not be related within the themselves of the proceedings of the BEI; take
4th civil degree by consanguinity or affinity to any notes, photographs of proceedings; file protest
member of the BEI or to any candidate to be voted against any irregularity or violation of law; be
for in the polling place, (b) Must not engage in any furnished with a certificate of the number of votes
partisan political activity. cast for each candidate, duly signed and thumb
marked by the members of the BEI.
Powers of the BEI: Conduct the voting and
counting of votes in the polling place; act as
deputies of the COMELEC in supervision and
control of the polling CASTING OF VOTES
For Illiterate and disable: may be assisted by a Canvassing by Provincial, City, District and
relatives within 4th civil degree, or those who Municipal Board of Canvassers
accompany in household or the BEI. It must be
indicated in registration record and assistor shall not COMPOSITION OF BOARD OF CANVASSER
assist more than 3 times except the member of BEI. a. Provincial: The provincial election supervisor or
AUTHENTICATION OF BALLOT: chairman shall a lawyer in the regional office of the Comelec, as
sign in the presence of the voter, failure is chairman, the provincial fiscal, as vice chairman,
considered as ELECTION OFFENSE. It is not and the
spurious ballot but only subject the CHAIRMAN provincial superintendent of schools as member. In
OF BEI to ELECTIOn OFFENSE. the event of non-availability, absence,
disqualification or incapacity, substitute members
Challenge of illegal voter. Any voter or watcher are the following, in
may challenge any person offering to vote for not the order named: Provincial Auditor, Register of
being registered, for using the name of another, or Deeds, Clerk of Court nominated by the Executive
for suffering from existing disqualification. A Judge, and any other available appointive provincial
challenge may likewise be made on the ground that official.
the challenged person has received or expects to
receive, paid, offered or promised to pay,
b) City: The city election registrar or a lawyer of the
contributed, offered or promised to contribute
Comelec, as chairman, the city fiscal, as vice
money or anything of value as consideration for his
chairman, and the city superintendent of schools, as
vote or for the vote of another; made or received a
member. Substitute members are officials in the city
promise to influence the giving or withholding of
corresponding to the substitutes in the provincial
any such vote; or made a bet or is interested directly
board of canvassers.
or indirectly in a bet which depends upon the results
of the election. c) Municipal: The election registrar or a
representative of the Comelec, as chairman, the
COUNTING OF VOTES
municipal treasurer, as vice chairman, and the most
Manner of counting votes [Sec. 25, R.A. 7166]: In senior district school supervisor, or in his absence, a
reading the individual official ballots during the principal of the school or the elementary school, as
counting, the chairman, poll clerk and the third member. Substitute members are the Municipal
member shall assume such positions as to provide Administrator, Municipal Assessor, Clerk of Court
the watchers and the members of the public as may nominated by the Executive Judge, or any
be conveniently accommodated in the polling place, other available appointive municipal officials.
unimpeded view of the ballot being read by the
chairman, of the election returns and the tally board
being simultaneously accomplished by the poll
clerk and the third member respectively, without
touching any of these election documents. The table COMELEC en banc as National Board of
shall be cleared of all unnecessary writing Canvassers for Senatorial Elections [Sec. 30, RA
paraphernalia. Any violation of this requirement 7166].
shall constitute an election offense punishable under
Secs. 263 and 264 of the Omnibus Election Code.
1. Pursuant to Sec. 30, R.A. 7166, the power to
CANVASS AND PROCLAMATION determine the authenticity and due execution of the
Certificates of Canvass (COCs) for Senators
exclusively However, this does not preclude the authority of the
rests in the Comelec, as National Board of appropriate canvassing body motu propio or upon
Canvassers, not on the provincial board of written complaint of an interested person to correct
canvassers. Thus, the Special Provincial Board of manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or
Canvassers (SPBOC) validly election returns before it.
denied the repeated motions of Pimentel to question
the Bedol Provincial Board of Canvassers and the MANIFEST ERROR- visible to the eye.
Municipal Board of Canvassers during its
proceedings,
because allowing the same would be ultra vires. - A petition for correction of errors in the
Furthermore, it would be tantamount to allowing a Certificate of Canvass may be filed at any
pre-proclamation contest which is prohibited by time before proclamation
Sec. 15,
JURISDICTION: COMELEC JURISDICTION
R.A. 7166
EXCLUSIVE
Duty of the Board of Canvassers. A canvassing
While the Comelec has merely appellate jurisdiction
board performs a purely ministerial function, that of
over election contests involving municipal offices,
compiling and adding the results as they appear in
it cannot be deprived of its exclusive jurisdiction
the
over pre-proclamation contests, indeed, it is
returns transmitted to it
immaterial if some of the grounds adduced are
grounds for an election contest rather than for a pre-
proclamation controversy.
PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY
ISSUES THAT MAY BE RAISED IN PRE-
A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any PROCLAMATION:
question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings
of the board of canvassers which may be raised by 1. Illegal composition or proceedings of the
any candidate or by any registered political party or Board of Canvassers
coalition of political parties before the board or 2. The canvassed election returns are
directly with the Comelec, or any matter raised incompletecontain material defects in
under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the same returns or in other authentic copies
the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and thereof, as mentioned in Secs. 233,
appreciation of the election returns [Sec. 241, B.P. 234, 235 and 236 of this Code
881]. The institution of the pre proclamation
controversy was intended to prevent the nefarious Sec. 233: When the election returns are
practice known as “grab-the-proclamation, prolong- delayed, lost or destroyed, the Board may
the-protest”. use any of the authentic copies of said
election returns or a certified copy issued by
No pre-proclamation cases in election of national the Comelec.
officials [Sec. 15, R.A. 7166], For purposes of the
elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Sec. 234: If some requisites, in form or data,
Member of the House of Representatives, no pre- had been omitted in the election returns, the
proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters Board shall call for all the members of the
relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, BEI to complete or correct the return.
custody and appreciation of the election returns or
the certificates of canvass, as the case may be.
 Sec. 235: When the election returns
submitted to the Board appear to be
tampered with, altered or falsified 3. Appellate Jurisdiction. a) From decisions of
the RTC and Municipal/City Courts, appeal
Sec. 236: Where there exists discrepancies shall be made exclusively to the Comelec,
in other authentic copies of the returns or whose decision shall be final, executory and
discrepancies in the votes of any candidate unappealable.
in words and figures in the same return, ACTIONS THAT MAY BE FILED:

3. The election returns were prepared under 1. ELECTION PROTEST- i) The purpose of
duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or an election protest is to ascertain whether
they are obviously manufactured or not the candidate proclaimed elected by the
authentic. board of canvassers is the true and lawful
4. When substitute or fraudulent returns in choice of the electorate.
controverted polling places were canvassed, 2. QUO WARRANTO
the results of which materially affected the
standing of the aggrieved candidate or
candidates ELECTION PROTEST:

REQUISITES:

a) Must be filed bv anv candidate who has filed a

certificate of candidacy and has been voted upon for
ELECTION CONTEST
the same office. (DAPAT SAME POSITION)
- Made before or after the proclamation of
b) On grounds of fraud, terrorism, irregularities or
winner
illegal acts committed before, during or after the
- Summary proceedings of a political
casting and counting of votes.
character
- Objective is to ascertain if the candidate In a protest prosecuted on such a theory, the
is the lawful choice of the electorte protestant ordinarily prays that the official count as
reflected in the election returns be set aside in favor
JURISDICTION: of a revision and recount of the ballots, the results
1. Original and exclusive. of which should be made to prevail over those
PresidentA/ice reflected in the returns pursuant to the doctrine that
a) .... Supreme Court
President... “in an election contest where what is involved is the
.... Senate Electoral number of votes of each candidate, the best and the
b) Senator..
Tribunal most conclusive evidence are the ballots
Representative.... ... HR Electoral themselves”
c)
................. Tribunal
Regional/ c) Within ten (10) davs from proclamation of the
d) Provincial/ .... COMELEC results of the election.
City....
e) Municipal .... RTC
.....Municipal/
f) Barangay Metropolitan Trial QUO WARRANTO
Court
REQUISITES:
 a) Filed by any registered voter in the carried a deadly weapon within the prohibited
constituency. radius during any of the days and hours specified in
b) b) On grounds of ineligibility or disloyalty the law.
to the Republic of the Philippines.
c) Within ten (10) days from proclamation of
the results of the election. f) Transfer or detail of government
official/emplovee
Note: There must be a final judgment before
election to be considered the votes as astray. without Comelec approval. In People v. Reyes, 247
SCRA 328, it was held that the transfer or detail
of a government officer or employee will not be
penalized by Sec. 261 (h), B.P. 881, if done to
ELECTION OFFENSES promote efficiency in the government service. To
prove violation,
A. Enumeration of election offenses. Read Sec. 261, two elements must concur, viz: (i) The fact of
BP 881. transfer or detail within the election period as fixed
1. Some prohibited acts: by the Comelec; and (ii) The transfer or detail was
made without
prior approval of the Comelec, in accordance with
a) Vote-buying and vote-selling. In People v. its implementing rules and regulations. In this case,
Ferrer, 54 O.G. 1348, it was held that distribution the transfer was effected one day before the
of cigarettes to people who attended a political Comelec
meeting falls within the context of the prohibition. issued Resolution No. 2333, which prescribed the
rules and regulations on how to obtain Comelec
approval for such transfers. 2
b) Wagering upon the result of the election. Any
money or thing of value put up as a bet or wager
shall be forfeited to the Government. 2. Good faith is not a defense. Election offenses are
generally mala prohibita. Proof of criminal intent is
not necessary. Good faith, ignorance or lack of
c) Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent
malice is not a defense; the commission of the
device or other forms of coercion.
prohibited act is
sufficient. See People v. Bayona, 61 Phil 181;
d) Appointment of new employee (except in case of People v. Fuentes, 181 Phil 186
urgent need, with notice given to the Comelec
Jurisdiction: COMELEC
within three days from the appointment), creation of
new positions, promotion, or granting salary Prescriptive Period: 5 years
increases.

e) Carrying of deadly weapon within a radius of 100

meters from precinct. In Mappala v. Judge Nunez,
240 SCRA 600, it was held that it is not necessary
that the deadly weapon be seized from the accused
while he was in the precinct or within a radius of
100 meters therefrom; it is enough that the accused
LECTURE:

ELECTION LAW

Parameters used to deicide in automated system of

election.

Bagumbayan : paper audit trail

Gonzales vs COMELEC: Plebiscite can be held

at the same in general election. 1987 Consti is
held at the same time.
Overssee absentee are allowed to vote for Pres, VP,
Senators and Party List Representative as well as
national referenda and plebiscite.

Oversees vs local absentee: PNP and other

government employes assigned in different country.

A detainee is one confined in jail formally charge

and those that are awaiting trial.
Registration under RA 10367: Biometric
registration
Marcos should be disqualified for tax evasion
sentence, thus there is a crime for moral turpitude.
If already removed by administrative can be
disqualified

When the comelec set the deadline earlier inorder to

attain the goal in Sec 15. When a person is
considered a candidate for a purposes of election to
be able to determine premature campaigning will be
committed. In Lanot, no mor premature
campaiogning as an offense because there is no
candidate during the campaign period. As early as
now there is already a campaign. SO it cannot be
committed anymore

Can only be held liable at the start of campaign

period. If it is not a candidate he cannot be charge.
Maquiling: dual citizenship, effect of probation and
fugitive from justice. Can supporter be held liable for premature?

Where can there be a substitute:

1. If belong to same political party

2. Not later than the mid day of election
3. Death, withdrawal or disqualification only.
Subsititution cannot be done if cancelled.

Francisco vs Comelec: there I no prior

determination, comelec clarified comelec is the
proper body to determine the falsity. It does not
apply to disqualification for acts committed during
election period. If the proceeding is disqualification
COMELEC may determine it the same proceedings.

Villafuerte: misrepresented in nickname, it is not a

ground or material or affect the eligibility of
candidate.

Section 78: o deny due process: Material

misrepresentation. If there is material representation
of any of this matter can it be a ground? For
example sinabi niya lawyer ndi namn pla or single
pero married or sinabi niya political party are those
grounds??
Chavez vs comelec: SC ruled the prohibition to
ensure equal access. Media practitioners are
considered resigned
The comelec still authorize to conduct special
election beyond the period the voters must be
notified.
Filed before the COMELEC.

Manner: Summary in nature.

Pre proc can be filed for all, there are just limitation,
even for national when there is a question for COC.
Take Note: Jurisdiction of COmelec or electoral The integrity of the ballot should been preserved,
tribunal will have jurisdication. At what point? protestant must prove. The actual ballot has been
When there is already a proclamation. preserve. If the ballot is not available you can use
other documents like PCOS machine diba my
images na kinacapture, the printouts is functional
equivalent of paper ballot.

If the protestant died, election protest still proceeds.

Election Contest: contest in relation to result due to

fraud, terrorism, filed by opposing candidate. Kung
tama ung bilang ng boto. It is the recount of the
vote.
Election laws cases: on Elections by designation of the President of the
Philippines.
Brillantes v. Yorac, G.R. No. 93867, December 18,
WHEREFORE, the designation by the President of
1990
the Philippines of respondent Haydee B. Yorac as
Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections is
The petitioner is challenging the designation by the declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the
respondent is hereby ordered to desist from serving
President of the Philippines of Associate
as such. This is without prejudice to the incumbent
Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Associate Commissioners of the Commission on
Chairman of the Commission on Elections, in place Elections restoring her to the same position if they
of Chairman Hilario B. Davide, who had been so desire, or choosing another member in her place,
named chairman of the fact-finding commission to pending the appointment of a permanent Chairman
investigate the December 1989 coup d' etat attempt. by the President of the Philippines with the consent
of the Commission on Appointments.: rd
The petitioner invokes the case of Nacionalista
Party v. Bautista, 85 Phil. 101, where President
Elpidio Quirino designated the Solicitor General as Penera v. Comelec, et. al., G.R. No. 181613,
acting member of the Commission on Elections and November 25, 2009
the Court revoked the designation as contrary to the
Constitution. It is also alleged that the respondent is The Decision disqualified Penera from running for
not even the senior member of the Commission on the office of Mayor in Sta. Monica, Surigao del
Elections, being outranked by Associate Norte and declared that the Vice-Mayor should
Commissioner Alfredo E. Abueg, Jr.:-cralaw succeed Penera.
The petitioner contends that the choice of the
In support of her motion for reconsideration, Penera
Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections is
submits the following arguments:
an internal matter that should be resolved by the
members themselves and that the intrusion of the 1. Penera was not yet a candidate at the time
President of the Philippines violates their of the incident under Section 11 of RA 8436
independence. He cites the practice in this Court, as amended by Section 13 of RA 9369.
where the senior Associate Justice serves as Acting
Chief Justice in the absence of the Chief Justice. No Section 79(a) of the Omnibus Election Code defines
designation from the President of the Philippines is a "candidate" as "any person aspiring for or seeking
necessary. an elective public office, who has filed a certificate
of candidacy x x x." The second sentence, third
The Court has not the slightest doubt that the paragraph, Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by
President of the Philippines was moved only by the Section 13 of RA 9369, provides that "[a]ny person
best of motives when she issued the challenged who files his certificate of candidacy within [the
designation. But while conceding her goodwill, we
period for filing] shall only be considered as a
cannot sustain her act because it conflicts with the
Constitution. Hence, even as this Court revoked the candidate at the start of the campaign period for
designation in the Bautista case, so too must it annul which he filed his certificate of candidacy." The
the designation in the case at bar. immediately succeeding proviso in the same third
The Constitution provides for many safeguards to paragraph states that "unlawful acts or omissions
the independence of the Commission on Elections, applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon
foremost among which is the security of tenure of the start of the aforesaid campaign period."
its members. That guaranty is not available to the
respondent as Acting Chairman of the Commission
Under the Decision, a candidate may already be 80 covers only acts done "outside" the campaign
liable for premature campaigning after the filing of period.
the certificate of candidacy but even before the start
Under Section 11 of RA 8436, the only purpose for
of the campaign period. From the filing of the
the early filing of certificates of candidacy is to give
certificate of candidacy, even long before the start ample time for the printing of official ballots. This
of the campaign period, the Decision considers the is clear from the following deliberations of the
partisan political acts of a person so filing a Bicameral Conference Committee:
certificate of candidacy "as the promotion of his/her
election as a candidate." Thus, such person can be SENATOR GONZALES. How about prohibition
disqualified for premature campaigning for acts against campaigning or doing partisan acts which
apply immediately upon being a candidate?
done before the start of the campaign period. In
short, the Decision considers a person who files a THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). Again,
certificate of candidacy already a "candidate" even since the intention of this provision is just to afford
before the start of the campaign period. Lawphil the Comelec enough time to print the ballots, this
provision does not intend to change the campaign
The assailed Decision is contrary to the clear intent periods as presently, or rather election periods as
and letter of the law. presently fixed by existing law.

The Decision reverses Lanot v. COMELEC,2 which THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (SEN. FERNAN). So,
held that a person who files a certificate of it should be subject to the other prohibition.
candidacy is not a candidate until the start of the
campaign period. THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). That’s
right.
Thus, the essential elements for violation of Section
80 of the Omnibus Election Code are: (1) a person THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (SEN. FERNAN).
engages in an election campaign or partisan Okay.
political activity; (2) the act is designed to promote
the election or defeat of a particular candidate or THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). In other
candidates; (3) the act is done outside the campaign words, actually, there would be no conflict anymore
period. because we are talking about the 120-day period
before election as the last day of filing a certificate
The second element requires the existence of a of candidacy, election period starts 120 days also.
"candidate." Under Section 79(a), a candidate is one So that is election period already. But he will still
who "has filed a certificate of candidacy" to an not be considered as a candidate.
elective public office. Unless one has filed his
certificate of candidacy, he is not a "candidate." The Lanot was decided on the ground that one who files
third element requires that the campaign period has a certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the
not started when the election campaign or partisan start of the campaign period. This ground was based
political activity is committed. on the deliberations of the legislators who explained
the intent of the provisions of RA 8436, which laid
Assuming that all candidates to a public office file the legal framework for an automated election
their certificates of candidacy on the last day, which system. There was no express provision in the
under Section 75 of the Omnibus Election Code is original RA 8436 stating that one who files a
the day before the start of the campaign period, then certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the
no one can be prosecuted for violation of Section 80 start of the campaign period.
for acts done prior to such last day. Before such last
day, there is no "particular candidate or candidates" When Congress amended RA 8436, Congress
to campaign for or against. On the day immediately decided to expressly incorporate the Lanot doctrine
after the last day of filing, the campaign period into law, realizing that Lanot merely relied on the
starts and Section 80 ceases to apply since Section deliberations of Congress in holding that —
The clear intention of Congress was to preserve the the questioned motorcade which was conducted a
"election periods as x x x fixed by existing law" day before the start of the campaign period. 
prior to RA 8436 and that one who files to meet the
early deadline "will still not be considered as a The campaign period for local officials began on 30
candidate. March 2007 and ended on 12 May 2007. Penera
filed her certificate of candidacy on 29 March 2007.
For this purpose, the Commission shall set the
Penera was thus a candidate on 29 March 2009 only
deadline for the filing of certificate of
candidacy/petition for registration/manifestation to for purposes of printing the ballots. On 29 March
participate in the election. Any person who files his 2007, the law still did not consider Penera a
certificate of candidacy within this period shall only candidate for purposes other than the printing of
be considered as a candidate at the start of the ballots. Acts committed by Penera prior to 30
campaign period for which he filed his certificate of March 2007, the date when she became a
candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or "candidate," even if constituting election
omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect
campaigning or partisan political activities, are not
only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign
period: Provided, finally, That any person holding a punishable under Section 80 of the Omnibus
public appointive office or position, including Election Code. Such acts are within the realm of a
active members of the armed forces, and officers citizen’s protected freedom of expression. Acts
and employees in government-owned or -controlled committed by Penera within the campaign period
corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned are not covered by Section 80 as Section 80
from his/her office and must vacate the same at the punishes only acts outside the campaign period
start of the day of the filing of his/her certificate of
candidacy.

The definition of a "candidate" in Section 79(a) of CANDIDACIES AND ELIGIBILITIES OF

the Omnibus Election Code should be read together CANDIDATES
with the amended Section 15 of RA 8436. A
"‘candidate’ refers to any person aspiring for or Agustin v. Comelec, G.R. No. 207105,
seeking an elective public office, who has filed a November 10, 2015
certificate of candidacy by himself or through an
accredited political party, aggroupment or coalition Pillos moved for the reconsideration with the
of parties." However, it is no longer enough to COMELEC En Banc. He alleged that the
merely file a certificate of candidacy for a person to certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration
be considered a candidate because "any person who reflected that the petitioner had voluntarily declared
files his certificate of candidacy within [the filing] in his travel documents that he was a citizen of the
period shall only be considered a candidate at the USA; that when he travelled to Hawaii, USA on
start of the campaign period for which he filed his October 6, 2012, he still used his USA passport
certificate of candidacy." Any person may thus file despite his renunciation of his USA citizenship on
a certificate of candidacy on any day within the October 2, 2012 and after filing his CoC on October
prescribed period for filing a certificate of 5, 2012, in which he declared that he was a resident
candidacy yet that person shall be considered a of the Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte; and
candidate, for purposes of determining one’s that the petitioner’s declaration of his eligibility in
possible violations of election laws, only during the his CoC constituted material misrepresentation
campaign period. Indeed, there is no "election because of his failure to meet the citizenship and
campaign" or "partisan political activity" designed residency requirements.
to promote the election or defeat of a particular
candidate or candidates to public office simply On April 23, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc issued
because there is no "candidate" to speak of prior to its assailed resolution cancelling and denying due
the start of the campaign period. Therefore, despite course to the petitioner’s CoC, observing that while
the filing of her certificate of candidacy, the law Agustin presented a copy of his Affidavit of
does not consider Penera a candidate at the time of
Renunciation, he failed to furnish this Commission due course to or to cancel his certificate of
a copy of his Oath of Allegiance. candidacy.

Noteworthy is the fact, that in Agustin’s Affidavit A petition for disqualification can be premised on
of Renunciation, it was stated that his Oath of Section 12 or 68 of the OEC, or Section 40 of the
Allegiance is attached; however, said attachment LGC.
has not been made available for the perusal of this
Commission. Having failed to sufficiently show that On the other hand, a petition to deny due course to
he complied with the provisions of RA 9225, or cancel a CoC can only be grounded on a
Agustin’s COC must be cancelled and/or denied statement of a material representation in the said
due course. certificate that is false. The petitions also have
different effects.
On election day, the name of the petitioner
remained in the ballot. He was later on proclaimed While a person who is disqualified under Section 68
as the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Marcos, is merely prohibited to continue as a candidate, the
Ilocos Norte, the highest among the contending person whose certificate is cancelled or denied due
parties. course under Section 78 is not treated as a candidate
at all, as if he/she never filed a CoC.
The petitioner filed on an Urgent Motion to
Withdraw Verified Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration with Leave of Court. The petitioner Section 78 of the OEC, therefore, is to be read in
then instituted this case, alleging grave abuse of relation to the constitutional and statutory
discretion amounting to lack or excess of provisions on qualifications or eligibility for public
jurisdiction on the part of the COMELEC En Banc.
office.
ISSUE: If the candidate subsequently states a material
representation in the CoC that is false, the
1st issue: Whether or not petitioner Agustin is
eligible as a candidate for the position of Mayor of COMELEC, following the law, is empowered to
the Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte. (NO) deny due course to or cancel such certificate.

2nd issue: Whether or not Pillos’ claim that he is the The petition of Pillos was in the nature of the
rightful occupant of the contested elective position Section 78 petition to deny due course to or to
correct. (YES) cancel the CoC of the Yet, the COMELEC En Banc
canceled the petitioner’s CoC not because of his
RULING: failure to meet the residency requirement but
because of his failure “to sufficiently show that he
1st issue:
complied with the provisions of RA 9225.” Such
No. Petitioner Agustin is not eligible as a candidate basis for cancellation was unwarranted considering
for the position of Mayor of the Municipality of that he became eligible to run for public office
Marcos, Ilocos Norte. when he expressly renounced his USA citizenship,
by which he fully complied with the requirements
The petitioner filed a valid CoC, but the use of his stated in Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225.
USA passport after his renunciation of foreign His CoC was valid for all intents and purposes of
citizenship rendered him disqualified from
continuing as a mayoralty candidate. the election laws because he did not make therein
any material misrepresentation of his eligibility to
There are two remedies available under existing run as Mayor of the Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos
laws to prevent a candidate from running in an Norte.
electoral race. One is by petition for
disqualification, and the other by petition to deny
The Court uphold the declaration by the Any candidate who has been declared by final
COMELEC En Banc that the petitioner was judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for,
ineligible to run and be voted for as Mayor of the and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If
Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte. It is not for any reason a candidate is not declared by final
disputed that on October 6, 2012, after having judgment before an election to be disqualified and
renounced his USA citizenship and having already he is voted for and receives the winning number of
filed his CoC, he travelled abroad using his USA votes in such election, the Court or Commission
passport, thereby representing himself as a citizen shall continue with the trial and hearing of the
of the USA. He continued using his USA passport action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the
in his subsequent travels abroad despite having been complainant or any intervenor, may during the
already issued his Philippine passport on August 23, pendency thereof order the suspension of the
2012. He thereby effectively repudiated his oath of proclamation of such candidate whenever the
renunciation on October 6, 2012, the first time he evidence of his guilt is strong.
used his USA passport after renouncing his USA
citizenship on October 2, 2012. Consequently, he Section 6 of the said law covers two situations. The
could be considered an exclusively Filipino citizen first is when the disqualification becomes final
only for the four days from October 2, 2012 until before the elections, which is the situation covered
October 6, 2012. in the first sentence of Section 6. The second is
when the disqualification becomes final after the
elections, which is the situation covered in the
second sentence of Section 6.
The petitioner’s continued exercise of his rights as a
citizen of the USA through using his USA passport The present case falls under the first situation.
after the renunciation of his USA citizenship Section 6 of the Electoral Reforms Law governing
reverted him to his earlier status as a dual citizen. the first situation is categorical: a candidate
Such reversion disqualified him from being elected disqualified by final judgment before an election
to public office in the Philippines pursuant to cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not
Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code. be counted.

2nd issue:

Yes. Pillos’ claim that he is the rightful occupant of The effect was to render the votes cast in his favor
the contested elective position is correct. stray, resulting in Pillos being proclaimed the
winning candidate.
Petitioner was declared disqualified by final
judgment before election day; hence, the votes cast It is crucial, therefore, to determine with certainty
for him should not be counted. His rival, respondent the time when the judgment declaring the petitioner
Pillos, should be proclaimed duly elected Mayor for disqualified from running for the local elective
obtaining the highest number of votes in the position attained finality.
elections.
Pillos submits that the April 23, 2013 resolution
The effect of the petitioner’s disqualification under was already deemed final and executory as of May
the April 23, 2013 resolution depended on when the 4, 2013; hence, the writ of execution was issued on
disqualification attained finality. The distinction June 18, 2013; and that the petitioner’s
exists because of Section 6 of Republic Act No. disqualification thus attained finality prior to the
6646 (The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987), which May 13, 2013 elections.
states:
Pillos’ submission is correct. Although the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
petitioner filed his Verified Urgent Motion for Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVE,
Reconsideration with Leave of Court, the April 23, to GRANT the Petition to Disqualify Candidate for
Lack of Qualification filed by BUENAVENTURA
2013 resolution granting Pillos’ motion for
O. JUNTILLA against RICHARD I. GOMEZ.
reconsideration, such filing did not impede the April Accordingly, RICHARD I. GOMEZ is
23, 2013 resolution from being deemed final and DISQUALIFIED as a candidate for the Office of
executory because Section 1(d), Rule 13 of the 1993 Congressman, Fourth District of Leyte, for lack of
COMELEC Rules of Procedure expressly residency requirement.
disallowed the filing of the motion for
reconsideration. SO ORDERED.

Within the context of Section 13, Rule 18, and Aggrieved, Richard moved for reconsideration but
Section 3, Rule 37, both of the 1993 COMELEC the same was denied by the COMELEC En Banc
through a Resolution dated May 4, 2010.7
Rules of Procedure, the April 23, 2013 resolution
Thereafter, in a Manifestation of even date, Richard
became final and executory as of May 4, 2013 upon accepted the said resolution with finality “in order
the lapse of five days from its promulgation without to enable his substitute to facilitate the filing of the
a restraining order being issued by the Supreme necessary documents for substitution.”
Court.
On May 5, 2010, Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez
(private respondent) filed her CoC together with a
Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance10 from
Tagolino v. HRET, et al., G.R. No. 202202, the Liberal Party endorsing her as the party’s
March 19, 2013 official substitute candidate vice her husband,
Richard, for the same congressional post. In
response to various letter-requests submitted to the
Facts: On November 30, 2009, Richard Gomez COMELEC’s Law Department (Law Department),
(Richard) filed his certificate of candidacy (CoC) the COMELEC En Banc, in the exercise of its
with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), administrative functions, issued Resolution No.
seeking congressional office as Representative for 889011 on May 8, 2010, approving, among others,
the Fourth Legislative District of Leyte under the the recommendation of the said department to allow
ticket of the Liberal Party. Subsequently, on the substitution of private respondent.
December 6, 2009, one of the opposing candidates,
Buenaventura Juntilla (Juntilla), filed a Verified The substitution complied with the requirements
Petition, alleging that Richard, who was actually a provided under Section 12 in relation to Section 13
resident of College Street, East Greenhills, San Juan of Comelec Resolution No. 8678 dated October 6,
City, Metro Manila, misrepresented in his CoC that 2009.
he resided in 910 Carlota Hills, Canadieng, Ormoc
City. In this regard, Juntilla asserted that Richard xxxx
failed to meet the one (1) year residency
requirement under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 In view of the foregoing, the Law Department
Philippine Constitution (Constitution) and thus RECOMMENDS the following:
should be declared disqualified/ineligible to run for
the said office. In addition, Juntilla prayed that xxxx
Richard’s CoC be denied due course and/or
cancelled. 2. TO ALLOW CANDIDATE LUCY MARIE
TORRES GOMEZ AS A SUBSTITUTE
On February 17, 2010, the COMELEC First CANDIDATE FOR RICHARD GOMEZ:
Division rendered a Resolution6 granting Juntilla’s (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
petition without any qualification. The dispositive
portion of which reads: Issue: Whether or not there is valid substitution.
Held: No. A. Distinction between a petition for penal sanction brought by the commission of the
disqualification and a petition to deny due course above-mentioned election offenses.
to/cancel a certificate of candidacy.
On the other hand, a denial of due course to and/or
The Omnibus Election Code (OEC) provides for cancellation of a CoC proceeding under Section 78
certain remedies to assail a candidate’s bid for of the OEC is premised on a person’s
public office. Among these which obtain particular misrepresentation of any of the material
significance to this case are: (1) a petition for qualifications required for the elective office aspired
disqualification under Section 68; and (2) a petition for. It is not enough that a person lacks the relevant
to deny due course to and/or cancel a certificate of qualification; he or she must have also made a false
candidacy under Section 78. The distinctions representation of the same in the CoC. The nature of
between the two are well-perceived. a Section 78 petition was discussed in the case of
Fermin v. COMELEC, where the Court illumined:
Primarily, a disqualification case under Section 68
of the OEC is hinged on either: (a) a candidate’s Let it be misunderstood, the denial of due course to
possession of a permanent resident status in a or the cancellation of the CoC is not based on the
foreign country; or (b) his or her commission of lack of qualifications but on a finding that the
certain acts of disqualification. Anent the latter, the candidate made a material representation that is
prohibited acts under Section 68 refer to election false, which may relate to the qualifications
offenses under the OEC, and not to violations of required of the public office he/she is running for. It
other penal laws. In particular, these are: (1) giving is noted that the candidates states in his/her CoC
money or other material consideration to influence, that he/she is eligible for the office he/she seeks.
induce or corrupt the voters or public officials Section 78 of the OEC, therefore, is to be read in
performing electoral functions; (2) committing acts relation to the constitutional and statutory
of terrorism to enhance one’s candidacy; (3) provisions on qualifications or eligibility for public
spending in one’s election campaign an amount in office. If the candidate subsequently states a
excess of that allowed by the OEC; (4) soliciting, material representation in the CoC that is false, the
receiving or making any contribution prohibited COMELEC, following the law, is empowered to
under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104 of the OEC; deny due course to or cancel such certificate.
and (5) violating Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, Indeed, the Court has already likened a proceeding
paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 634 of under Section 78 to a quo warranto proceeding
the OEC. Accordingly, the same provision (Section under Section 253 of the OEC since they both deal
68) states that any candidate who, in an action or with the eligibility or qualification of a candidate,
protest in which he or she is a party, is declared by with the distinction mainly in the fact that a
final decision of a competent court guilty of, or “Section 78” petition is filed before proclamation,
found by the COMELEC to have committed any of while a petition for quo warranto is filed after
the foregoing acts shall be disqualified from proclamation of the winning candidate. (Emphasis
continuing as a candidate for public office, or supplied)
disallowed from holding the same, if he or she had
already been elected. Corollary thereto, it must be noted that the
deliberateness of the misrepresentation, much less
It must be stressed that one who is disqualified one’s intent to defraud, is of bare significance in a
under Section 68 is still technically considered to Section 78 petition as it is enough that the person’s
have been a candidate, albeit proscribed to continue declaration of a material qualification in the CoC be
as such only because of supervening infractions false. In this relation, jurisprudence holds that an
which do not, however, deny his or her statutory express finding that the person committed any
eligibility. In other words, while the candidate’s deliberate misrepresentation is of little consequence
compliance with the eligibility requirements as in the determination of whether one’s CoC should
prescribed by law, such as age, residency, and be deemed cancelled or not. What remains material
citizenship, is not in question, he or she is, however, is that the petition essentially seeks to deny due
ordered to discontinue such candidacy as a form of course to and/or cancel the CoC on the basis of
one’s ineligibility and that the same be granted case under Section 68 CoC proceeding under
without any qualification. of the OEC is hinged Section 78 of the OEC
on either: (a) a is premised on a person's
Pertinently, while a disqualified candidate under candidate's possession misrepresentation of any of
Section 68 is still considered to have been a of a permanent the material qualifications
candidate for all intents and purposes, on the other resident status in a required for the elective
hand, a person whose CoC had been denied due foreign country; or (b) office aspired for. It is not
course to and/or cancelled under Section 78 is his or her commission enough that a person lacks
deemed to have not been a candidate at all. The of certain acts of the relevant qualification;
reason being is that a cancelled CoC is considered disqualification. he or she must have also
void ab initio and thus, cannot give rise to a valid made a false representation
candidacy and necessarily, to valid votes. In Talaga of the same in the CoC.
v. COMELEC (Talaga), the Court ruled that:

xxxx

While a person who is disqualified under Section 68 As explained in the case of Miranda v. Abaya, a
is merely prohibited to continue as a candidate, a candidate who is disqualified under Section 68 can
person who certificate is cancelled or denied due be validly substituted pursuant to Section 77
course under Section 78 is not treated as a candidate because he remains a candidate until disqualified;
at all, as if he/she never filed a CoC. but a person whose CoC has been denied due course
to and/or cancelled under Section 78 cannot be
No, Lucy Torres did not validly substitute substituted because he is not considered a
Richard Gomez. candidate. Stated differently, since there would be
no candidate to speak of under a denial of due
Misrepresentation warrants cancellation of COC, course to and/or cancellation of a CoC case, then
not disqualification. When cancelled, there is no there would be no candidate to be substituted; the
valid CoC. As such, there is no candidate. Ergo, same does not obtain, however, in a disqualification
there cannot be substitution. Substitution is proper case since there remains to be a candidate to be
only when the substituted is disqualified, because he substituted, although his or her candidacy is
or she was considered a candidate until ordered discontinued.
discontinued.
On this note, it is equally revelatory that Section 77
expressly enumerates the instances where
Disqualification v. Cancellation of COC  substitution is permissible, that is when an official
candidate of a registered or accredited political
The Omnibus Election Code (OEC) provides for party "dies, withdraws or is dies, withdraws or is
certain remedies to assail a candidate's bid for disqualified for any cause." Noticeably, material
public office. Among these which obtain particular misrepresentation cases are not included in the
significance to this case are: (1) a petition for said section and therefore, cannot be a valid
disqualification under Section 68; and (2) a petition basis to proceed with candidate substitution.
to deny due course to and/or cancel a certificate of
candidacy under Section 78. The distinctions
between the two are well-perceived.

Lagasca v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No. 233016,

March 5, 2019

SEC 68 SEC 78
In a multi-slot office, all votes cast in favor of the
Primarily, A denial of due course to
a disqualification and/or cancellation of a nuisance candidate whose name is confusingly
similar to a bona fide candidate shall not be that Reynaldo's name, as it would be indicated in
automatically credited in the latter's favor. If the the official ballots, was "confusingly similar" 31 to
ballot contains one (1) vote for the nuisance Alfred's name. The Commission held:
candidate and no vote for the bona fide candidate,
Without a doubt, an examination of the name
that vote will be counted in the latter's favor. REYNALDO S. ZAPANTA would disclose that the
However, if the nuisance candidate and the bona nickname "ALFRED" nowhere resembles the name
fide candidate each gets a vote, only one (1) vote of the Respondent. While the Respondent submitted
will be counted in the latter's favor. affidavits of his two (2) witnesses attesting to the
fact that he is known to be using "ALFRED" as his
nickname, the same fails to persuade this
Commission.
The Commission declared Reynaldo S. Zapanta
The issues for this Court's resolution are:
(Reynaldo) as a nuisance candidate and ordered that
the votes he received be added to the votes received
First, whether or not public respondent Commission
by Alfred J. Zapanta (Alfred).5
on Elections, in declaring petitioner Reynaldo S.
For the May 9, 2016 national and local elections, Zapanta as a nuisance candidate, committed grave
Reynaldo, Alfred, and petitioner-intervenor abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Edilberto U. Lagasca (Lagasca) each filed a jurisdiction;
Certificate of Candidacy for city councilor of the
Second District of Antipolo City, Rizal. 6 The Second, whether or not public respondent
Second District of Antipolo City is entitled to eight committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
(8) seats in the Sangguniang Panlungsod.7 lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ordered that
the votes cast for petitioner be credited to the votes
Alfred and Lagasca filed their Certificates of cast for private respondent Alfred J. Zapanta; and
Candidacy on October 16, 2015. Alfred, a nominee
of political party Aksyon Demokratiko, was then an Finally, whether or not public respondent
incumbent city councilor of the Second District of committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
Antipolo City.8 Reynaldo, a member and nominee lack or excess of jurisdiction when it declared as
of Lakas-CMD, filed his Certificate of Candidacy void the proclamation of petitioner-intervenor
on December 10, 2015 to replace another candidate, Edilberto U. Lagasca as the duly elected member of
Rolando Z. Zonio. the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the Second District
of Antipolo City.
Alfred averred that Reynaldo's use of the name
"Alfred" was "designed to mislead the voters"16 to In controversies pertaining to nuisance candidates
steal the votes intended for him. He contended that as in the case at bar, the law contemplates the
Reynaldo "has no [bona fide] intention to run for likelihood of confusion which the similarity of
the office [and only aims to] cause confusion among surnames of two (2) candidates may generate. A
the voters of Antipolo City and thus prevent the nuisance candidate is thus defined as one who,
faithful determination of the true will of the based on the attendant circumstances, has no bona
electorate of Antipolo City."17 He prayed that fide intention to run for the office for which the
Reynaldo be declared as a nuisance candidate and certificate of candidacy has been filed, his sole
that Reynaldo's Certificate of Candidacy be purpose being the reduction of the votes of a strong
canceled. candidate, upon the expectation that ballots with
only the surname of such candidate will be
In its May 8, 2016 Resolution,29 the Commission's considered stray and not counted for either of them.
Second Division granted Alfred's Petition.30 It found
Here, the names of petitioner and private respondent Here, the Santos doctrine must be applied: the votes
in the official ballots are indicated as follows: for petitioner alone should be counted in favor of
private respondent; if there are votes for both
21. ZAPANTA, ALFRED (AKSYON)
petitioner and private respondent in the same ballot,
22. ZAPANTA, ALFRED (LAKAS)85
The only way to distinguish petitioner from private then only one (1) vote should be counted in the
respondent is their number on the ballot and their latter's favor. This will not only discourage nuisance
affiliations. Other than that, a voter who wanted to candidates, but will also prevent the
vote for "Alfred Zapanta," but only knows the name disenfranchisement of voters.
"Alfred" or surname "Zapanta," would be confused
on which oval to shade to reflect his or her choice.
No other candidate for the position of city councilor Santos v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No. 235064,
has either the name "Alfred" or "Zapanta." September 4, 2018

On October 14, 2015, Jennifer Antiquera

After a perusal of the case records, this Court holds
Roxas (respondent) filed a certificate of candidacy
that petitioner was not able to sufficiently show that for the position of member of the Sangguniang
voters can clearly identify that his chosen nickname Panlungsod for the First District of Pasay City for
pertains only to him. The affidavits he presented are the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections.
not enough to show that he had been using the name
"Alfred" or that he is publicly known by that name. On October 21, 2015, respondent filed a petition for
disqualification against Rosalie Isles
Roxas (Rosalie) before the COMELEC praying that
Moreover, despite being given an opportunity to
the latter be declared a nuisance candidate because
counter private respondent's allegations, petitioner her certificate of candidacy (COC) was only filed
failed to deny that he had no campaign materials for the sole purpose of causing confusion among the
using the name "Alfred Zapanta," or present voters by the similarity of their names. She pointed
evidence to the contrary. He merely banked on his out that Rosalie stated that her nickname was "Jenn-
membership in a political party to support his claim Rose," to impersonate the former, when Rosalie's
that he had a bona fide intention to run for office. real nickname was actually "Saleng."
Association to a political party per se does not
Respondent also argued that Rosalie's intent to
necessarily equate to a candidate's bona fide intent; confuse the voters was apparent because she chose
instead, he or she must show that he or she is the name "Roxas Jenn-Rose" to appear in the
serious in running for office. This, petitioner failed official ballot even though respondent, a re-
to demonstrate. electionist candidate, was already using the name
"Roxas Jenny" for election purposes.
Additionally, private respondent is more recognized
by his constituents as "Alfred Zapanta," being an On May 20, 2016, respondent filed an Election
incumbent city councilor who was running for Protest Ad Cautelam5 against Consertino C.
another term. Santos (Santos) before the COMELEC praying,
among others, that the votes cast for Rosalie, who
This Court further holds that public respondent's was declared a nuisance candidate, be credited to
order of adding petitioner's votes to private her, that the proclamation of Santos as a member of
the Sangguniang Panlungsod for the First District
respondent's votes is not tainted with grave abuse of
of Pasay be annulled, and that she be proclaimed as
discretion. However, its ruling on this issue must be the winning candidate for the Sangguniang
set aside. Panlungsod of First District of Pasay City. Later,
respondent amended her protest and added Jerome
Advincula, Alberto Alvina, Ma. Antonia Carballo
Cuneta (Antonia) and Ricardo Escobar The rationale behind the prohibition against
Santos (Ricardo), as they were also proclaimed as nuisance candidates and the disqualification of
members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. candidates who have not evinced a bona
fide intention to run for office is easy to divine. The
Meanwhile, on July 22, 2016, or more than two (2) State has a compelling interest to ensure that its
months after the elections, the COMELEC-En electoral exercises are rational, objective, and
Banc issued a Resolution6 denying Rosalie's motion orderly. Towards this end, the State takes into
for reconsideration as follows: account the practical considerations in conducting
elections. Inevitably, the greater the number of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion candidates, the greater the opportunities for
for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of logistical confusion, not to mention the increased
merit. The Resolution dated 30 March 2016 of the allocation of time and resources in preparation for
Commission (Second Division) is the election. These practical difficulties should, of
hereby AFFIRMED. course, never exempt the State from the conduct of
a mandated electoral exercise. At the same time,
The Court's Ruling remedial actions should be available to alleviate
these logistical hardships, whenever necessary and
The Court affirms with modification the November proper. Ultimately, a disorderly election is not
8, 2017 writ of execution of the COMELEC-En merely a textbook example of inefficiency, but a rot
Banc. that erodes faith in our democratic institutions. 26

The COMELEC's declaration of Rosalie as a A petition for disqualification of a nuisance

nuisance candidate, which was sought to be candidate clearly affects the voters' will and causes
implemented by the assailed writ of execution confusion that frustrates the same. This is precisely
resulted into: (1) Antonia and Ricardo's ranking what election laws are trying to protect. They give
were changed from 3rd and 5th place to 4th and 6th effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the · voter.
place, respectively; and (2) Constantino was Thus, extreme caution should be observed before
dislodged as a winning candidate as member of any ballot is invalidated. Further, in the appreciation
the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the First District of of ballots, doubts are resolved in favor of their
Pasay City. validity.27

Nuisance Candidates By their very nature, proceedings in cases of

nuisance candidates require prompt disposition. The
Section 69 of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 881, or declaration of a duly registered candidate as a
the Omnibus Election Code, defines nuisance nuisance candidate results in the cancellation of his
candidates as follow: COC. The law mandates the COMELEC and the
courts to give priority to cases of disqualification to
Sec. 69. Nuisance candidates. - The Commission the end that a final decision shall be rendered not
may motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an later than seven days before the election in which
interested party, refuse to give due course to or the disqualification is sought. In many instances,
cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that however, proceedings against nuisance candidates
said certificate has been filed to put the election remained pending and undecided until election day
process in mockery or disrepute or to cause and even after canvassing of votes had been
confusion among the voters by the similarity of the completed. 28
names of the registered candidates or by other
circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate The Court has resolved several petitions involving
that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run cases where the COMELEC declared a nuisance
for the office for which the certificate of candidacy candidate before and after the elections.
has been filed and thus prevent a faithful
determination of the true will of the electorate. Petitioners argue that the votes of the nuisance
candidate shall only be credited in favor of the
legitimate candidate if the decision in the nuisance
case becomes final and executory before the As stated above, Section 11 (K) (a) of COMELEC
elections. Resolution No. 10083, which refers to petitions for
disqualifications under Section 72 of the Omnibus
Again, the Court is not convinced. Election Code,46 requires that the decision of the
COMELEC in the said case must become final and
Section 11 (K) of COMELEC Resolution No. executory before the elections. At that moment, the
10083, or the General Instructions Governing the votes for the candidate with the cancelled COC
Consolidation/Canvass, and Transmission of Votes shall be considered stray and the candidate who
in connection with the May 9, 2016 National and obtains the second highest number of votes shall be
Local Election, states: proclaimed. Similarly, under Section 11 (K) (c), if
the case becomes final and executory after the
K. Proclamation of Winning Candidates elections, then the rule on succession, if allowed,
shall apply. Consequently, in petitions to deny due
A candidate who obtained the highest number of course to or cancel a COC under Section 72, the
votes shall be proclaimed by the Board, except the specific period when the case becomes final and
following: executory before or after the elections, is material
and relevant.
a. In case the certificate of candidacy of the
candidate who obtains the highest number of votes On the contrary, Section 11 (K) (b) of COMELEC
has been cancelled or denied due course or Resolution No. 10083, which specifically refers to
disqualified by a final and executory Decision or nuisance petitions under Section 69 of the Omnibus
Resolution before the elections, the votes cast for Election Code, states that the votes cast for the
such candidate shall be considered stray, hence, the nuisance candidate shall be added to the candidate
Board shall proceed to proclaim the candidate who that shares the same surname with the former. It
obtains the second highest number of votes, does not distinguish whether the decision in the
provided, the latter's certificate of candidacy has not nuisance case became final and executory before
likewise ·been cancelled by a final and executory or after the elections. Notably, Dela
Decision or Resolution before the elections; Cruz emphasized that Section 72 applies to
disqualification cases but not to petitions to cancel
b. In case a candidate has been declared a nuisance or deny due course a certificate of candidacy under
candidate by final and executory Decision or Sections 69 for nuisance candidates.47
Resolution, the votes cast for the nuisance
candidate shall be added to the candidate who To reiterate, in a nuisance petition, the votes of the
shares the same surname as the nuisance nuisance candidate shall be credited to the
candidate and thereafter, the candidate who legitimate candidate once the decision becomes
garnered the highest number of votes shall be final and executory, whether before or after the
proclaimed; elections. Martinez III provides the basis for this
rule: "final judgments declaring a nuisance
xxxx candidate should effectively cancel the certificate of
candidacy filed by such candidate as of election
c. In case the certificate of candidacy of the day."48
candidate who obtains the highest number of votes
has been cancelled or denied due course or Accordingly, when there is a final and executory
disqualified by a final and executory Decision or judgment in a nuisance case, it shall be effective
Resolution after the elections and he/she obtains and operative as of election day. It is as if the
the highest number of votes cast for a particular nuisance candidate was never a candidate to be
position, the Board shall not proclaim the candidate voted for because his candidacy caused confusion to
and the rule of succession, if allowed by law, shall the electorate and it showed his lack
be observed. In case the position does not allow the of bona fide intention to run for office. Thus, the
rule of succession under Republic Act No. 7160, the votes for the said nuisance candidate shall be
position shall be deemed vacant. (emphases transferred to the legitimate candidate, with the
supplied) similar name, as of election day also.
Similarly, in Bautista, even though the decision in on the ballot, still, election woes brought by
the nuisance case only became final and executory nuisance candidates persist.49
after the elections, the Court still credited the votes
of the nuisance candidate in favor of the legitimate To sanction the argument of petitioners would
candidate. It was highlighted therein that promote the practice of fielding nuisance candidates
technicalities should not be permitted to defeat the and delaying the resolution of nuisance cases after
intention of the voter, especially so if that intention the election in order to prevent the proclamation of
is discoverable from the ballot itself. legitimate candidates. While the delays in the
resolution of the nuisance cases in the COMELEC
Further, the position of petitioners is unjust and exist, it should not be a valid reason to deprive a
oppressive. A declaration - that only decisions or legitimate candidate of the votes of the electorate.
resolutions in nuisance cases that became final and
executory before the election shall result in the The better approach would be to allow the crediting
crediting of votes in favor of the legitimate of the votes of the nuisance candidate to the
candidate - would lead to harsh practices of rival legitimate candidate, who have similar
political opponents and exploitations in the delays names, regardless whether the decision or
in COMELEC. As discussed in Martinez III: resolution of the COMELEC became final and
executory before or after the elections. In that
Given the realities of elections in our country and way, the will of the electorate shall be respected as
particularly contests involving local positions, what observed in Bautista and Martinez III.
emerges as the paramount concern in barring
nuisance candidates from participating in the In this case, respondent, a re-electionist candidate,
electoral exercise is the avoidance of confusion and was an apparent prey to the unscrupulous practice
frustration of the democratic process by preventing of fielding nuisance candidates and to the delays of
a faithful determination of the true will of the the resolution of cases before the COMELEC. As
electorate, more than the practical considerations early as October 21, 2015, she filed a petition to
mentioned in Pamatong. A report published by the declare Rosalie a nuisance candidate because the
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism in latter chose the name "Roxas Jenn-Rose" to appear
connection with the May 11, 1998 elections in the official ballot even though respondent already
indicated that the tactic of fielding nuisance had a preferred name of "Roxas Jenny," which are
candidates with the same surnames as leading confusingly similar. Further, the name "Jenn-Rose"
contenders had become one (1) "dirty trick" was far from Rosalie's actual name and her real
practiced in at least parts of the country. The nickname was "Saleng." It was also discovered that
success of this clever scheme by political rivals or Rosalie was not financially capable to campaign for
operators has been attributed to the last-minute the elections.
disqualification of nuisance candidates by the
Commission, notably its "slow-moving"
decision-making. Halili v. Comelec, G.R.No. 231657;

xxxx
Petitioner Marino P. Morales (Morales) was elected
xxx The inclusion of nuisance candidates turns the and served as Mayor of the Municipality of
electoral exercise into an uneven playing field Mabalacat, Pampanga from 1 July 2007 to 30 June
where the bona fide candidate is faced with the 2010. He was elected again as mayor during the
prospect of having a significant number of votes
2010 elections. On 15 May 2012, or during
cast for him invalidated as stray votes by the mere
presence of another candidate with a similar Morales' second term, Congress passed Republic
surname. Any delay on the part of the Act No. (RA) 10164,5 converting the Municipality
COMELEC. increases the probability of votes of Mabalacat into a component city. Thereafter, a
lost in this manner. While political campaigners plebiscite was held. In the 2013 elections, Morales
try to minimize stray votes by advising the ran again and was elected as mayor of the new
electorate to write the full name of their candidate
Mabalacat City. On 8 December 2015, Morales Morales' COC be cancelled pursuant to the rule on
filed his Certificate of Candidacy6 (COC) for the succession under Section 44 of RA 7160, or the
2016 elections for the position of mayor of Local Government Code.
Mabalacat City, as substitute candidate for Wilfredo
Feliciano of Aksyon Demokratiko Party. COMELEC: In a Resolution dated 3 August 2016,
the COMELEC First Division granted the petition,
On 4 January 2016, respondent Pyra Lucas (Lucas), cancelled Morales' COC, and ordered the
also a candidate for the position of mayor of proclamation of the qualified mayoralty candidate
Mabalacat City, filed a Petition for Cancellation of with the next higher number of votes. 
the COC and/or Disqualification of Morales for the
Mayoral Position of Mabalacat City,7 docketed as GARBO: running also for MAYOR garnered
SPA No. 16-001 (DC), before the COMELEC. second highest.
Lucas alleged that Morales was disqualified to run HALILI: elected VICE PRESIDENT, claiming that
for mayor, since he was elected and had served he should be the one to sit.
three consecutive terms prior to the 2016 elections.
Lucas also alleged that the conversion of the Filed a violation under Section 78: Material
Municipality of Mabalacat into Mabalacat City did representation.
not interrupt Morales' service for the full term for
ISSUE:
which he was elected.
WON Garbo (running as mayor) be proclaimed?
Morales claimed that his candidacy did not violate
the three-term limit rule, because the conversion of WON Mayor position is permanent vacancy
the Municipality of Mabalacat into Mabalacat City therefore a VP (halili) should sit as Mayor)?
interrupted his term. According to him, his term as
mayor of Mabalacat City is not a continuation of his The Ruling of the Court
term as mayor of the Municipality of Mabalacat
The primordial issue to be resolved is whether or
On 10 May 2016, following the canvass of all not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion
election returns, the City Board of Canvassers of amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction: (1) in
Mabalacat City proclaimed Morales as elected city finding that Morales committed a false material
mayor, and petitioner Christian C. Halili (Halili) as representation in his COC when he declared that he
elected city vice mayor. was eligible to run as mayor of Mabalacat City for
the 2016 elections despite his violation of the three-
On 20 May 2016, respondent Crisostomo Garbo term limit rule; and (2) in proclaiming Garbo as the
(Garbo), another candidate for the position of mayor duly elected mayor of Mabalacat City for being the
of Mabalacat City, filed a Motion for Leave To qualified candidate with the highest number of
Intervene and To Admit Attached Petition-in- votes.
Intervention9 alleging that he was interested in the
outcome of the case, since he obtained the second We do not find merit in both petitions.
highest number of votes and he should be
proclaimed as mayor of Mabalacat City should The three-term limit rule is embodied in Section 8,
Morales' COC be cancelled. Article X of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:

On 28 June 2016, Halili also filed a Verified Motion Section 8. The term of office of elective local
for Leave to Intervene (as Respondent) and Admit officials, except barangay officials, which shall be
determined by law, shall be three years and no such
Attached Answer-in-Intervention10 alleging that, as
official shall serve for more than three consecutive
incumbent vice mayor of Mabalacat City, he should terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any
be proclaimed as mayor of Mabalacat City should length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of his service for the x x x. If the disqualification or COC
full term for which he was elected. cancellation/denial case is not resolved before
election day, the proceedings shall continue even
It is restated in Section 43 of the Local Government after the election and the proclamation of the
Code, thus: winner. In the meanwhile, the candidate may be
voted for and be proclaimed if he or she wins, but
Section 43. Term of Office.- (a) x x x. the COMELEC's jurisdiction to deny due course
and cancel his or her COC continues. This rule
b) No local elective official shall serve for more applies even if the candidate facing disqualification
than three (3) consecutive terms in the same is voted for and receives the highest number of
position. Voluntary renunciation of the office for votes, and even if the candidate is proclaimed and
any length of time shall not be considered as an has taken his oath of office. The only exception to
interruption in the continuity of service for the full this rule is in the case of congressional or senatorial
term for which the elective official concerned was candidates with unresolved disqualification or COC
elected. denial/cancellation cases after the elections.
Pursuant to Section 17 of Article VI of the
In the present case, Morales admits that he has been Constitution, the COMELEC ipso jure loses
elected and has served as mayor of Mabalacat, jurisdiction over these unfinished cases in favor of
Pampanga for three consecutive terms: (1) 2007- the respective Senate or the House of
2010; (2) 2010-2013; and (3) 2013-2016. However, Representatives electoral tribunals after the
Morales insists that his second term as mayor of the candidates take their oath of office.46
Municipality of Mabalacat was interrupted by the
conversion of the municipality into a component Moreover, we held in Fermin v. Commission on
city. Morales claims that Mabalacat City is an Elections47 that the Court has already likened a
entirely different political unit from the proceeding under Section 78 to a quo
Municipality of Mabalacat, having an increased warranto proceeding under Section 253 of the OEC
territory, income and population.
since they both deal with the eligibility or
We are not convinced. qualification of a candidate, with the distinction
mainly in the fact that a "Section 78" petition is
We have already ruled upon the same issue in the filed before proclamation, while a petition for quo
case of Latasa v. COMELEC (Latasa),25 where we warranto is filed after proclamation of the wining
held that the conversion of a municipality into a city candidate.
does not constitute an interruption of the incumbent
official's continuity of service. We held that to be Thus, Section 78 of the OEC states:
considered as interruption of service, the "law
contemplates a rest period during which the local
Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a
elective official steps down from office and ceases
certificate of candidacy. - A verified petition
to exercise power or authority over the inhabitants
seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate
of the territorial jurisdiction of a particular local
of candidacy may be filed by the person exclusively
government unit."26
on the ground that any material representation
contained therein as required under Section 74
Contrary to Morales' argument that since he had hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time
been proclaimed and had assumed office as mayor not later than twenty-five days from the time of the
in 2016, disputes as to his COC became moot and filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be
the proper remedy is to file a quo decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than
warranto proceeding questioning his eligibility, we fifteen days before the election.
held in Velasco v. Commission on Elections45 that
the COMELEC's jurisdiction to deny due course to
Under Section 78, a petition to deny due course to
and cancel a COC continues, to wit:
or to cancel a COC must be filed within 25 days
from the time of filing of the COC. Morales filed
his COC on 8 December 2015. Thus, Lucas had "I AM ELIGIBLE for the office [I] seek to [be]
until 2 January 2016 to file the petition under elected, x x x. I hereby certify that the facts
Section 78, but since 2 January 2016 fell on a stated herein are true and correct of my own
Saturday, Lucas had until the next working day or 4 personal knowledge."
January 2016 to file the petition. We, thus, find that
Lucas timely filed her petition on 4 January 2016 4. The truth of the matter being that [Cayat] is not
under Section 78 of the OEC. Furthermore, contrary eligible to run as Mayor having been convicted by
to Morales' insistence, the COMELEC Rules of final judgment for a criminal offense by the
Procedure do not require that a certification of non- Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City, Philippines,
forum shopping be attached to the petition. 48 At any Branch 2, for the Crime of Forcible Acts of
rate, we held that the COMELEC's rules of Lasciviousness docketed as Criminal Case Number
procedure on certifications of non-forum shopping 110490. Copies of the Information and the Order of
should be liberally construed, and COMELEC's conviction dated October 03, 2003 is [sic] hereto
interpretation of such rules in accordance with its attached and marked as ANNEX "B" and "C";
constitutional mandate should carry great weight.49
5. In fact, [Cayat] is still under probation at the time
The rule on succession under Section 44  of RA
56
he filed his Certificate of Candidacy on January 05,
7160, as espoused by Halili, would not apply if the 2004 after the Honorable Court granted his
permanent vacancy was caused by one whose COC application for probation on November 06, 2003.
Copies of the Application for probation date[d]
was void ab initio. In case of vacancies caused by
October 07, 2003 and the Order granting the
those with void ab initio COCs, the person legally probation is [sic] hereto attached and marked
entitled to the vacant position would be the as ANNEXES "D" and "E";
candidate who garnered the next highest number of
votes among those eligible.57 In this case, it is Garbo 7. At the time of filing his Certificate of Candidacy,
who is legally entitled to the position of mayor, [Cayat] is disqualified to [sic] said office as Mayor
having garnered the highest number of votes among as he is still serving his sentence and/or
disqualification was not yet removed or
the eligible candidates. Thus, the COMELEC
cured[.]6 (Emphasis in the original)
correctly proclaimed Garbo as mayor of Mabalacat
City. Sec. 40. Disqualifications. The following persons
are disqualified from running fro [sic] any elective
local position:
Cayat v. Comelec, G.R. No. 163776, April 24,
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an
2007
offense involving moral turpitude for an
offense punishable by one (1) year or more
of imprisonment within [two] (2) years after
\Cayat and Palileng were the only candidates for the
serving sentence;
mayoralty post in Buguias, Benguet in the 10 May
2004 local elections. Cayat filed his certificate of
(b) xxx xxx xxx
candidacy on 5 January 2004. On 26 January 2004,
Palileng filed a petition for disqualification against
With this, the issue of disqualification rests on Sec.
Cayat before the COMELEC Regional Election
40(a) of the Local Government Code and not on the
Office in Baguio City. Docketed as SPA (PES) No.
material misrepresentation in the certificate of
C04-001, Palileng’s petition alleged that:
candidacy.
3. On January 05, 2004, [Cayat] filed his Certificate
The issue now to be resolved is whether or not the
[of] Candidacy for Mayor for the Municipality of
crime of Forcible Acts of Lasciviousness, to which
Buguias, Benguet, Philippines alleging among
[Cayat] was convicted by final judgment, is a crime
others as follows:
involving moral turpitude so as to bring the issue
within the coverage of Section 40(a) of the Local On Palileng’s Proclamation
Government Code.
There is no doubt as to the propriety of Palileng’s
The conviction of [Cayat] was never questioned. In proclamation for two basic reasons.
fact [Cayat] accepted his conviction by applying for
probation which was granted on November 6, 2003. First, the COMELEC First Division’s Resolution of
It is already well settled that a judgment of 12 April 2004 cancelling Cayat’s certificate of
conviction in a criminal case ipso facto attains candidacy due to disqualification became final and
finality when the accused applies for probation. executory on 17 April 200421 when Cayat failed to
This brings us to the issue of moral turpitude. pay the prescribed filing fee. Thus, Palileng was the
only candidate for Mayor of Buguias, Benguet in
Moral turpitude had been defined as everything the 10 May 2004 elections. Twenty–three days
which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good before election day, Cayat was already disqualified
morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in by final judgment to run for Mayor in the 10 May
the private and social duties which a man owes his 2004 elections. As the only candidate, Palileng was
fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to not a second placer. On the contrary, Palileng was
justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. (IRRI the sole and only placer, second to none. The
vs[.] NLRC, May 12, 1993) doctrine on the rejection of the second placer, which
triggers the rule on succession, does not apply in the
Moral turpitude implies something immoral in present case because Palileng is not a second-placer
itself, regardless of the fact that it is punishable by but the only placer. Consequently, Palileng’s
law or not. It is not merely mala prohibita, but the proclamation as Mayor of Buguias, Benguet is
act itself must be inherently immoral. The doing of beyond question.
the act itself, and not its prohibition by statute fixes
the moral turpitude. Moral turpitude does not, Second, there are specific requirements for the
however, include such acts as are not of themselves application of the doctrine on the rejection of the
immoral but those initially lies in their being second placer. The doctrine will apply in
positively prohibited (Dela Torre vs[.] COMELEC Bayacsan’s favor, regardless of his intervention in
and Marcial Villanueva, G.R. No. 121592, July 5, the present case, if two conditions concur: (1) the
1996). decision on Cayat’s disqualification remained
pending on election day, 10 May 2004, resulting in
From the definition of moral turpitude, it can be the presence of two mayoralty candidates for
determined that the acts of [Cayat] involved moral Buguias, Benguet in the elections; and (2) the
turpitude. His acts fell short of his inherent duty of decision on Cayat’s disqualification became final
respecting his fellowmen and the society. This was only after the elections.
aggravated by the fact that [Cayat] is a priest. The
crime of acts of lasciviousness clearly involves The law expressly declares that a candidate
moral turpitude. disqualified by final judgment before an election
cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not
Therefore, the respondent is convicted of a crime be counted. This is a mandatory provision of law.
involving moral turpitude. Applying Sec. 40(a) of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, The Electoral
the Local Government Code, it is recommended that Reforms Law of 1987, states:
[Cayat] be disqualified from running as Mayor of
the Municipality of Buguias, Benguet Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case.— Any
candidate who has been declared by final judgment
The Issues to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the
votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any
The present petition seeks to determine the legality reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment
of the orders cancelling Cayat’s Certificate of before an election to be disqualified and he is voted
Candidacy, nullifying Cayat’s proclamation as for and receives the winning number of votes in
Mayor of Buguias, Benguet, and declaring Palileng such election, the Court or Commission shall
as Mayor of Buguias, Benguet. continue with the trial and hearing of the action,
inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the A perusal of the above provision would readily
complainant or any intervenor, may during the disclose that the Comelec can legally suspend the
pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of petitioner Labo, his reception of the
proclamation of such candidate whenever the winning number of votes notwithstanding,
evidence of his guilt is strong. (Emphasis added) especially so where, as in this case, Labo failed to
present any evidence before the Comelec to support
Section 6 of the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 his claim of reacquisition of Philippine
covers two situations. The first is when the citizenship.25 (Italicization in the original)
disqualification becomes final before the elections,
which is the situation covered in the first sentence Cayat’s proclamation on 12 May 2004 is void
of Section 6. The second is when the because the decision disqualifying Cayat had
disqualification becomes final after the elections, already become final on 17 April 2004. There is no
which is the situation covered in the second longer any need to ascertain whether there was
sentence of Section 6. actual knowledge by the voters of Cayat’s
disqualification when they cast their votes on
The present case falls under the first situation. election day because the law mandates that Cayat’s
Section 6 of the Electoral Reforms Law governing votes "shall not be counted." There is no
the first situation is categorical: a candidate disenfranchisement of the 8,164 voters. Rather, the
disqualified by final judgment before an election 8,164 voters are deemed by law to have deliberately
cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not voted for a non-candidate, and thus their votes are
be counted. The Resolution disqualifying Cayat stray and "shall not be counted."
became final on 17 April 2004, way before the 10
May 2004 elections. Therefore, all the 8,164 votes To allow a candidate disqualified by final judgment
cast in Cayat’s favor are stray. Cayat was never a 23 days before the elections to be voted for and
candidate in the 10 May 2004 elections. Palileng’s have his votes counted is a blatant violation of a
proclamation is proper because he was the sole and mandatory provision of the election law. It creates
only candidate, second to none. confusion in the results of the elections and invites
needless new litigations from a candidate whose
Labo involved the second situation covered in the disqualification had long become final before the
second sentence of Section 6 of the Electoral elections. The doctrine on the rejection of the
Reforms Law. In Labo, the Court applied the second placer was never meant to apply to a
second sentence of Section 6, and even italicized situation where a candidate’s disqualification had
the second sentence for emphasis, thus: become final before the elections.

x x x In the first place, Sec. 72 of the Omnibus Panlaqui v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No. 188671,
Election Code has already been repealed by Sec. 6 February 24, 2010
of RA No. 6646, to wit:
Velasco was born in Sasmuan on June 22, 1952 to
"Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case.— Any Filipino parents. He married Evelyn Castillo on
candidate who has been declared by final judgment June 29, 1975. In 1983, he moved to the United
to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the States where he subsequently became a citizen.
votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any
reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment Upon Velasco’s application for dual citizenship
before an election to be disqualified and he is voted under Republic Act No. 92252 was approved on
for and receives the winning number of votes in July 31, 2006, he took on even date his oath of
such election, the Court or Commission shall allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and
continue with the trial and hearing of the action, returned to the Philippines on September 14, 2006.
inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the
complainant or any intervenor, may during the On October 13, 2006, Velasco applied for
pendency thereof order the suspension of the registration as a voter of Sasmuan, which
proclamation of such candidate whenever the application was denied by the Election Registration
evidence of his guilt is strong." Board (ERB). He thus filed a petition for the
inclusion of his name in the list of voters before the First, the COMELEC First Division’s Resolution of
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sasmuan which, 12 April 2004 cancelling Cayat’s certificate of
by Decision of February 9, 2007, reversed the candidacy due to disqualification became final and
ERB’s decision and ordered his inclusion in the list executory on 17 April 2004 when Cayat failed to
of voters of Sasmuan. pay the prescribed filing fee. Thus, Palileng was
the only candidate for Mayor of Buguias, Benguet
In the meantime, Velasco filed on March 28, in the 10 May 2004 elections. Twenty–three days
2007 his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for mayor before election day, Cayat was already disqualified
of Sasmuan, therein claiming his status as a by final judgment to run for Mayor in the 10 May
registered voter. Panlaqui, who vied for the same 2004 elections. As the only candidate, Palileng was
position, thereupon filed before the Comelec a not a second placer. On the contrary, Palileng was
Petition to Deny Due Course To and/or To Cancel the sole and only placer, second to none. The
Velasco’s COC based on gross material doctrine on the rejection of the second placer, which
misrepresentation as to his residency and, triggers the rule on succession, does not apply in the
consequently, his qualification to vote. present case because Palileng is not a second-placer
but the only placer. Consequently, Palileng’s
In the electoral bout of May 2007, Velasco won proclamation as Mayor of Buguias, Benguet is
over Panlaqui as mayor of Sasmuan. As the beyond question.
Comelec failed to resolve Panlaqui’s petition prior
to the elections, Velasco took his oath of office and Second, there are specific requirements for the
assumed the duties of the office. application of the doctrine on the rejection of the
second placer. The doctrine will apply in
Finding material misrepresentation on the part of Bayacsan’s favor, regardless of his intervention in
Velasco, the Comelec cancelled his COC and the present case, if two conditions concur: (1) the
nullified his proclamation, by Resolutions of July 6, decision on Cayat’s disqualification remained
2007 and October 15, 2007, which this Court pending on election day, 10 May 2004, resulting in
affirmed in G.R. No. 180051. the presence of two mayoralty candidates for
Buguias, Benguet in the elections; and (2) the
Panlaqui thereafter filed a motion for proclamation decision on Cayat’s disqualification became final
which the Comelec denied by the assailed only after the elections.7 (emphasis and italics in
Resolution, pointing out that the rule on succession the original; underscoring supplied)
does not operate in favor of Panlaqui as the second
placer because Velasco was not disqualified by final It is not within the province of the RTC in a voter’s
judgment before election day. inclusion/exclusion proceedings to take cognizance
of and determine the presence of a false
Hence, the present petition which imputes grave representation of a material fact. It has no
abuse of discretion on the part of the Comelec for jurisdiction to try the issues of whether the
not regarding the RTC March 1, 2007 Decision as misrepresentation relates to material fact and
the final judgment of disqualification against whether there was an intention to deceive the
Velasco prior to the elections, so as to fall within electorate in terms of one’s qualifications for public
the ambit of Cayat v. Commission on Elections5 on office. The finding that Velasco was not qualified to
the exception to the doctrine on the rejection of the vote due to lack of residency requirement does not
second placer. translate into a finding of a deliberate attempt to
mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would
In his present petition, Panlaqui implores this Court otherwise render him ineligible.
to apply in his favor the case of Cayat where the
Court affirmed, inter alia, the Comelec Order Assuming arguendo the plausibility of Panlaqui’s
directing the proclamation of the second placer as theory, the Comelec correctly observed that when
Mayor of Buguias, Benguet in this wise: the RTC issued its March 1, 2007 Decision, there
was yet no COC to cancel because Velasco’s COC
There is no doubt as to the propriety of Palileng’s was filed only on March 28, 2007. Indeed, not only
proclamation for two basic reasons. would it be in excess of jurisdiction but also beyond
the realm of possibility for the RTC to rule that protest on the immediately succeeding working day,
there was deliberate concealment on the part of Monday, May 27, 2013.
Velasco when he stated under oath in his COC that
he is a registered voter of Sasmuan despite his In answer,7 Garcia belied the allegations of fraud
knowledge of the RTC decision which was yet and urgently moved for the dismissal of Payumo’s
forthcoming. protest. She claimed that she was proclaimed mayor
on May 14, not May 15, 2013, as indicated in the
IN FINE, the Comelec did not gravely abuse its manual Certificate of Canvass of Votes and
discretion when it denied Panlaqui’s motion for Proclamation (manual COCP)8 issued by
proclamation. Since Velasco’s disqualification Dinalupihan’s MBOC. She, thus, argued that the
as a candidate had not become final before the election protest was filed beyond the mandatory
elections, the Comelec properly applied the rule on ten-day (10-day) reglementary period for filing an
succession. election protest, which, as she claimed in this case,
lasted only until May 24, 2013, a Friday. On the
ELECTION CONTEST ground of belated filing, Garcia urged the RTC to
dismiss the election protest outright.
Garcia v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No. 216691,
July 21, 2015 Rtc: BARRED NA DAW FOR HAVING BEEN
FILED BEYONG 10 DAYS.
Petitioner Maria Angela S. Garcia (Garcia) and
Payumo were candidates for the mayoralty race of The Issue
Dinalupihan, Bataan during the May 13, 2013
national and local elections. In the poll’s Succinctly put, the issue in extant case boils down
conclusion, Garcia was proclaimed winner for to whether or not Payumo’s election protest was
having garnered 31,138 votes as against Payumo’s filed out of time. On the main, Garcia contends that
13,292. The Office of the Election of Dinalupihan the reckoning date of the 10-day reglementary
then released to Payumo a certified copy of the period is from the actual date of proclamation,
printed Certificate of Canvass of Votes and which is May 14, 2013. Meanwhile, Payumo
Proclamation (printed COCP), bearing May 15, counters that Garcia was proclaimed on May 15,
2013 as the date of proclamation of the winning 2013, and assuming arguendo that it was done on
mayoralty candidate. As per the records, the printed May 14, 2013, as Garcia insists the proclamation
COCP reflected the signatures and thumbprints of date to be, he cannot be faulted for relying on the
the members of the Municipal Board of Canvassers date appearing on the printed COCP he received.
(MBOC).3
YES ALREADY BARRED. The significance of
On May 27, 2013, Payumo lodged an election verifying this proclamation date is underscored by
protest4 with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5 in Rule 2, Section 12 (c), in relation to Sec. 7 of the
Balanga, Bataan (RTC), docketed as Election same rule, A.M. No. 10-4-1 SC,19 otherwise known
Protest No. DH-001-13, citing the alleged as the 2010 Rules of Procedure in Election Contests
prevalence of fraud and irregularities in all the before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal
clustered precincts of Dinalupihan, heightened by Officials, which provisions pertinently state:
the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines’
unreliability, casting doubt on the results of the Section 12. Summary dismissal of election contest.
counting and canvassing of votes.5 Anent the – the court shall summarily dismiss, motu proprio,
timeliness of the recourse, Payumo claimed that an election protest, counter-protest or petition for
from May 15, 2013, the proclamation date quo warranto on any of the following grounds:
appearing on the printed COCP, he had ten (10)
days, or until May 25, 2013, within which to (a) The court has no jurisdiction over the
challenge the election results. He added that since subject matter;
May 25, 2913 falls on a Saturday, he filed his
(b) The petition is insufficient in form and
content as required under Section 10;
 (c) The petition is filed beyond the period disqualification of respondent Magno as a candidate
prescribed in these Rules; on the ground of his conviction by the
Sandiganbayan of four counts of Direct Bribery. On
(d) The filling fee is not paid within the May 7, 2001, the COMELEC Second Division
period for filling the election protest or issued a Resolution disqualifying respondent
petition for quo warranto; and Magno. This was affirmed on appeal by the
COMELEC En Banc on May 12, 2001.cralaw : red
(e) In a protest case where cash deposit is
required, the deposit is not paid within five Unfortunately, however, neither this Court nor this
(5) days from the filling of the protest. case is the proper forum to rule on (1) the validity
of Sonia Lorenzo’s proclamation and (2) the
Section 7. Period to file protest or petition; non- declaration of petitioner as the rightful winner.
extendible. – The election protest or petition for quo Inasmuch as Sonia Lorenzo had already been
warranto shall be filed within a non-extendible proclaimed as the winning candidate, the legal
period of ten (10) days counted from the date of remedy of petitioner would have been a timely
proclamation. election protest.

Jurisprudence teaches that the rule prescribing the On October 21, 2002, respondent Magno filed an
10-day reglementary period is mandatory and Omnibus Motion with the COMELEC in SPA 01-
jurisdictional, and that the filing of an election 153, seeking: (a) that his name be reinstated in the
protest beyond the period deprives the court of certified list of candidates for municipal mayor of
jurisdiction over the protest. Violation of this rule San Isidro, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2001 local
should neither be taken lightly nor brushed aside as election; (b) the nullification of the proclamation of
a mere procedural lapse that can be overlooked. The Lorenzo as mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija; (c)
rule is not a mere technicality but an essential that a special board of canvassers be formed to
requirement, the non-compliance of which would continue the canvas of votes cast in favor of
oust the court of jurisdiction over the case.20 respondent Magno; and (d) after completion of the
Apparently, contrary to Payumo’s assertion, the canvas, that Magno be proclaimed the winner.
manual COCP is the official Comelec document in
cases wherein the canvassing threshold is lowered,
In fact, clear from the language of the Resolution is
that the winners, in such instances, are proclaimed As a general rule, the proper remedy after the
"by manually preparing a Certificate of Canvass and proclamation of the winning candidate for the
Proclamation of Winning Candidate," the format for position contested would be to file a regular election
which is appended to Comelec Resolution No. protest or a petition for quo warranto. 5 This rule,
9700. It is incorrect to state, therefore, that only the however, admits of exceptions, to wit: (1) where the
printed COCP can serve as basis for ascertaining the board of canvassers was improperly constituted; (2)
date of Garcia’s proclamation. As in this case, it is where quo warranto was not the proper remedy; (3)
the manual COCP which contains the true and exact where what was filed was not really a petition for
date of Garcia’s proclamation – May 14, 2013, not quo warranto or an election protest but a petition to
the printed COCP. annul the proclamation; (4) where the filing of a
quo warranto petition or an election protest was
Lorenzo v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No. 158371, expressly made without prejudice to the pre-
December 11, 2003 proclamation controversy or was made ad cautelam;
and (5) where the proclamation was null and void.

Petitioner Sonia R. Lorenzo and respondent Nestor This case falls squarely within the fifth exception to
B. Magno were rival candidates for Mayor of San the general rule, i.e. the proclamation of Lorenzo as
Isidro, Nueva Ecija in the local elections of May 14, Mayor of San Isidro was null and void. As of May
2001. A certain Carlos Montes, resident of San 18, 2001, the date on which Lorenzo was
Isidro, filed with the Commission on Elections a proclaimed Mayor-elect of San Isidro, the question
petition, docketed as SPA 01-153, for the as regards Magno’s qualifications for said post was
still pending, and was raised as an issue before this Eduard V. Tugade - 126
Court in certiorari proceedings in G.R. No. 147904. TOTAL 245
The question of Magno’s qualifications for the
office of Mayor was not resolved until October 4, However, after the segregation and recount of the
2002, when we expressly ruled that Magno was ballots contained in the sealed envelopes for the
qualified for said post. 7 candidates in the contested precincts, the following
results were obtained:
Since the question of Magno’s eligibility for the
position of Mayor was still pending, the canvass Florencio P. Agustin - 119
which excluded Magno from the list of qualified Eduard V. Tugade - 125
candidates was an incomplete canvass, and
Stray Ballots - 11
Lorenzo’s proclamation, on the basis thereof, was
illegal. An incomplete canvass is illegal and cannot TOTAL 255
be the basis of a valid proclamation. 8
Sec. 240. Election resulting in tie. - Whenever it
shall appear from the canvass that two or more
candidates have received an equal and highest
number of votes, or in cases where two or more
candidates are to be elected for the same position
and two or more candidates received the same
number of votes for the last place in the number to
be elected, the board of canvassers, after recording
this fact in its minutes, shall by resolution, upon
five days notice to all the tied candidates, hold a
special public meeting at which the board of
canvassers shall proceed to the drawing of lots of
the candidates who have tied and shall proclaim as
elected the candidates who may be favored by luck,
and the candidates so proclaimed shall have the
right to assume office in the same manner as if he
had been elected by plurality of vote. The board of
canvassers shall forthwith make a certificate stating
Tugade v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No. 171063,
the name of the candidate who had been favored by
March 2, 2007
luck and his proclamation on the basis thereof.
 Petitioner Eduard V. Tugade and private
Nothing in this section shall be construed as
respondent Florencio P. Agustin were candidates
depriving a candidate of his right to contest the
for the position of Punong Barangay of San
election.
Raymundo, Balungao, Pangasinan during the July
15, 2002 synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang
Kabataan elections.

The result of the canvass showed that petitioner

obtained 246 votes, while private respondent
garnered 245 votes, or a margin of only one (1)
vote.

On August 13, 2002, the MTC created a Revision

Committee. Its report, based on the election returns
and the tally sheets, showed the following:

Florencio P. Agustin - 119

Local Government Unit
A. Principles of Local Autonomy a) Public: Organized for the government of a
portion of the State.
1. Constitutional Provisions: b) Private: Formed for some private
purpose, benefit, aim or end.
a) Sec. 25, Art. II: The State shall ensure the c) Quasi-public: A private corporation that
autonomy of local governments. renders public service or supplies public
wants.
b) Sec. 2, Art. X: The territorial and political 4. Criterion to determine whether corporation
subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy. is public: The relationship of the corporation
to the State, i.e., if created by the State as its
2. The principle of local autonomy under the own agency to help the State in carrying out
1987 Constitution simply means its governmental functions, then it is public;
“decentralization”; it does not make the local otherwise, it is private.
governments sovereign within the state or an
“imperium in imperio” 5. Classes of public corporations:
a) Quasi-corporation. Created by the State
“Autonomy is either decentralization of for a narrow or limited purpose.
administration or decentralization of power”. The
second is abdication by the national government of b) Municipal corporation. A body politic
political power in favor of the local government; the and corporate constituted by the
first consists merely in the delegation of incorporation of the inhabitants for the
administrative powers to broaden the base of purpose of local government.
governmental power.

Congress still control, the power to create still C. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

includes the power to destroy. The power to
grant still includes the power to withhold. ELEMENTS:
PRESIDENT still has the general power of
SUPERVISION. 1. LEGAL CREATION OR
INCORPORATION- The law creating or
POWER OF PRESIDENT: only interfere in the authorizing the creation or incorporation
affairs and activities of local government unit of a municipal corporation.
only if acted contrary to law. ALTER EGO 2. CORPORATE NAME- May be change
cannot interfere if they acted within the only upon ratification in a plebiscite.
parameters of their power. (kaya sila local 3. INHABITANTS
autonomy) 4. TERRITORY

LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY is also not subject DUAL NATURE AND FUNCTIONS:
to the control of Chieh Executive, DILGs
authority is seeing to it that the rules are 1. Public or Governmental- as agent of the
followed. DILG has no authority to remove state
incumbent or to conduct new election only if the 2. Private or Propreitary- agent of the
Liga violated its rules. community in the administration of local
affairs, it acts as a separate entity, FOR
B. Corporation. ITS OWN PURPOSE
1. Defined. An artificial being created by
operation of law, having the right of MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS IN THE
succession and the powers, attributes and PHILIPPINES; ROLES: The territorial and
properties expressly authorized by law or political subdivisions of the Republic of the
incident to its existence. Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities
3. Classification of corporations according to and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions
purpose.
in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras [Sec. 1, in the case of a barangay located within its
Art. X, Constitution], territorial jurisdiction, subject to such limitations
and requirements prescribed in the Local
PROVINCE: COMPOSED of cluster of Government Code [Sec. 6, R.A. 7160], a)
municipalities, component cities, serves as a
dynamic mechanism for developmental processes
and effective governance of inhabitants.
In Section 19, R.A. 9054, Congress delegated to the
CITY: composed of urbanized and developed Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
barangay serves as general purpose government for (ARMM) the power to create provinces, cities,
the coordination and delivery of basic, regular and municipalities and barangays within the ARMM.
direct services. Challenged as unconstitutional in Serna v. Comelec,
G.R. No. 177597, July 16, 2008, the Supreme Court
MUNICIPALITY: consist of group of barangay. said: There is no provision in the Constitution that
conflicts with the delegation to regional legislative
BARANGAY: Basic political unit, serves as a bodies of the power to create municipalities and
primary planning and implementing unit barangays, provided Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution is followed.
ARMM: relative to the establishment of the
autonomous regional governments in Regions IX However, the creation of provinces and cities is
and XII under the 1973 Constitution, it was held another matter. Section 5 (3), Article VI of the
that autonomy is either decentralization of Constitution
administration or decentralization of power. The provides that each city with a population of at least
second is abdication by the national government of two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall
political power in favor of the local government; the have at least one representative. Section 3 of the
first consists merely in the delegation of Ordinance
administrative powers to broaden the base of appended to the Constitution provides that any
governmental power. province that may hereafter be created, or any city
whose population may hereafter increase to more
SPECIAL METROPOLITAN POLITICAL than two
SUBDIVISION: Pursuant to Sec. 11, Art. X, hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the
Constitution, Congress may, by law, create special immediately following election to at least one
metropolitan political subdivisions subject to a Member (in the House of Representatives).
plebiscite set forth in Sec. 10, (but) the component Pursuant to these provisions, a province cannot be
cities and municipalities shall retain their basic created without creating a legislative district; nor
autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local can a city
executives and legislative assemblies. The with a population of 250,000 or more be created
jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will without a legislative district. Thus, the power to
thereby be created shall be limited to basic services create a province or a city with a population of
requiring coordination 250,000 or more requires the power to create a
legislative district. Accordingly, the delegation
CREATION AND DISSOLUTION OF granted by Congress to the ARMM
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION to create provinces and cities is unconstitutional,
because Congress cannot validly delegate the
AUTHORITY TO CREATE: A local government power to create legislative districts for the House of
unit may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or Representatives, since the power to increase the
its boundaries substantially altered either by law allowable membership in the House of
enacted by Representatives and to reapportion legislative
Congress in the case of a province, city, districts, is vested exclusively in Congress.
municipality or any other political subdivision, or
by ordinance passed by the sangguniang REQUISITES ON CREATION OR
panlalawigan or sangguniang panlungsod concerned CONVERSION: LIMITATION
SEC 10: o province, city, municipality or barangay Highly Urbanized: 200,000
may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its Province: 250,000
boundary
substantially altered, except in accordance with the 3. LAND AREA: must be contigious, unless it
criteria established in the local government code comprises two or more islands or is
and subject to approval by a majority of the votes separated by local government unit
cast in a independent of the other, identified by metes
plebiscite in the political units directly affected. and bounds with technical descriptions

1. PLEBISCITE REQUIREMENTS: Municipality: 50 kl square

conducted by COMELEC within 120 days City: 100 square kl
from the date of effectivity of LAW or Province: 2,000 sq kl
ORDINANCE effecting such action.
Compliance with the foregoing indicators shall be
In Tan v. Comelec, 142 SCRA 727, it was held that a attested to by the Department of Finance, the
plebiscite for creating a new province should National Statistics Office and the Lands
include the participation of the residents of the Management Bureau of the Department of
mother province in order to conform to the Environment and Natural Resources. In Mariano v.
constitutional requirement, x x x BP 885, creating Comelec, 242 SCRA 211, the Supreme Court said
the Province of Negros del Norte, is declared that the requirement that the territory of newly
unconstitutional because it excluded the voters of created local government units be identified by
the mother province from participating in the metes and bounds is intended to provide the means
plebiscite by which the area of the local government unit may
be reasonably ascertained, i.e., as a tool in the
SEC 7 OF RA 7160: QUALIFICATIONS: establishment of the local government unit. As long
as the territorial jurisdiction of the newly created
1. Income - must be sufficient, based on city may be
acceptable standards, to provide for all reasonably ascertained — by referring to common
essential government facilities and services boundaries with neighboring municipalities — then,
and special functions commensurate with the legislative intent has been sufficiently served.
the size of its population, as expected of the
local government unit concerned. Average a) Division and merger. Shall comply with the
annual income for the last two consecutive same requirements, provided that such
years based on 1991 constant prices should division shall not reduce the income,
be at least: population or land area of the local
government unit or units concerned to less
ia) Municipality: P2,500,000.00 than the minimum requirements prescribed;
Ib: City: 100,000,000 provided further that the income
ic) Highly urbanized city: P50,000,000.00 classification of the original local
id) Province : P20,000,000.00 government unit or units shall not fall below
its current income classification prior to the
IRA should not be included in the computation. division [Sec. 8, R.A. 7160].
b) Abolition. A local government unit may be
2. POPULATION: It shall be determined as abolished when its income, population or
the total number of inhabitants within the land area has been irreversibly reduced to
territorial jurisdiction of the local less than the minimum standards prescribed
government unit concerned. Required for its creation, as certified by the national
minimum population for: agencies mentioned. The law or ordinance
abolishing a local government unit shall
Barangay: 2,000 inhabitants (Manila- 5,000) specify the province, city, municipality or
Municipality: 25,000 barangay with which the local government
City: 150,000
 unit sought to be abolished will be d) Rights and obligations existing on the date
incorporated or merged [Sec. 9, R.A. 7160].. of effectivity of this Code and arising out of
contracts or any other source of prestation
DE FACTO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION involving a local government unit shall be
governed by the original terms and
A. Valid Law authorizing incorporation conditions of said contracts or the law in
B. Attempt in goodfaith to organize under it force at the time such rights were vested.
C. Colorable Compliance with the law e) In the resolution of controversies arising
D. Assumption of corporate powers under this Code where no legal provision or
jurisprudence applies, resort may be had to
President cannot create municipalities through the customs and traditions in the place
EXECUTIVE ORDER, therefore could not claim where the controversies take place.
de facto municipal corporation.
GENERAL POWERS AND ATTRIBUTES OF
No collateral attack shall lie, State shall file QUO LGUS
WARRANTO however it must be atleast a de facto
corporation. SOURCES:
a) Sec. 25, Art. II; Secs. 5, 6 & 7, Art. X,
If 30years in existence, considered as de jure Philippine Constitution
corporation, and even 16 years in existence. b) Statutes, e.g., R. A. 7160
c) Charter [particularly of cities]
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE: Jan 1, d) Doctrine of the right of self-government,
1992 but applies only in States which adhere to
the doctrine
POLICY: The territorial and political subdivisions
of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful CLASSIFICATION:
local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest
development as self-reliant communities and make Classification: •
them more effective partners in the attainment of a) express, implied, inherent (powers necessary
national goals; and proper for governance, e.g., to promote
health and safety, enhance prosperity, improve
INTERPRETATION: morals of inhabitants)
a) Any provision on a power of a local b) public or governmental, private or proprietary
government unit shall be liberally c) intramural, extramural
interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, d) mandatory, directory: ministerial,
any question thereon shall be resolved in discretionary
favor of devolution of powers and of the
local government unit. Execution of Powers:
b) b) Any tax ordinance or revenue measure 1. Based on Statute
shall be construed strictly against the local 2. If Silent, they may select reasonable means
government unit enacting it and liberally in and methods of exercise
favor of the taxpayer. Any tax exemption,
incentive or relief granted by any local B. Governmental Powers,
government unit shall 1. General Welfare [Sec. 16, R.A. 7160]: Every
be construed strictly against the person local government unit shall exercise the powers
claiming it. expressly granted, those necessarily implied
c) The general welfare provisions shall be therefrom, as
liberally interpreted to give more powers to well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental
local government units in accelerating for its efficient and effective governance, and those
economic development and upgrading the which are essential to the promotion of the general
quality of life for the people in the welfare.
community. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local
government units shall ensure and support, among safety, comfort and convenience, and consistently
other things, the preservation and enrichment of as may be with private rights, x x x Ordinance is not
culture, unconstitutional merely because it incidentally
promote health and safety, enhance the right of the benefits a
people to a balanced ecology, encourage and limited number of persons x x x The support for the
support the development of appropriate and self- poor has long been an accepted exercise of the
reliant scientific police power in the promotion of the common good.
and technological capabilities, improve public
morals, enhance economic prosperity and social b) Devolution refers to the act by which the national
justice, promote full employment among its government confers power and authority upon the
residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve various local government units to perform specific
the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. functions and responsibilities. This includes the
transfer to the local government units of the records,
a) The general welfare clause is the statutory grant equipment and other assets and personnel of
of police power to local government units. national
b) Limitations on the exercise of powers under this agencies and offices. Regional offices of national
clause: agencies shall be phased out within one year from
i) Exercisable only within territorial limits of the the approval of this Code. Career regional directors
local government unit, except for protection of who
water supply. cannot be absorbed by the local government unit
ii) Equal protection clause. (The interests of the shall be retained by the national government,
public in general, as distinguished from those of a without diminution in rank, salary or tenure.
particular class, require the exercise of the power.)
iii)Due process clause. (The means employed are 3. Power to Generate and Apply Resources [Sec.
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the 18, R.A. 7160], Local government units shall have
purpose and not unduly oppressive on individuals.) the power and authority to establish an organization
iv)Must not be contrary to the Constitution and the that shall be responsible for the efficient and
laws. Prohibited activities may not be legalized in effective implementation of their development
the guise of regulation; activities allowed by law plans, program objectives and
cannot be prohibited, only regulated. In Magtajas v. priorities; to create their own sources of revenue
Pryce Properties, G.R. No. and to levy taxes, fees and charges which shall
111097, July 20, 1994, the Supreme Court reiterated accrue exclusively to their use and disposition and
its ruling in Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, which shall be retained by them; to have a just share
Catanduanes, 207 SCRA 157, and in Solicitor in the national taxes which shall be automatically
General v. Metropolitan and directly released to them without need of
Manila Authority, 204 SCRA 837, that to be valid, any further action; to have an equitable share in the
an ordinance [a] must not contravene the proceeds from the utilization and development of
Constitution and any statute; [b] must not be unfair the national wealth and resources within their lease,
or oppressive; [c] encumber, alienate or otherwise dispose of real or
must not be partial or discriminatory; [d] must not personal property held by them in their proprietary
prohibit, but may regulate trade; [e] must not be capacity and to apply their resources and assets for
unreasonable; and [f] must be general in application productive, developmental or welfare purposes, in
and consistent with public policy. the exercise or furtherance of their governmental or
proprietary powers and functions and thereby
THEY can exercise POLICE POWER under the ensure their development into self-reliant
general welfare clause. communities and active participants in the
attainment of national goals.
In Binay v. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508, it was held
that the power of municipal corporations is broad
and has been said to be commensurate with but not
to exceed the duty to provide for the real needs of TAXATION:
the people in their health,
c) Fundamental principles governing the exercise of ii) Local government funds and monies shall be
the taxing and other revenue-raising powers of local spent solely for public purposes;
government units [Sec. 130, R.A. 7160]. iii) Local revenue is generated only from sources
i) Taxation shall be uniform in each local expressly authorized by law. or ordinance, and
government unit; collection thereof shall at all times be
ii) Taxes, fees, charges and other impositions shall acknowledged properly;
be equitable and based as far as practicable on the iv) Ail monies officially received by a local
taxpayer’s ability to pay; levied and collected only government officer in any capacity or on any
for public purposes; not unjust, excessive, occasion shall be accounted for as local funds,
oppressive or unless otherwise provided by law;
confiscatory; and not contrary to law, public policy,
national economic policy, or in restraint of trade; EMINENT DOMAIN: A local government unit
iii) The collection of local taxes, fees, charges and may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant
other impositions shall in no case be let to any to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent
private person; domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the
iv) The revenue collected shall inure solely to the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment
benefit of, and be subject to disposition by, the local of just
government unit, unless specifically provided compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the
herein; and constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however,
v) Each local government unit shall, as far as That the power of eminent domain may not be
practicable, evolve a progressive system of taxation. exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been
previously made to the owner and such offer was
CASES: not accepted: Provided, further, That the local
Local governments have no power to tax government unit may immediately take possession
instrumentalities of the National Government; of the property upon
PAGCOR being an instrumentality of the National the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon
Government is therefore exempt from local taxes. making a deposit with the proper court of at least
15% of the fair market value of the property based
Estanislao v. Costales, 196 SCRA 853: Local on the current tax declaration of the property to be
government units have the power to create their expropriated: Provided, finally, That the amount to
own sources of revenue, levy taxes, etc., but subject be paid for the expropriated property shall be
to such guidelines and limitations set by Congress. determined by the proper court, based on the fair
market value at
Sec. 187, R.A. 7160, which authorizes the Secretary the time of the taking of the property.
of Justice to review the constitutionality or legality
of a tax ordinance — and, if warranted, to revoke it The additional limitations on the exercise of the
on either or both grounds — is valid, and does not power of eminent domain by local government units
confer the power of control over local government are, as follows:
units in the Secretary of Justice, as even if the latter i) Exercised only by the local chief executive,
can set aside a tax ordinance, he cannot substitute acting pursuant to a valid ordinance;
his own judgment for that of the local government ii) For public use or purpose or welfare, for the
unit [Drilon v. Lim, G.R. No. 112497, August 4, benefit of the poor and the landless;
1994], iii) Only after a valid and definite offer had been
made to, and not accepted by, the owner.
FINANCIAL AFFAIRS:
Fundamental principles governing the financial RECLASSIFICATION OF LAND:
affairs, a) A city or municipality may, through an ordinance
transactions and operations of local government passed after conducting public hearings for the
units [Sec. 305, R.A. 7160]: i) purpose, authorize the reclassification of
i) No money shall be paid out of the local treasury agricultural lands and provide for the manner of
except in pursuance of an appropriation ordinance their utilization or disposition:
or law;
 i) When the land ceases to be economically Ordinance - prescribes a permanent rule of conduct.
feasible and sound for agricultural purposes Resolution - of temporary character, or expresses
as determined by the Department of sentiment.
Agriculture, or
j) Where the land shall have substantially b) Requisites for validity. In Solicitor General v.
greater economic value for residential, Metropolitan Manila Authority, supra., reiterated in
commercial or industrial purposes, as Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, supra., and in
determined by the sanggunian; provided that Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, supra., the Supreme
such reclassification shall be limited to the Court enumerated the requisites, as follows:
following percentage of the total agricultural i) must not contravene the Constitution and any
land area at the time of the passage of the statute; ii) must not be unfair or oppressive;
ordinance: iii) must not be partial or discriminatory;
iv) must not prohibit, but may regulate trade;
[a] for highly urbanized cities and independent v) must not be unreasonable; and
component cities: 15%, [b] for component cities and vi) must be general in application and consistent
1st to 3rd class municipalities: 10%, and [c] for 4th with public policy.
to 6th
class municipalities: 5%; provided that agricultural c) Approval of Ordinances. Ordinances passed by
land distributed to land reform beneficiaries shall the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang
not be affected by such reclassification. panlungsod or sangguniang bayan shall be
approved:
CLOSURE AND OPENING OF ROADS: A i) If the local chief executive approves the same,
local affixing his signature on each and every page
government unit may, pursuant to an ordinance, thereof.
permanently or temporarily close or open any local ii) If the local chief executive vetoes the same, and
road, alley, park, or square falling within its the veto is overridden by 2/3 vote of all the
jurisdiction, provided that in case of permanent members of the sanggunian. The local chief
closure, such ordinance must be approved by at executive may veto the ordinance, only once, on the
least 2/3 of all the members of the sanggunian, and ground that the ordinance is ultra vires, or that it is
when necessary, an adequate substitute for the prejudicial to the public welfare. He may veto any
public facility shall be particular item or items of an appropriation
provided. ordinance, an ordinance or resolution adopting a
development plan and public investment program,
CASES: or an ordinance directing the payment of money or
i) Pilapil v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 33: a creating liability. In such a case, the veto shall not
municipality has the authority to prepare and adopt affect the items or items which are not objected to.
a land use map, promulgate a zoning ordinance, and The veto shall be communicated by the local chief
close any municipal road. executive to the sanggunian within 15 days in case
ii) Macasiano v. Diokno, 212 SCRA 464: The of a province, or 10 days in case of a city or
closure of 4 streets in Baclaran (Paranaque) was municipality; otherwise, the ordinance shall be
held invalid for non-compliance with MMA deemed approved, as if he signed it.
Ordinance No. 2. Further, provincial roads and city
streets are property for public use under Art. 424,
Civil Code, hence under the absolute control of d) Review bv SanGuniana Panlalawiaan.
Congress. They are outside the commerce of man, Procedure: Within 3 days after approval, the
and cannot be disposed of to private persons secretary of the sangguniang panlungsod (in
component cities) or sangguniang bayan shall
LOCAL LEGISLATIVE POWER: forward to the sangguniang panlalawigan for review
copies of approved ordinances and resolutions
a) Products of legislative action: approving the local development
plans and public investment programs formulated
by the local development councils. The
sangguniang panlalawigan shall review the same commenced by the local executive, upon authority
within 30 days; if of the Sanggunian, except when the City
it finds that the ordinance or resolution is beyond Councilors, by
the power conferred upon the sangguniang themselves and as representatives of or on behalf of
panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned, it the City, bring the action to prevent unlawful
shall declare such disbursement of City funds
ordinance or resolution invalid in whole or in part.
If no action is taken within 30 days, the ordinance a) But the municipality cannot be represented by a
or resolution is presumed consistent with law, and private attorney. Only the Provincial Fiscal or the
therefore, valid. Municipal Attorney can represent a province or
e) Review of Barangay Ordinances. Within 10 days municipality in lawsuits. This is mandatory. The
from enactment, the sangguniang barangay shall municipality’s authority to employ a private lawyer
furnish copies of all barangay ordinances to the is limited to situations where the Provincial Fiscal is
sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan for disqualified to represent it, and the fact of
review. If the reviewing sanggunian finds the disqualification must appear on record. The Fiscal’s
barangay ordinances inconsistent with law or city or refusal to represent the municipality is not a legal
municipal ordinances, the sangguniang concerned justification for employing the services of private
shall, within 30 days from counsel; the municipality should request the
receipt thereof, return the same with its comments Secretary of Justice to appoint an Acting Provincial
and recommendations to the sangguniang barangay Fiscal in place of the one who declined to handle
for adjustment, amendment or modification, in the case in court
which case
the effectivity of the ordinance is suspended until 3. To have and use a corporate seal. Local
the revision called for is effected. If no action is government units may continue using, modify or
taken by the sangguniang panlungsod or change their corporate seal; any change shall be
sangguniang bayan within registered with
30 days, the ordinance is deemed approved. the Department of Interior and Local Government.
f) Enforcement of disapproved
ordinances/resolutions. Any attempt to enforce an 4. To acquire and convey real or personal property.
ordinance or resolution approving the local a) The local government unit may acquire real or
development plan and public investment program, personal, tangible or intangible property, in any
after the disapproval thereof, shall be sufficient manner allowed by law, e.g., sale, donation, etc..
ground for the suspension or dismissal of the
official or employee concerned. b) The local government unit may alienate only
g) Effectivity. Unless otherwise stated in the patrimonial property, upon proper authority. See
ordinance or resolution, the same shall take effect City of Naga v. Court of Appeals (1989).
after 10 days from the date a copy thereof is posted
in a bulletin board at the entrance of the provincial c) In the absence of proof that the property was
capitol, or city, municipal or acquired through corporate or private funds, the
barangay hall, and in at least two other conspicuous presumption is that it came from the State upon the
places in the local government unit concerned. creation of the municipality and, thus, is
governmental or public property [Salas v. Jarencio,
C. Corporate Powers [Sec. 22, R.A. 7160], Local 48 SCRA 734; Rebuco v. Villegas, 55 SCRA 656].
government units shall enjoy full autonomy in the
exercise of their proprietary functions and in the d) Town plazas are properties of public dominion;
management of their economic enterprises, subject they may be occupied temporarily, but only for the
to limitations provided in the Code and other duration of an emergency [Espiritu v. Municipal
applicable laws. The corporate powers of local Council of Pozorrubio (Pangasinan) 102 Phil. 866].
government units are:
1. To have continuous succession in its corporate e) A public plaza is beyond the commerce of man,
name. and cannot be the subject of lease or other
2. To sue and be sued. The rule is that suit is contractual undertaking. And, even assuming the
existence of a valid lease of the public plaza or part
thereof, the municipal resolution effectively
terminated the agreement, for it is settled that the
police power cannot be surrendered or bargained
away through the medium of a contract [Villanueva
v. Castaneda, 154 SCRA 142].

f) Public streets or thoroughfares are property for

public use, outside the commerce of man, and may
not be the subject of lease or other contracts
[Dacanay v. Asistio, 208 SCRA 404], See also
Macasiano v. Diokno, supra., where the closure of 4
streets in Baclaran (Paranaque) was held invalid for
noncompliance with MMA Ordinance No. 2, and
because provincial roads and city
streets are property for public use under Art. 424,
Civil Code, hence under the absolute control of
Congress. They are outside the commerce of man,
and cannot
be disposed of to private persons.

POWER TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS

a) Requisites of a valid municipal contract:
i) The local government unit has the express,
implied or inherent power to enter into the
particular contract.
ii) The contract is entered into by the proper
department, board, committee, officer or agent.
Unless otherwise provided by the Code, no contract
may be entered into by the local chief executive on
behalf of the local government unit without prior
authorization by the sanggunian concerned.
iii) The contract must comply with certain
substantive requirements,
i.e., when expenditure of public fund is to be made,
there must be an actual appropriation and a
certificate of availability of funds.
iv) The contract must comply with the formal
requirements of written contracts, e.g., the Statute
of Frauds.

To exercise such other powers as are granted to

corporations, subject to the limitations provided in
the Code and other laws.
LOCAL LEGISLATION tendered with the majority of the council members
in attendance (seven (7) out of the thirteen
La Carlota City, Negros Occidental v. Atty. councilors were present). Considering that the
Rojo, G.R. No. 181367, April 24, 2014 appointment of Rojo sufficiently complied with the
publication requirement, deliberation by the
Facts: Vice-Mayor Rex R. Jalandoon of La Carlota Personnel Selection Board, certification that it was
City, Negros Occidental appointed Atty. Rex G. issued in accordance with the limitations provided
Rojo (or Rojo) who had just tendered his for under Section 325 of R.A. 7160 and that
resignation as member of the Sangguniang appropriations or funds are available for said
Panlungsod the day preceding such appointment, position, the regional office approved the same.
as Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretary.
Mayor Ferrer and Vice-Mayor Honrado appealed
The status of the appointment was permanent. the foregoing Decision of the CSC Regional Office
Vice-Mayor submitted Rojo’s appointment papers No. 6 to the Civil Service Commission (or
to the Civil Service Commission Negros Occidental Commission). Commission dismissed said appeal
Field Office (CSCFO-Negros Occidental) for on the ground that the appellants were not the
attestation. In a Letter dated March 24, 2004, the appointing authority
said CSCFO wrote Jalandoon to inform him of the and were therefore improper parties to the appeal.
infirmities the office found on the appointment
documents, i.e. the Chairman of the Personnel Despite its ruling of dismissal, the Commission
Selection Board and the Human Resource went on to reiterate CSC Regional Office’s
Management Officer did not sign the certifications, discussion on the appointing authority’s compliance
the latter relative to the completeness of the with the certification and deliberation requirements,
documents as well as to the publication as well as the validity of appointee’s tender of
requirement. In view of the failure of the appointing resignation. It likewise denied the motion for
authority to comply with the directive, the said reconsideration thereafter filed by the petitioners in
CSCFO considered the appointment of Rojo a Resolution dated November 8, 2005. Petitioners
permanently recalled or withdrawn, in a subsequent filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.
Letter to Jalandoon dated April 14, 2004. Court of Appeals denied the petition, and affirmed
Jalandoon deemed the recall a disapproval of the Resolution Nos. 050654 and 051646 of the Civil
appointment, hence, he brought the matter to the Service Commission, dated 17 May 2005 and 8
CSC Regional Office No. 6 in Iloilo City, by way of November 2005, respectively. Petitioners filed a
an appeal. He averred that the Human Resource Motion for Reconsideration, which the Court of
Management Officer of La Carlota City refused to Appeals denied in its Resolution dated 18 January
affix his signature on Rojo’s appointment 2008.
documents but nonetheless transmitted them to the
CSCFO. Such transmittal, according to Jalandoon, Issue: Whether the appointment of respondent as
should be construed that the appointment was sangguniang panlungsod secretary violated the
complete and regular and that it complied with the constitutional proscription against eligibility of an
pertinent requirements of a valid appointment. elective official for appointment during his tenure;

City of La Carlota represented by the newly elected and Whether respondent’s appointment as
mayor, Hon. Jeffrey P. Ferrer and the Sangguniang sangguniang panlungsod secretary was issued
Panlungsod represented by the newly elected Vice- contrary to existing civil service rules and
Mayor, Hon. Demie John C. Honrado, collectively, regulations
the petitioners herein, intervened. They argued that
Jalandoon is not the real party in interest in the Ruling: A quorum of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
appeal but Rojo who, by his inaction, should be should be computed based on the total composition
considered to have waived his right to appeal from of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. In this case, the
the disapproval of his appointment. CSC Regional Sangguniang Panlungsod of La Carlota City,
Office No. 6 reversed and set aside the CSCFO’s Negros Occidental is composed of the presiding
earlier ruling. The regional office likewise ruled that officer, ten (10) regular members, and two (2) ex-
Rojo’s appointment on March 18, 2004 was made officio members, or a total of thirteen (13)
outside the period of the election ban from March members. A majority of the 13 "members" of the
26 to May 9, 2004, and that his resignation from the Sangguniang Panlungsod, or at least seven (7)
Sangguniang Panlungsod was valid having been members, is needed to constitute a quorum to
transact official business. Since seven (7) members respondent’s appointment is deemed effective as of
(including the presiding officer) were present on the 18 March 2004 considering that there was
17 March 2004 regular session of the Sangguniang substantial compliance with the appointment
Panlungsod, clearly there was a quorum such that requirements, thus: Records show that Atty. Rojo’s
the irrevocable resignation of respondent was appointment was transmitted to the CSC Negros
validly accepted. Occidental Field Office on March 19, 2004 by the
office of Gelongo without his certification and
The Perez19 case cited in the Dissenting Opinion signature at the back of the appointment.
was decided in 1969 prior to the 1987 Constitution, Nonetheless, records show that the position to
and prior to the enactment of RA 7160 or the Local which Atty. Rojo was appointed was published on
Government Code of 1991. In fact, the Perez case January 6, 2004. The qualifications of Atty. Rojo
was decided even prior to the old Local were deliberated upon by the Personnel Selection
Government Code which was enacted in 1983. Board on March 5, 2004, attended by Vice Mayor
Jalandoon as Chairman and Jose Leofric F. De
In ruling that the vice-mayor is not a constituent Paola, SP member and Sonia P. Delgado, Records
member of the municipal board, the Court in the Officer, as members. Records likewise show that a
Perez case relied mainly on the provisions of certification was issued by Vice Mayor Jalandoon,
Republic Act No. 305 (RA 305) creating the City of as appointing authority, that the appointment was
Naga and the amendatory provisions of Republic issued in accordance with the limitations provided
Act No. 225920 (RA 2259) making the vice-mayor for under Section 325 of RA 7160 and the said
the presiding officer of the municipal board. Under appointment was reviewed and found in order
RA 2259, the vice-mayor was the presiding officer pursuant to Section 5, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules
of the City Council or Municipal Board in chartered Implementing Executive Order No. 292.
cities.
Further, certifications were issued by the City
However, RA 305 and 2259 were silent on whether Budget Officer, Acting City Accountant, City
as presiding officer the vice-mayor could vote. Treasurer and City Vice Mayor that appropriations
Thus, the applicable laws in Perez are no longer or funds are available for said position. Apparently,
the applicable laws in the present case. On the all the requirements prescribed in Section 1, Rule
other hand, the 2004 case of Zamora v. Governor VIII in CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, series of
Caballero,21 in which the Court interpreted Section 1999, were complied with.24 Clearly, the
5322 of RA 7160 to mean that the entire appointment of respondent on 18 March 2004 was
membership must be taken into account in validly issued considering that: (1) he was
computing the quorum of theSangguniang considered resigned as Sangguniang Panlungsod
Panlalawigan, was decided under the 1987 member effective 17 March 2004; (2) he was fully
Constitution and after the enactment of the Local qualified for the position of Sanggunian Secretary;
Government Code of 1991. In stating that there and (3) there was substantial compliance with the
were fourteen (14) members of the Sangguniang appointment requirements.
Panlalawigan of Compostela Valley,23 the Court in
Zamora clearly included the Vice- Governor, as Javier, et al. v. Cadiao, et al., G.R. No. 185369,
presiding officer, as part of the entire membership August 3, 2016
of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan which must be
taken into account in computing the quorum. On In determining the number which constitutes as the
the issue that respondent’s appointment was majority vote, the Vice Governor is excluded. The
issued during the effectivity of the election ban, the Vice Governor's right to vote is merely contingent
Court agrees with the finding of the Court of and arises only when there is a tie to break.”
Appeals and the Civil Service Commission that
since the respondent’s appointment was validly The vice governor is the presiding officer in a
issued on 18 March 2004, then the appointment did provincial board while the vice mayor is the
not violate the election ban period which was from presiding officer in a city or municipal council.
26 March to 9 May 2004.
The DILG opinion dated July 24 reads:
Indeed, the Civil Service Commission found that
despite the lack of signature and certification of the “All concerned offices are hereby advised that in
Human Resource Management Officer of La the conduct of business of the Sangguniang
Carlota City on respondent’s appointment papers, Panlungsod, the presiding officer should be
counted for purposes of ascertaining the existence as the majority vote had already been
of a quorum, but not in the determination of the obtained.
required number of votes necessary to uphold a
matter before the SP.” To hold that the Presiding Officer should be
counted in determining the required number of
For the years 2007 to 2010, one of the herein votes necessary to uphold a matter before tfcje
respondents, Vice Governor Rhodora J. Cadiao SP shall be counter-productive. It would admit
(Vice Governor Cadiao), was the presiding deadlocks as ordinary incidents in the conduct
officer of the SP. of business of the SP, which in effect
incapacitates the said body from addressing
On the first regular session of the SP held on every issue laid before it. In the process, the
July 5, 2007, the Lakas ng Tao-Christian SP's responsiveness, effectiviry and
Muslim Democrats (Lakas-CMD) block was accountability towards the affairs of the body
considered as the majority party. Among those politic would be diminished.57 chanrobleslaw

who belonged to the said party were J. Tobias

M. Javier (Javier), Vincent H. Piccio III (Piccio) Verily, the Vice Governor, as the SP's Presiding
(collectively, the petitioners), Vice Governor Officer, should be counted for purposes of
Cadiao and SP member Benjamin E. Juanitas ascertaining the existence of a quorum, but
(Juanitas). Piccio was designated as the not in the determination of the required
Majority Floor Leader.3 chanrobleslaw
number of votes necessary to uphold a matter
before the SP.
The Vice Governor, as the Presiding Officer,
shall be considered a part of the SP for purposes VACANCIES:
of ascertaining if a quorum exists. In
determining the number which constitutes as the
majority vote, the Vice Governor is excluded. ROMEO J. GAMBOA, JR., petitioner,
vs.
The Vice Governor's right to vote is merely
MARCELO AGUIRRE, JR., and JUAN Y. ARANETA
contingent and arises only when there is a tie to
break. The query herein is purely legal. May an incumbent
Vice-Governor, while concurrently the Acting
Restated, the issue is whether or not the Vice Governor, continue to preside over the sessions of
Governor, as the presiding officer of the SP, shall the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP)
be counted in the determination of what number
constitutes as the majority. NOOOO.

It is correct that when the Vice-Governor exercises

In La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, et al. v. the "powers and duties" of the Office of the Governor,
Atty. Rojo,52 the Court interpreted a provision he does not assume the latter office. He only "acts" as
pertaining to the composition of the the Governor but does not "become" the Governor.
Sangguniang Panlungsod, His assumption of the powers, duties and functions of
viz.:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary the provincial Chief Executive does not create a
Section 457. Composition. (a) The sangguniang permanent vacuum or vacancy in his position as the
panlungsod, the legislative body of the city, shall Vice-Governor. Necessarily, he does not relinquish
nor abandon his position and title as Vice-Governor
be composed of the city vice-mayor as presiding by merely becoming an Acting Governor, (not
officer, the regular sanggunian members, the Governor) or by merely exercising the powers and
president of the city chapter of the liga ng mga duties of the higher officer. But the problem is, while
barangay, the president of the panlungsod na in such capacity, does he temporarily relinquish the
pederasyon ng mga sangguniang kabataan, and powers, functions, duties and responsibilities of the
the sectoral representatives, as members. Vice-Governor, including the power to preside over
. In the instant petition, when the Combong the sessions of the SP?
Resolution was deliberated upon, all the ten
(10) regular and three (3) ex-officio members, Sad to say the new Local Government Code is silent
plus the Presiding Officer, were present. Seven on this matter, yet this query should be answered in
the positive. A Vice-Governor who is concurrently an
members voted for, while six voted against the
Acting Governor is actually a quasi-Governor. This
Combong Resolution. There was no tie to break
means, that for purposes of exercising his legislative Article 49(b) of the Local Government Code —
prerogatives and powers, he is deemed as a non- concerning the election of a temporary presiding
member of the SP for the time being. By tradition, the officer. 
offices of the provincial Governor and Vice-Governor
are essentially executive in nature, whereas plain Navarro v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 141307,
members of the provincial board perform functions March 28, 2001
partaking of a legislative character. This is because
the authority vested by law in the provincial boards Facts:
involves primarily a delegation of some legislative
powers of Congress.   Unlike under the old Code,
7

where the Governor is not only the provincial Chief On March 25, 1999, Mayor Cesar Calimlim died.
Executive,   but also the presiding officer of the local
8 A vacancy was thus created in the Office of the
legislative body,   the new Code delineated the union
9 Mayor so by operation of law, Section 44 of
of the executive-legislative powers in the provincial, Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local
city and municipal levels except in the Barangay. Government Code of 1991, then Vice-Mayor
Under R.A. 7160, the Governor was deprived of the Baltazar Aquino succeeded him. Accordingly,
power to preside over the SP and is no longer
the highest-ranking member of the Sangguniang
considered a member thereof.   This is clear from the
10

law, when it provides that "local legislative power shall Bayan, i.e. the one who garnered the highest
be vested in the number of votes, was elevated to the position of
SP,"   which is "the legislative body of the province,"
11 the Vice-Mayor, pursuant to the same law. This
and enumerates therein membership consisting of was petitioner Danny B. Tamayo who belonged
the: to the REFORMA-LM political party.

1.) Vice-Governor, as presiding officer, Since a vacancy occurred in the Sangguniang

Bayan by the elevation of petitioner Tamayo to
2.) regular elective SP members, the office of the Vice-Mayor, Governor Victor
Agbayani of Pangasinan appointed herein
3.) three elective sectoral representatives, and
petitioner Purto J. Navarro as Member of the
4.) those ex-officio members, namely:
Sangguniang Bayan. Navarro belonged to the
same political party as that of petitioner
a.) president of the provincial chapter of the liga ng Tamayo.
mga barangay,
In a Resolution dated August 25, 1999, the lower
b.) president of the panlalawigang pederasyon ng Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals
mga sangguniang kabataan, due to the hierarchy of courts. The Court of
Appeals in a decision dated October 7, 1999
c.) president of the provincial federation of resolved the petition in favor of private
sangguniang members of municipalities and respondents.
component cities.  12

Issue:
Being the Acting Governor, the Vice-Governor cannot
continue to simultaneously exercise the duties of the
latter office, since the nature of the duties of the Whether or not the appointment of petitioner
provincial Governor call for a full-time occupant to Purto J. Navarro to the Sanggunian Bayan be
discharge them.   Such is not only consistent with but
19
declared as null and void ?
also appears to be the clear rationale of the new
Code wherein the policy of performing dual functions No, the court give due course to the petition.
in both offices has already been abandoned. To
repeat, the creation of a temporary vacancy in the
office of the Governor creates a corresponding Pursuant to Section 45 (b) of RA 7160, the
temporary vacancy in the office of the Vice-Governor person to be appointed to the position vacated
whenever the latter acts as Governor by virtue of such should come from the same political party
temporary vacancy. This event constitutes an affiliation as that of petitioner Tamayo. What is
"inability" on the part of the regular presiding officer crucial is the interpretation of Section 45(b)
(Vice Governor) to preside during the SP sessions, providing that “xxx only the nominee of the
which thus calls for the operation of the remedy set in
political party under which the Sanggunian City did not change even by an inch the land area
member concerned has been elected and whose previously covered by the Municipality of
elevation to the position next higher in rank Mabalacat.
created the last vacancy in the Sanggunian shall
Consequently, the inhabitants are the same group
be appointed in the manner hereinabove
of voters who elected Morales to be their mayor for
provided. The appointee shall come from the three consecutive terms, and over whom he held
political party as that of the Sanggunian member power and authority as their mayor. Accordingly,
who caused the vacancy xxx.”The reason behind Morales never ceased from acting and discharging
the right given to a political party to nominate a his duties and responsibilities as chief executive of
replacement where a permanent vacancy occurs Mabalacat, despite the conversion of the
in the Sanggunian is to maintain the party Municipality of Mabalacat into Mabalacat City.
representation as willed by the people in the
election. The rule on succession under Section 44  of RA 56

7160, as espoused by Halili, would not apply if the

permanent vacancy was caused by one whose COC
Morales v. Comelec, G.R. No. 231657,
was void ab initio. In case of vacancies caused by
January 15, 2019 those with void ab initio COCs, the person legally
entitled to the vacant position would be the candidate
 On his 2nd term, the Municipality of Mabalacat who garnered the next highest number of votes
became a component city. On the 2016 elections, among those eligible.  In this case, it is Garbo who is
57

he filed his CoC for the position of Mayor of legally entitled to the position of mayor, having
Mabalacat City. Respondent Lucas, also a garnered the highest number of votes among the
candidate for the same position, filed a Petition for eligible candidates. Thus, the COMELEC correctly
Cancellation of the COC and/or Disqualification of proclaimed Garbo as mayor of Mabalacat City.
Morales. Lucas alleged that Morales was
disqualified to run for mayor, since he was elected
and had served three consecutive terms prior to the Abundo, Jr. v. Comelec, et al., G.R.
2016 elections. Morales insists that his 2nd term as No. 201716, January 8, 2013
mayor of the Municipality of Mabalacat was
interrupted by the conversion of the municipality
into a component city. Morales claims that FACTS:
Mabalacat City is an entirely different political unit For four (4) successive regular
from the Municipality of Mabalacat, having an elections, namely, the 2001, 2004,
increased territory, income and population. ISSUE:
WON the conversion of the Municipality of
2007 and 2010 national and local
Mabalacat into Mabalacat City interrupted Morales' elections, Petitioner Abelardo Abundo,
service for the full term for which he was elected. Sr. (Abundo) vied for the position of
HELD: NO. There are two conditions which must
concur for the application of the disqualification of a
municipal mayor. In both the 2001 and
candidate based on violation of the three-term limit 2007 runs, he emerged and was
rule: (1) that the official concerned has been proclaimed as the winning mayoralty
elected for three consecutive terms in the same candidate and accordingly served the
local government post, and (2) that he has fully
served three consecutive terms. Citing the case of corresponding terms as mayor. In the
Latasa v. COMELEC (Latasa), the SC held that the 2004 electoral derby, however, the
conversion of a municipality into a city does not municipal board of canvassers initially
constitute an interruption of the incumbent official's
continuity of service. We held that to be considered proclaimed as winner one Jose Torres
as interruption of service, the "law contemplates a (Torres), who, in due time, performed
rest period during which the local elective official the functions of the office of mayor.
steps down from office and ceases to exercise
power or authority over the inhabitants of the
Abundo protested Torres election and
territorial jurisdiction of a particular local proclamation. Abundo was eventually
government unit. " Applying our ruling in Latasa, declared the winner of the 2004
the provisions of RA 10164 mean that the mayoralty electoral contest, paving the
delineation of the metes and bounds of Mabalacat
way for his assumption of office The declaration of being the winner in
starting May 9, 2006 until the end of an election protest grants the local
the 2004-2007 term on June 30, 2007, elected official the right to serve the
or for a period of a little over one year
unexpired portion of the term. Verily,
and one month. Then came the May
10, 2010 elections where Abundo and while he was declared winner in the
Torres again opposed each other. protest for the mayoralty seat for the
When Abundo filed his certificate of 2004-2007 term, Abundos full term
candidacy for the mayoralty seat has been substantially reduced by the
relative to this electoral contest, Torres actual service rendered by his
sought the formers disqualification to opponent (Torres). Hence, there was
run. actual involuntary interruption in the
term of Abundo and he cannot be
The RTC declared Abundo as
ineligible, under the three-term limit considered to have served the full
rule, to run in the 2010 elections for 2004-2007 term.
the position of, and necessarily to sit
as, mayor. In its Resolution, the Prior to the finality of the election
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) protest, Abundo did not serve in the
Second Division affirmed the decision mayors office and, in fact, had no legal
of RTC, which affirmed by COMELEC right to said position. During the
en banc.
pendency of the election protest,
ISSUE: Whether or not Abundo has
consecutively served for three terms. Abundo ceased from exercising power
or authority. Consequently, the period
HELD: The petition is partly during which Abundo was not serving
meritorious. as mayor should be considered as a
rest period or break in his service
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Involuntary because prior to the judgment in the
Interruption of Service election protest, it was Abundos
opponent, Torres, who was exercising
The consecutiveness of what otherwise
would have been Abundos three such powers by virtue of the still then
successive, continuous mayorship was valid proclamation.
effectively broken during the 2004- Petition is PARTLY GRANTED.
2007 term when he was initially
Agustin v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No. 207105,
deprived of title to, and was veritably November 10, 2015
disallowed to serve and occupy, an -SAME
office to which he, after due
proceedings, was eventually declared
to have been the rightful choice of the RECALL ELECTION
electorate. Adormeo v. Comelec, 376 SCRA 90: RECALL
COUNTED AS FULL TERM??
 elective position.1âwphi1 Consequently, it is not
Ardomeo and Talaga (respondents) were the only enough that an individual has served three
candidates who filed their certificates of candidacy consecutive terms in an elective local office, he
for mayor of Lucena City in the May 14, 2001 must also have been elected to the same position for
elections. Private respondent was then the the same number of times before the
incumbent mayor. disqualification can apply. This point can be made
clearer by considering the following case or
Private respondent Talaga, Jr. was elected mayor in situation:
May 1992. He served the full term. Again, he was
re-elected in 1995-1998. In the election of 1998, he xxx
lost to Bernard G. Tagarao. In the recall election of
May 12, 2000, he again won and served the Case No. 2. Suppose B is elected mayor and, during
unexpired term of Tagarao until June 30, 2001 his first term, he is twice suspended for misconduct
for a total of 1 year. If he is twice reelected after
On March 2, 2001, petitioner filed with the Office that, can he run for one more term in the next
of the Provincial Election Supervisor, Lucena City a election?
Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel
Certificate of Candidacy and/or Disqualification of Yes, because he has served only two full terms
Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr., on the ground that the latter successively.
was elected and had served as city mayor for three
(3) consecutive terms as follows: (1) in the election xxx
of May 1992, where he served the full term; (2) in
the election of May 1995, where he again served the To consider C as eligible for reelection would be in
full term; and, (3) in the recall election of May 12, accord with the understanding of the Constitutional
2000, where he served only the unexpired term of Commission that while the people should be
Tagarao after having lost to Tagarao in the 1998 protected from the evils that a monopoly of political
election. Petitioner contended that Talaga’s power may bring about, care should be taken that
candidacy as Mayor constituted a violation of their freedom of choice is not unduly curtailed.
Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution which
provides: Likewise, in the case of Lonzanida vs. COMELEC,
311 SCRA 602, 611 (1999), we said,
COMELEC FIRST DIVISION: DISQUALIFIED
EN BANC: REVERSED This Court held that the two conditions for the
application of the disqualification must concur: a)
WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT that the official concerned has been elected for three
COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF consecutive terms in the same local government
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR post and 2) that he has fully served three
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ISSUED consecutive terms.
ITS RESOLUTION DATED MAY 9, 2001,
DECLARING PRIVATE RESPONDENT RAMON Accordingly, COMELEC’s ruling that private
Y. TALAGA, JR., QUALIFIED TO RUN FOR respondent was not elected for three (3) consecutive
MAYOR IN LUCENA CITY FOR THE MAY 14, terms should be upheld. For nearly two years he
2001 ELECTIONS. was a private citizen. The continuity of his
mayorship was disrupted by his defeat in the 1998
elections.
NO. The issue before us was already addressed
in Borja, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 295 SCRA 157, 169 As pointed out by the COMELEC en banc, Fr.
(1998), where we held, Bernas’ comment is pertinent only to members of
the House of Representatives. Unlike local
To recapitulate, the term limit for elective local government officials, there is no recall election
officials must be taken to refer to the right to be provided for members of Congress.7
elected as well as the right to serve in the same
Neither can respondent’s victory in the recall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in
election be deemed a violation of Section 8, Article the same position. Voluntary renunciation of the
X of the Constitution as "voluntary renunciation" office for any length of time shall not be considered
for clearly it is not.1âwphi1 In Lonzanida vs. as an interruption in the continuity of service for the
COMELEC, we said: full term for which the elective official was elected.
The three-term limit rule for elective local officials
…The second sentence of the constitutional is found in Section 8, Article X of the Constitution.
provision under scrutiny states, "Voluntary This three-term limit rule is reiterated in Section 43
renunciation of office for any length of time shall (b) of RA No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
not be considered as an interruption in the Government Code.
continuity of service for the full term for which he
was elected." The clear intent of the framers of the These constitutional and statutory provisions have
constitution to bar any attempt to circumvent the two parts. The first part provides that an elective
three-term limit by a voluntary renunciation of local official cannot serve for more than three
office and at the same time respect the people’s consecutive terms. The clear intent is that only
choice and grant their elected official full service of consecutive terms count in determining the three-
a term is evident in this provision. Voluntary term limit rule. The second part states that voluntary
renunciation of a term does not cancel the renunciation of office for any length of time does
renounced term in the computation of the three term not interrupt the continuity of service. The clear
limit; conversely, involuntary severance from office intent is that involuntary severance from office for
for any length of time short of the full term any length of time interrupts continuity of service
provided by law amounts to an interruption of and prevents the service before and after the
continuity of service. The petitioner vacated his post interruption from being joined together to form a
a few months before the next mayoral elections, not continuous service or consecutive terms. After three
by voluntary renunciation but in compliance with consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot
the legal process of writ of execution issued by the seek immediate reelection for a fourth term. The
COMELEC to that effect. Such involuntary prohibited election refers to the next regular
severance from office is an interruption of election for the same office following the end of the
continuity of service and thus, the petitioner did not third consecutive term. Any subsequent election,
fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term.8 like a recall election, is no longer covered by the
prohibition for two reasons. First, a subsequent
Socrates v. Comelec, G.R. No. 154512 election like a recall election is no longer an
immediate reelection after three consecutive terms.
ISSUE/S Whether or not one who has been elected
and served for 3 consecutive full terms is qualified Second, the intervening period constitutes an
to run for mayor in the recall election. involuntary interruption in the continuity of service.
Clearly, what the Constitution prohibits is an
YES RATIO  The three-term limit rule for immediate reelection for a fourth term following
elective local officials is found in Section 8, Article three consecutive terms. The Constitution, however,
X of the Constitution, which states: does not prohibit a subsequent reelection for a
Section 8. The term of office of elective local fourth term as long as the reelection is not
officials, except barangay officials, which shall be immediately after the end of the third consecutive
determined by law, shall be three years and no such term. A recall election mid-way in the term
official shall serve for more than three consecutive following the third consecutive term is a subsequent
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any election but not an immediate reelection after the
length of time shall not be considered as an third term. Neither does the Constitution prohibit
interruption in the continuity of his service for the one barred from seeking immediate reelection to
full term for which he was elected. This three-term run in any other subsequent election involving the
limit rule is reiterated in Section 43 (b) of RA No. same term of office. What the Constitution prohibits
7160, otherwise known as the Local Government is a consecutive fourth term. The debates in the
Code, which provides: o Section 43. Term of Constitutional Commission evidently show that the
Office. – xxx (b) No local elective official shall prohibited election referred to by the framers of the
Constitution is the immediate reelection after the Based from the deliberations of a Constitutional
third term, not any other subsequent election.  Commission, what the Constitution prohibits is
an immediate re-election for a fourth term
The clear intent of the framers of the constitution to following three consecutive terms.  The
bar any attempt to circumvent the three-term limit Constitution, however, does not prohibit a
by a voluntary renunciation of office and at the subsequent re-election for a fourth term as long as
same time respect the people's choice and grant the re-election is not immediately after the end of
their elected official full service of a term is evident the third consecutive term.  A recall election mid-
in this provision. Voluntary renunciation of a term way in the term following the third consecutive
does not cancel the renounced term in the term is a subsequent election but not an immediate
computation of the three-term limit; conversely,
re-election after the third term.
involuntary severance from office for any length of
Neither does the Constitution prohibit one barred
time short of the full term provided by law amounts
from seeking immediate re-election to run in any
to an interruption of continuity of service." In
Hagedorn's case, the nearly 15-month period he was other subsequent election involving the same term
out of office, although short of a full term of three of office.  What the Constitution prohibits is
years, constituted an interruption in the continuity a consecutive fourth term.
of his service as mayor. The Constitution does not In the case of Hagedorn, his candidacy in the recall
require the interruption or hiatus to be a full term of election on September 24, 2002 is not an immediate
three years. The clear intent is that interruption "for re-election after his third consecutive term which
any length of time," as long as the cause is ended on June 30, 2001.  The immediate re-election
involuntary, is sufficient to break an elective local that the Constitution barred Hagedorn from seeking
official's continuity of service.  referred to the regular elections in 2001.

 We held in Adormeo that the period an elective Angubong v. Comelec, G.R. No. 126576, March 5,
local official is out of office interrupts the 1997
continuity of his service and prevents his recall term
from being stitched together as a seamless This is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside
continuation of his previous two consecutive terms. Resolution No. 96-2951 (15 October 1996) issued
In the instant case, we likewise hold that the nearly by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC),
15 months Hagedorn was out of office interrupted which approved the Petition for Recall filed and
his continuity of service and prevents his recall term signed by only one registered voter, private
from being stitched together as a seamless respondent Ma. Aurora S. de Alban, against
continuation of his previous three consecutive petitioner incumbent Mayor Ricardo M. Angobung;
terms. The only difference between Adormeo and set the further signing of said petition by the rest of
the instant case is the time of the interruption. In the registered voters of Tumauini, Isabela on 09
Adormeo, the interruption occurred after the first November 1996; and in case the said petition is
two consecutive terms. In the instant case, the signed by at least 25% of the total number of
interruption happened after the first three registered votes in Tumauini, Isabela, scheduled the
consecutive terms. In both cases, the respondents recall election on 02 December 1996. The Supreme
were seeking election for a fourth term. In Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order
Adormeo, the recall term of Talaga began only from enjoining COMELEC from implementing and
the date he assumed office after winning the recall enforcing the assailed Resolution.
election. Talaga's recall term did not retroact to
include the tenure in office of his predecessor. If FACTS: Petitioner Ricardo M. Angobung was the
Talaga's recall term was made to so retroact, then he elected Mayor of the Municipality of Tumauini,
would have been disqualified to run in the 2001 Isabela in the local elections of 1995. Private
elections because he would already have served respondent de Alban was also a candidate in said
three consecutive terms prior to the 2001 elections. elections. In September 1996, de Alban filed with
One who wins and serves a recall term does the Local Election Registrar of Tumauini, Isabela, a
Petition for Recall against Angubong. Said petition
was forwarded to the Regional Office in
Tuguegarao, Cagayan and then to the main office of these other citizens of Tumauini who have
COMELEC in Manila, for approval. Deputy reportedly also become anxious to oust petitioner
Executive Director for Operations Pio Jose Joson from the post of mayor. Section 69 [d] of the Local
then submitted to the COMELEC en banc, a Government Code of 1991 expressly provides that
Memorandum (08 October 1996) which "recall of any elective municipal official may also
recommends the approval of the petition for recall be validly initiated upon petition of at least 25% of
filed by de Alban and its signing by other qualified the total number of registered voters in the local
voters in order to garner at least 25% of the total government unit concerned during the election in
number of registered voters as required by Section which the local official sought to be recalled was
69[d] of the Local Government Code of 1991. The elected". The law is plain and unequivocal as to
COMELEC en banc, acting on said Memorandum, what initiates recall proceedings: only a petition of
issued the herein assailed Resolution No. 96-2951. at least 25% of the total number of registered voters
Petitioner now attacks the aforementioned may validly initiate recall proceedings. The law
resolution as being unconstitutional and therefore does not state that the petition must be signed by at
invalid. least 25% of the registered voters but rather it must
be "of" or by, at least 25% of the registered voters,
Petitioner now attacks the aforementioned i.e., the petition must be filed, not by one person
resolution as being unconstitutional and therefore only, but by at least 25% of the total number of
invalid, on two main grounds: (1) that the resolution registered voters. Recall is a mode of removal of a
approved the Petition for Recall albeit same was public officer by the people before the end of his
signed by just one person in violation of the term of office. The people's prerogative to remove a
statutory 25% minimum requirement as to the public officer is an incident of their sovereign
number of signatures supporting any petition for power and in the absence of constitutional restraint,
recall; and (2) that the resolution scheduled the the power is implied in all governmental operations.
recall election within one (1) year from the May 12, Such power has been held to be indispensable for
1997 Barangay Elections. the proper administration of public affairs. Not
undeservedly, it is frequently described as a
ISSUES (1) Whether the Resolution violated the fundamental right of the people in a representative
one-year bar on recall elections; (2) Whether the democracy (Garcia v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 100,
Resolution violated the statutory minimum 1993). Recall was intended to be an effective and
requirement of 25% as to the number of signatures speedy remedy to remove an official who is not
supporting any petition for recall. giving satisfaction to the electorate regardless of
whether or not he is discharging his full duty to the
(1) NO. The recall election scheduled on 02 best of his ability and as his conscience dictates. It
December 1996 is not barred by the May 1997 is a power granted to the people who, in concert,
Barangay Elections. The one-year bar finds no desire to change their leaders for reasons only they,
application in the case; Resolution No. 96-2951 is as a collective, can justify. It must be pursued by the
therefore valid on this ground. Section 74 of the people, not just by one disgruntled loser in the
Local Government Code of 1991 provides that "no elections or a small percentage of disenchanted
recall shall take place within one year immediately electors. Otherwise, its purpose as a direct remedy
preceding a regular local election." For the time bar of the people shall be defeated by the ill motives of
to apply, the approaching regular local election a few among them whose selfish resort to recall
must be one where the position of the official to be would destabilize the community and seriously
recalled is to be actually contested and filled by the disrupt the running of government. While the
electorate. people are vested with the power to recall their
elected officials, the same power is accompanied by
(2) YES. Private respondent de Alban filed the the concomitant responsibility to see through all the
petition for recall with only herself as the filer and consequences of the exercise of such power,
initiator. She claims in her petition that she has, including rising above anonymity, confronting the
together with many others in Tumauini, Isabela, lost official sought to be recalled, his family, his friends,
confidence in the leadership of petitioner. The and his supporters, and seeing the recall election to
petition, however, does not bear the names of all its ultimate end. The
 (a) Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines;
procedure of allowing just one person to file the (b) Culpable violation of the Constitution;
initiatory recall petition and then setting a date for (c) Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office,
the signing of the petition, which amounts to gross negligence, or dereliction of duty;
inviting and courting the public which may have (d) Commission of any offense involving moral
not, in the first place, even entertained any turpitude or an offense punishable by at least prision
displeasure in the performance of the official sought mayor;
to be recalled, is not only violative of statutory law (e) Abuse of authority;
but also tainted with an attempt to go around the (f) Unauthorized absence for fifteen (15)
law. The Supreme Court (1) granted the Petition for consecutive working days, except in the case of
Certiorari; (2) declared COMELEC Resolution No. members of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
962951 null and void; (3) set aside the same; made sangguniang panlunsod, sanggunian bayan,
permanent the restraining order it issued. and sangguniang barangay;
(g) Application for, or acquisition of, foreign
DISCIPLINARY POWER citizenship or residence or the status of an
immigrant of another country; and
Conchita Carpio Morales v. CA, et al., (h) Such other grounds as may be provided in this
G.R. No. 217126-27, November 10, 2015 Code and other laws.
An elective local official may be removed from
On July 22, 2014, a complaint/affidavit [10] was filed office on the grounds enumerated above by order of
by Atty. Renato L. Bondal and Nicolas "Ching" the proper court.
Enciso VI before the Office of the Ombudsman
against Binay, Jr. and other public officers and Related to this provision is Section 40 (b) of the
employees of the City Government of Makati LGC which states that those removed from office
(Binay, Jr., et al), accusing them of Plunder[11] and as a result of an administrative case shall
violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, be disqualified from running for any elective
[12]
 otherwise known as "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt local position:
Practices Act," in connection with the five (5)
phases of the procurement and construction of the
Makati City Hall Parking Building (Makati Parking Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following
Building).[ persons are disqualified from running for any
I. Whether or not the CA gravely abused its elective local position:
discretion in issuing the TRO and eventually, the
WPI in CA-G.R. SP No. 139453 enjoining the x x x x
implementation of the preventive suspension
order against Binay, Jr. based on the condonation (b) Those removed from office as a result of an
doctrine; and administrative case;
For local elective officials like Binay, Jr.,
the grounds to discipline, suspend or remove an x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
elective local official from office are stated
in Section 60 of Republic Act No. 7160, In the same sense, Section 52 (a) of the RRACCS
[292]
 otherwise known as the "Local Government provides that the penalty of dismissal from service
Code of 1991" (LGC), which was approved on carries the accessory penalty of perpetual
October 10 1991, and took effect on January 1, disqualification from holding public office:
1992:

Section 52. - Administrative Disabilities Inherent in

Section 60. Grounds for Disciplinary Action. - An Certain Penalties. -
elective local official may be disciplined, a. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it
suspended, or removed from office on any of the r cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of
following grounds: retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification
 from holding public office, and bar from taking Also, it cannot be inferred from Section 60 of the
the civil service examinations. LGC that the grounds for discipline enumerated
therein cannot anymore be invoked against an
In contrast, Section 66 (b) of the LGC states that elective local official to hold him administratively
the penalty of suspension shall not exceed the liable once he is re-elected to office. In fact, Section
unexpired term of the elective local official nor 40 (b) of the LGC precludes condonation since in
constitute a bar to his candidacy for as long as he the first place, an elective local official who is
meets the qualifications required for the office. meted with the penalty of removal could not be re-
Note, however, that the provision only pertains to elected to an elective local position due to a direct
the duration of the penalty and its effect on the disqualification from running for such post. In
official's candidacy. Nothing therein states that similar regard, Section 52 (a) of the RRACCS
the administrative liability therefor is imposes a penalty of perpetual disqualification from
extinguished by the fact of re-election: holding public office as an accessory to the penalty
of dismissal from service.

Section 66. Form and Notice of Decision. - x x x. To compare, some of the cases adopted
in Pascual were decided by US State jurisdictions
x x x x wherein the doctrine of condonation of
administrative liability was supported by either a
(b) The penalty of suspension shall not exceed the constitutional or statutory provision stating, in
unexpired term of the respondent or a period of six effect, that an officer cannot be removed by a
(6) months for every administrative offense, nor misconduct committed during a previous term,
shall said penalty be a bar to the candidacy of the [294]
 or that the disqualification to hold the office
respondent so suspended as long as he meets the does not extend beyond the term in which the
qualifications required for the office. official's delinquency occurred.[295] In one case,
[296]
 the absence of a provision against the re-
Reading the 1987 Constitution together with the election of an officer removed - unlike Section 40
above-cited legal provisions now leads this Court to (b) of the LGC-was the justification behind
the conclusion that the doctrine of condonation is condonation. In another case,[297] it was deemed that
actually bereft of legal bases. condonation through re-election was a policy under
their constitution - which adoption in this
To begin with, the concept of public office is a jurisdiction runs counter to our present
public trust and the corollary requirement of Constitution's requirements on public
accountability to the people at all times, as accountability. There was even one case where the
mandated under the 1987 Constitution, is plainly doctrine of condonation was not adjudicated upon
inconsistent with the idea that an elective local but only invoked by a party as a ground;[298] while in
official's administrative liability for a misconduct another case, which was not reported in full in the
committed during a prior term can be wiped off by official series, the crux of the disposition was that
the fact that he was elected to a second term of the evidence of a prior irregularity in no way
office, or even another elective post. Election is not pertained to the charge at issue and therefore, was
a mode of condoning an administrative offense, deemed to be incompetent.[299] Hence, owing to
and there is simply no constitutional or statutory either their variance or inapplicability, none of these
basis in our jurisdiction to support the notion that an cases can be used as basis for the continued
official elected for a different term is fully absolved adoption of the condonation doctrine under
of any administrative liability arising from an our existing laws.
offense done during a prior term. In this
jurisdiction, liability arising from administrative Dator v. Hon. Conchita Carpio-Morales, et al.,
offenses may be condoned bv the President in G.R. No. 237742, October 8, 2018
light of Section 19, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution which was interpreted in Llamas v. The case stemmed from a complaint 2 filed on May
Orbos[293] to apply to administrative offenses: 2, 2016 by complainant Moises B. Villasenor
(Villasenor) against the incumbent Mayor of
Lucban, Quezon, petitioner Celso Olivier T. Dator CONDONATION DOCTRINE STILL APPLIES
(Dator), and Maria Lyncelle D. Macandile IN THIS CASE AT BAR.
(Macandile), also of Lucban, Quezon for grave
misconduct, grave abuse of authority and nepotism. II. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING
THAT THE CONFLICTING PENALTIES
Dator hired his sister, Macandile, as Chief METERED (sic) OUT BY THE OFFICE OF THE
Administrative Officer through a Job Order3 and OMBUDSMAN WARRANTS THE ISSUANCE
designated her as Municipal Administrator through OF AN INJUNCTIVE WRIT.
Special Order (S.O.) No. 2, Series of 20144, dated
March 1, 2014. There was no appointment paper III. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE
that was submitted to the Sangguniang Bayan for COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
the required confirmation pursuant to Sec. NOT GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE
443(d)5 of the Local Government Code (LGC).6 PETITION.

It was also alleged that Macandile lacked the The condonation principle is not
qualifications of a Municipal Administrator and her applicable to Dator
Job Order stated that "the above-named hereby
attests that he/she is not related within the third Contrary to the position of Dator, the condonation
degree (fourth degree in case of LGUs) of principle is not applicable to him.
consanguinity or affinity to the 1) hiring authority
and/or 2) representatives of the hiring The case of the Office of the Ombudsman vs. Mayor
agency",7 when in truth and in fact, she is the sister Julius Cesar Vergara41 made a succinct discussion
of Dator. on the said principle and its prospective application,
thus:
They further alleged that the position of Municipal
Administrator did not exist in the municipality's In November 10, 2015, this Court, in Conchita
plantilla of personnel, hence, there was no Carpio Morales v. CA and Jejomar Binay, Jr.,
appointment paper submitted to the Sangguniang extensively discussed the doctrine of condonation
Bayan for confirmation.10+ and ruled that such doctrine has no legal authority
in this jurisdiction. As held in the said the (sic)
The same was approved by Hon. Ombudsman decision:
Conchita Carpio Morales on October 11, 2017 with
the footnote prescribing a shorter penalty, viz: xxxx

WHEREFORE, finding substantial evidence, Reading the 1987 Constitution together with the
respondent CELSO OLIVIER T. DATOR is hereby above-cited legal provisions now leads this Court
found administratively liable for Simple to the conclusion that the doctrine of
Misconduct and is meted the penalty of ONE (1) condonation is actually bereft of legal bases.
MONTH AND ONE (1) DAY SUSPENSION
FROM OFFICE WITHOUT PAY pursuant to To begin with, the concept of public office is a
Section 10, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 07, public trust and the corollary requirement of
as amended by Administrative Order No. 17 in accountability to the people at all times, as
relation to Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6770. mandated under the 1987 Constitution, is plainly
inconsistent with the idea that an elective local
Dator then filed with Us a Petition for Review on official's administrative liability for a
Certiorari raising the following issues: misconduct committed during a prior term can
be wiped off by the fact that he was elected to a
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE second term of office, or even another elective
COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN post. Election is not a mode of condoning an
NOT RULING THAT THE AGUINALDO administrative offense, and there is simply no
DOCTRINE OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE constitutional or statutory basis in our
jurisdiction to support the notion that an official can be used as basis for the continued adoption of
elected for a different term is folly absolved of the condonation doctrine under our existing laws.
any administrative liability arising from an
offense done during a prior term. In this At best, Section 66 (b) of the LGC prohibits the
jurisdiction, liability arising from administrative enforcement of the penalty of suspension beyond
offenses may be condoned by the President in light the unexpired portion of the elective local official's
of Section 19, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution prior term, and likewise allows said official to still
which was interpreted in Llamas v. Orbos to apply run for reelection This treatment is similar to People
to administrative offenses: ex rel Bagshaw v. Thompson and Montgomery v.
Novell both cited in Pascual, wherein it was ruled
xxxx that an officer cannot be suspended for a
misconduct committed during a prior term.
Also, it cannot be inferred from Section 60 of the However, as previously stated, nothing in Section
LGC that the grounds for discipline enumerated 66 (b) states that the elective local official's
therein cannot anymore be invoked against an administrative liability is extinguished by the
elective local official to hold him administratively fact of re-election. Thus, at all events, no legal
liable once he is re-elected to office. In fact, Section provision actually supports the theory that the
40 (b) of the LGC precludes condonation since in liability is condoned.
the first place, an elective local official who is
meted with the penalty of removal could not be re-
elected to an elective local position due to a direct
disqualification from running for such post. In
similar regard, Section 52 (a) of the RRACCS
imposes a penalty of perpetual disqualification from
holding public office as an accessory to the penalty
of dismissal from service.

To compare, some of the cases adopted in Pascual

were decided by US State jurisdictions wherein the
doctrine of condonation of administrative liability
was supported by either a constitutional or statutory
provision stating, in effect, that an officer cannot be
removed by a misconduct committed during a
previous term, or that the disqualification to hold
the office does not extend beyond the term in which
the official's delinquency occurred. In one case, the
absence of a provision against the re-election of an
officer removed - unlike Section 40 (b) of the LGC-
was the justification behind condonation. In another
case, it was deemed that condonation through re
election was a policy under their constitution -
which adoption in this jurisdiction runs counter to
our present Constitution's requirements on public
accountability. There was even one case where the
doctrine of condonation was not adjudicated upon
but only invoked by a party as a ground; while in
another case, which was not reported in full in the
official series, the crux of the disposition was that
the evidence of a prior irregularity in no way
pertained to the charge at issue and therefore, was
deemed to be incompetent. Hence, owing to either
their variance or inapplicability, none of these cases
Mun. of Sta. Fe v. Mun. of Aritao, G.R. No. of the filing of the motion, the power to try and
140472, September 26, 2007 decide municipal boundary disputes already
belonged to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and
no longer with the trial court.

The MR having been denied, an appeal was

BOUNDARY DISPUTE: sanguniang
elevated by petitioner to the CA. The CA,
panlalawigan
however, affirmed in toto the assailed Order:
DOCTRINE: By virtue of R.A. 7610, the
In the instant case, there is nothing wrong in
Sangguniang Panlalawigan is vested with the
holding that Regional Trial Courts no longer
function, not only to bring the contending
have jurisdiction over boundary disputes.’
parties together and intervening or assisting in
the amicable settlement of the dispute, but
Before this Court, petitioner submits that the
with the original jurisdiction to hear and decide
CA erred when it affirmed the dismissal of the
the case in accordance with the procedure laid
case for lack of jurisdiction by upholding the
down in the law and its implementing rules and
RTCs application of the doctrine enunciated in
regulations. The Regional Trial Court can
the Municipality of Sogod, namely, that being
decide the case only on appeal, should any
political in character, this case has been
party aggrieved by the decision of the
overtaken by different laws which should now
Sanggunian elevate the same.
prevail. Petitioner also claims that the CA erred
in relying on the provisions of the 1987
FACTS: On October 16, 1980, petitioner
Constitution and the Local Government Code
Municipality of Sta. Fe, in the Province of
(LGC) of 1991 on the creation, division,
Nueva Vizcaya, filed before the RTC of
merger, abolition, and alteration of boundaries
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, for the
of political units instead of the specific
Determination of Boundary Dispute involving
provisions on the settlement of boundary
the barangays of Bantinan and Canabuan.
disputes.
Realizing its oversight under existing law, the
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in
court ordered the suspension of the
affirming the trial courts dismissal of the
proceedings and the referral of the case to the
instant case for lack of jurisdiction on the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Nueva Vizcaya.
ground that at the time of the filing of the
In turn, the Sanggunian concerned passed on
motion to dismiss the original jurisdiction to
the matter to its Committee on Legal Affairs,
hear and decide, the case had been vested on
Ordinances and Resolutions, which
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and no longer
recommended adopting Resolution No. 64 of
on the RTC.
the former members of its Provincial Board.
Said resolution previously resolved to
HELD: The Court rules that the appellate court
adjudicate the barangays of Bantinan and
did not err. Almost a decade passed and R.A.
Canabuan as parts of respondents territorial
No. 7160 or the LGC of 1991 was signed into
jurisdiction and enjoin petitioner from
law on October 10, 1991 and took effect on
exercising its governmental functions within
January 1, 1992. As the latest law governing
the same.
jurisdiction over the settlement of boundary
disputes, Sections 118 and 119 of the Code
Back in the RTC, respondent moved to
now mandate:
consider Resolution No. 64 as final and
executory. The trial court, however, denied the
SEC. 118. Jurisdictional Responsibility for
motion that since there was no amicable
Settlement of Boundary Dispute. Boundary
settlement reached at the time the Provincial
disputes between and among local government
Board had exceeded its authority in issuing a
units shall, as much as possible, be settled
decision favoring a party.
amicably. To this end: x x x (b) Boundary
disputes involving two (2) or more
Subsequently, respondent again filed a motion
municipalities within the same province shall
this time praying for the dismissal of the case
be referred for settlement to the sangguniang
for lack of jurisdiction. The ground relied upon
panlalawigan concerned.
was that under the prevailing law at the time
This Court agrees with petitioners contention of 1,693,821, distributed among four (4) legislative
that the trial court had jurisdiction to take districts.
cognizance of the complaint when it was filed
on October 16, 1980 since the prevailing law Following the enactment of Republic Act No. 9716,
then was Section 2167 of the RAC, as the first and second districts of Camarines Sur were
amended by Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 6128, which
reconfigured in order to create an additional
granted the Court of First Instance (now RTC)
the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of
legislative district for the province. Hence, the first
municipal boundary disputes. The antecedents district municipalities of Libmanan, Minalabac,
of the Municipality of Sogod case reveal that it Pamplona, Pasacao, and San Fernando were
dealt with the trial courts dismissal of cases combined with the second district municipalities of
filed for lack of jurisdiction because at the time Milaor and Gainza to form a new second legislative
of the institution of the civil actions, the law in district.
force was the old provision of Sec. 2167 of the
RAC, which empowered the provincial boards, Petitioners contend that the reapportionment
not the trial courts, to hear and resolve such introduced by Republic Act No. 9716, runs afoul of
cases. the explicit constitutional standard that requires a
minimum population of two hundred fifty thousand
The difference in the factual setting
(250,000) for the creation of a legislative
notwithstanding, Municipality of Sogod still
district.The petitioners claim that the
applies in the sense that similar thereto the
pendency of the present case has also been reconfiguration by Republic Act No. 9716 of the
overtaken by events the ratification of the first and second districts of Camarines Sur is
1987 Constitution and the enactment of the unconstitutional, because the proposed first district
LGC of 1991. will end up with a population of less than 250,000
or only 176,383.
Only in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
can the proper RTC decide the case, on appeal, Petitioners rely on Section 5(3), Article VI of the
should any party aggrieved by the decision of 1987 Constitution as basis for the cited 250,000
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan elevate the minimum population standard.
same. The Court, therefore, sees no error,
much less grave abuse of discretion, on the
ISSUE: Is the population of 250,000 an
part of the CA in affirming the trial courts
indispensable constitutional requirement for the
dismissal of petitioners complaint.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of creation of a new legislative district in a
merit. province?

HELD: No, it is an indispensable constitutional

requirement. The second sentence of Section 5(3),
Aquino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 189793, April Article VI of the Constitution, succinctly provides:
7, 2010 "Each city with a population of at least two hundred
fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least
FACTS: Republic Act No. 9716 was signed into one representative."
law by President Arroyo on 12 October 2009. It
took effect on 31 October 2009, or fifteen (15) days The provision draws a plain and clear distinction
following its publication in the Manila Standard, a between the entitlement of a city to a district on one
newspaper of general circulation. In substance, the hand, and the entitlement of a province to a district
said law created an additional legislative district for on the other. For while a province is entitled to at
the Province of Camarines Sur by reconfiguring the least a representative, with nothing mentioned about
existing first and second legislative districts of the population, a city must first meet a population
province. minimum of 250,000 in order to be similarly
entitled.
Prior to Republic Act No. 9716, the Province of
Camarines Sur was estimated to have a population The use by the subject provision of a comma to
separate the phrase "each city with a population of
at least two hundred fifty thousand" from the phrase "liga", to make the necessary adjustments in the
"or each province" point to no other conclusion than internal revenue allotment of local government units
that the 250,000 minimum population is only but in no case shall the allotment be less than thirty
percent (30%) of the collection of national internal
required for a city, but not for a province. revenue taxes of the third fiscal year preceding the
current fiscal year: Provided, further, That in the first
Plainly read, Section 5(3) of the Constitution year of the effectivity of this Code, the local
requires a250,000 minimum population only for a government units shall, in addition to the thirty percent
city to be entitled to a representative, but not so for (30%) internal revenue allotment which shall include
a province. DISMISSED. the cost of devolved functions for essential public
services, be entitled to receive the amount equivalent
to the cost of devolved personal services.
Cong. Mandanas, et al. v. Exec. Sec. Ochoa, et
al., G.R. No. 199802; Garcia, et al. v. Exec.
The share of the LGUs, heretofore known as the
Sec. Ochoa, et al., G.R. No. 208488, July 3, Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA), has been regularly
2018 released to the LGUs. According to the implementing
rules and regulations of the LGC, the IRA is
determined on the basis of the actual collections of
One of the key features of the 1987 Constitution is its the National Internal Revenue Taxes (NIRTs) as
push towards decentralization of government and certified by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). 2

local autonomy. Local autonomy has two facets, the

administrative and the fiscal. Fiscal autonomy means Mandanas, et al. allege herein that certain collections
that local governments have the power to create their of NIR Ts by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) -
own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable specifically: excise taxes, value added taxes (VATs)
share in the national taxes released by the National and documentary stamp taxes (DSTs) - have not
Government, as well as the power to allocate their been included in the base amounts for the
resources in accordance with their own computation of the IRA; that such taxes, albeit
priorities.  Such autonomy is as indispensable to the
1
collected by the BOC, should form part of the base
viability of the policy of decentralization as the other. from which the IRA should be computed because they
constituted NIRTs; that, consequently, the release of
Implementing the constitutional mandate for the additional amount of ₱60,750,000,000.00 to the
decentralization and local autonomy, Congress LGUs as their IRA for FY 2012 should be ordered;
enacted Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as and that for the same reason the LGUs should also
the Local Government Code (LGC), in order to be released their unpaid IRA for FY 1992 to FY 2011,
guarantee the fiscal autonomy of the LGUs by inclusive, totaling ₱438,103,906,675.73.
specifically providing that:
In G.R. No. 208488, Congressman Enrique Garcia,
SECTION 284. Allotment of Internal Revenue Jr., the lone petitioner, seeks the writ of mandamus to
Taxes. - Local government units shall have a share in compel the respondents thereat to compute the just
the national internal revenue taxes based on the share of the LGUs on the basis of all national taxes.
collection of the third fiscal year preceding the current
fiscal year as follows: His petition insists on a literal reading of Section 6,
Article X of the 1987 Constitution. He avers that the
(a) On the first year of the effectivity of this Code, insertion by Congress of the words internal revenue in
thirty percent (30%); (b) On the second year, thirty- the phrase national taxes found in Section 284 of the
five percent (35%); and LGC caused the diminution of the base for
determining the just share of the LGUs, and should be
(c) On the third year and thereafter, forty percent declared unconstitutional; that, moreover, the
(40%). exclusion of certain taxes and accounts pursuant to or
in accordance with special laws was similarly
Provided, That in the event that the National constitutionally untenable; that the VA Ts and excise
Government incurs an unmanageable public sector taxes collected by the BOC should be included in the
deficit, the President of the Philippines is hereby computation of the IRA; and that the respondents
authorized, upon the recommendation of Secretary of should compute the IRA on the basis of all national
Finance, Secretary of Interior and Local Government, tax collections, and thereafter distribute any shortfall
and Secretary of Budget and Management, and to the LGUs.
subject to consultation with the presiding officers of
both Houses of Congress and the presidents of the
Whether or not Section 284 of the LGC is sovereignty; and (c) it is levied for the support of the
unconstitutional for being repugnant to Section 6, Government.  Taxes are classified into national and
51

Article X of the 1987 Constitution; local. National taxes are those levied by the National
Government, while local taxes are those levied by the
Whether or not the existing shares given to the LGUs LGUs. 52

by virtue of the GAA is consistent with the

constitutional mandate to give LGUs a 'just share" to What the phrase national internal revenue taxes as
national taxes following Article X, Section 6 of the used in Section 284 included are all the taxes
1987 Constitution; enumerated in Section 21 of the National Internal
Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended by R.A. No.
Municipal governments are only agents of the 8424, viz.:
national government. Local councils exercise only
delegated legislative powers conferred on them Section 21. Sources of Revenue. - The following
by Congress as the national lawmaking body. The taxes, fees and charges are deemed to be national
delegate cannot be superior to the principal or internal revenue taxes:
exercise powers higher than those of the latter. It
is a heresy to suggest that the local government (a) Income tax;
units can undo the acts of Congress, from which
they have derived their power in the first place, (b) Estate and donor's taxes;
and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the
statute.
(c) Value-added tax;
Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and
(d) Other percentage taxes;
derive their powers and rights wholly from the
legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life,
without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so (e) Excise taxes;
it may destroy. As it may destroy, it may abridge
and control. Unless there is some constitutional (f) Documentary stan1p taxes; and
limitation on the right, the legislature might, by a
single act, and if we can suppose it capable of so (g) Such other taxes as arc or hereafter may
great a folly and so great a wrong, sweep from be imposed and collected by the Bureau of
existence all of the municipal corporations in the Internal Revenue.
State, and the corporation could not prevent it.
We know of no limitation on the right so far as to In view of the foregoing enumeration of what are the
the corporation themselves are concerned. They national internal revenue taxes, Section 284 has
are, so to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of the effectively deprived the LGUs from deriving their just
legislature. share from other national taxes, like the customs
duties.
The phrase national internal revenue taxes engrafted
in Section 284 is undoubtedly more restrictive than Strictly speaking, customs duties are also taxes
the term national taxes written in Section 6. As such, because they are exactions whose proceeds become
Congress has actually departed from the letter of the public funds. According to Garcia v. Executive
1987 Constitution stating that national taxes should Secretary,  customs duties is the nomenclature given
53

be the base from which the just share of the LGU to taxes imposed on the importation and exportation
comes. Such departure is impermissible. Verba legis of commodities and merchandise to or from a foreign
non est recedendum (from the words of a statute country. Although customs duties have either or both
there should be no departure).   Equally
50
the generation of revenue and the regulation of
impermissible is that Congress has also thereby economic or social activity as their moving purposes,
curtailed the guarantee of fiscal autonomy in favor of it is often difficult to say which of the two is the
the LGUs under the 1987 Constitution. principal objective in a particular instance, for, verily,
customs duties, much like internal revenue taxes, are
Taxes are the enforced proportional contributions rarely designed to achieve only one policy
exacted by the State from persons and properties objective.  We further note that Section 102(00) of
54

pursuant to its sovereignty in order to support the R.A. No. 10863 (Customs Modernization and Tariff
Gove1nment and to defray all the public needs. Every Act) expressly includes all fees and charges imposed
tax has three elements, namely: (a) it is an enforced under the Act under the blanket term of taxes.
proportional contribution from persons and properties;
(b) it is imposed by the State by virtue of its
It is clear from the foregoing clarification that the While "territorial jurisdiction" does not appear in the
exclusion of other national taxes like customs duties Constitution, it is inscribed in the Local Government
from the base for determining the just share of the LG Code, the law meant to implement the constitutional
Us contravened the express constitutional edict in mandate under Article X, Section 7. The Local
Section 6, Article X the 1987 Constitution. Government Code provides that local government
units shall be entitled to a 40% share in the gross
Still, the OSG posits that Congress can manipulate, collection the State derives from the utilization and
by law, the base of the allocation of the just share in development of these natural resources "within their
the national taxes of the LGUs. territorial jurisdiction."

Rep. v. Province of Palawan, G.R. No. Section 290 of the Local Government Code provides:
170867, December 4, 2018
SECTION 290. Amount of Share of Local
Government Units. - Local government units shall, in
addition to the internal revenue allotment, have a
share of forty percent (40%) of the gross collection
The parties ask this Court to reconsider its December
derived by the national government from the
4, 2018 Decision4 in which it declared, among others, preceding fiscal year from mining taxes, royalties,
that the Province of Palawan was not entitled to an forestry and fishery charges, and such other taxes,
equitable share in the proceeds of the Camago- fees, or charges, including related surcharges,
Malampaya Natural Gas Project (Natural Gas interests, or fines, and from its share in any co-
Project). production, joint venture or production sharing
agreement in the utilization and development of the
Service Contract No. 38 provided a 60-40 production national wealth within their territorial jurisdiction.
sharing scheme for the sale of petroleum, where the
national government would receive 60% of the net Unfortunately, none of the maps on record or the
proceeds, while Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and relevant laws could conclusively prove that the
Occidental Philippines, as service contractors, would Province of Palawan has territorial jurisdiction over
receive 40%. Later, the service contractors were the Camago-Malampaya natural gas reservoirs.
replaced by a consortium of Shell B.V., Shell
Philippines LLC, Chevron Malampaya LLC, and
In the amicus brief112 submitted by then Department
PNOC Exploration Corporation (Shell Consortium).6
of Foreign Affairs - Commission on Maritime and
Ocean Affairs Secretariat Secretary General Henry S.
On February 17, 1998, then President Fidel V. Ramos Bensurto, Jr. (Secretary General Bensurto), it can be
(President Ramos) issued Administrative Order No. clearly seen that the reservoirs are not within the
381,7 which provided that per the Local Government scope of the Province of Palawan's territory.
Code, part of the national government's 60% share
would be given to the concerned local government
The area is beyond the province's territory when the
units.8 It further provided that the Province of
15-kilometer boundary of the Local Government Code
Palawan was "expected to receive about US$2.1
and the Philippine Fisheries Code is applied:113
billion from the total government share of US$8.1
billion"9 throughout the contract's 20-year period.10
(see image, p. 28)
The principal issue raised by all the parties in their
pleadings before this Court is whether or not the The area is also beyond the Province of Palawan's
Province of Palawan is entitled, under Article X, territory when the United Nations Convention on the
Section 1 of the Constitution and Section 290 of the Law of the Sea, Republic Act No. 9522,114 and the
Local Government Code, to a 40% equitable share in 1898 Treaty of Paris are applied:115
the proceeds from the Camago-Malampaya Natural
Gas Project. (see image, p. 28)

Likewise, the area is beyond the province's territory

NO ifbeyond territorial jurisfdiction. SECTION 7. Local when Presidential Decree No. 1596 is applied
governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in
the proceeds of the utilization and development of the It was clear with the Executive Order that the national
national wealth within their respective areas, in the government did not commit itself to perpetually share
manner provided by law, including sharing the same the proceeds from the Natural Gas Project. However,
with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits. it was also clear that the Province of Palawan was not
required to diminish its future resources in order to The core issue in this petition is whether or not
reimburse the national government for the funds respondent, in her capacity as Municipal Mayor, can
received should there be a final ruling in this be compelled to issue the necessary business permit
Resolution. to petitioner absent a municipal ordinance which
would empower her to do so.
For this Court, it is a reasonable presumption that the
national government wanted to immediately augment
the Province of Palawan's funds for its constituents. NO. SEC. 447. Powers, Functions and
Certainly, at that point when the funds were made Compensation. (a) The Sangguniang Bayan as the
available, both the national government and the legislative body of the municipality shall enact
Province of Palawan intended to provide for the ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate
general welfare. To require the return of funds now funds for the general welfare of the municipality and
after this Court finally decides not only undermines its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and
public welfare and the presumption of regularity of the in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the
actions of public officials, but it will likewise weaken municipality as provided for under Section 22, and
the very local autonomy envisioned by the shall:
Constitution.
x x x           x x x          x x x
Canet v. Mayor Decena, G.R. No.
155344, January 20, 2004 (3) Subject to the provisions of Book II of this Code,
grant franchises, enact ordinances levying taxes, fees
and charges upon such conditions and for such
On July 27, 1998, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bula, purposes intended to promote the general welfare of
Camarines Sur, passed Resolution No. 049, Series of the inhabitants of the municipality, and pursuant to
1998, authorizing petitioner Rolando N. Canet to
1  this legislative authority shall:
establish, operate and maintain a cockpit in Sitio,
Cabaya, San Roque, Bula, Camarines Sur. x x x           x x x          x x x

(v) Any law to the contrary notwithstanding, authorize

Subsequently, the Sangguniang Bayan passed and license the establishment, operation and
Ordinance No. 001, Series of 1999, entitled "An maintenance of cockpits and regulate cockfighting
Ordinance Regulating the Operation of Cockpits and and commercial breeding of gamecocks: Provided,
Other Related Game-Fowl Activities in the That existing rights should not be prejudiced.
Municipality of Bula, Camarines Sur and Providing
Penalties for any Violation to (sic) the Provisions Petitioner admits that there is no ordinance in Bula,
Thereof." Upon transmittal to respondent Mayor
2  Camarines Sur which authorizes the grant of a
Julieta A. Decena of the said municipality, it was mayor’s permit to operate and maintain a cockfighting
noted that the Ordinance does not contain rules and arena. However, he invokes Resolution No. 049, S.
regulations on cockfighting and other related game 1998, wherein the Sangguniang Bayan authorized
fowl activities and a separability clause. The him to operate a cockpit. Furthermore, he cites
Ordinance was returned to the Sangguniang Municipal Tax Ordinances Nos. 01, S. 1989, and 05,
Bayan. In Resolution No. 078, Series of 1999, S. 1993, which generally provide for the issuance of a
Sangguniang Bayan resolved to withdraw, set aside mayor’s permit for the operation of businesses.
and shelf indefinitely Ordinance No. 001, Series of
1999.3
Municipal Tax Ordinances Nos. 01, S. 1989 and 05,
S. 1993 contain general provisions for the issuance of
Meanwhile, petitioner, relying on Resolution No. 049, business permits but do not contain specific
Series of 1998, of the Sangguniang Bayan, filed an provisions prescribing the reasonable fees to be paid
application for a mayor’s permit to operate, establish in the operation of cockpits and other game fowl
and maintain a cockpit in Sitio Cabuya, San Roque, activities.
Bula, Camarines Sur. Respondent Mayor Julieta
Decena denied the application on the ground, among It was Ordinance No. 001, S. 1999 which provided for
others, that under the Local Government Code of the collection of application filing fees, ocular
1991, the authority to give licenses for the inspection fees, mayor’s permit fees, filing fees for the
establishment, operation and maintenance of cockpits institution of complaints, entrance fees and special
as well as the regulation of cockfighting and derby assessments for the operation of cockpits. This12 

commercial breeding of gamecocks is vested in the Ordinance, however, was withdrawn by the
Sangguniang Bayan. 4
Sangguniang Bayan.
Hence, there being in effect no ordinance allowing the SECTION 1. – The entrance to the City of Lucena of
operation of a cockpit, Resolution No. 049, S. 1998, all buses, mini-buses and out-of-town passenger
authorizing petitioner to establish, operate and jeepneys is hereby regulated as follows:
maintain a cockpit in Bula, Camarines Sur cannot be
implemented. Suffice it to state in this regard that to (a) All buses, mini-buses and out-of-town
compel respondent to issue the mayor’s permit would passenger jeepneys shall be prohibited from
not only be a violation of the explicit provisions of entering the city and are hereby directed to
Section 447 of the Local Government Code of 1991, proceed to the common terminal, for picking-
but would also be an undue encroachment on up and/or dropping of their passengers.
respondent’s administrative prerogatives.
(b) All temporary terminals in the City of
It should, furthermore, be borne in mind that Lucena are hereby declared
cockfighting although authorized by law is still a form inoperable starting from the effectivity of this
of gambling. Gambling is essentially antagonistic to ordinance.
the aims of enhancing national productivity and self-
reliance. As has been previously said, a statute which
24 
The Lucena Grand Central Terminal is the perman
authorizes a gambling activity or business should be ent common terminal as this is the entity which w
strictly construed, and every reasonable doubt as given the exclusive franchise by the Sanggunia
resolved so as to limit rather than expand the powers ng Panglungsod under Ordinance No. 1631; (Emp
and rights claimed by franchise holders under its hasis and underscoring supplied)
authority.25

These ordinances, by granting an exclusive franchise

for twenty five years, renewable for another twenty
Lucena Grand Central Terminal Inc. v. JAC five years, to one entity for the construction and
Liner, Inc., G.R. No. 148339, February 23, 2005 operation of one common bus and jeepney terminal
facility in Lucena City, to be located outside the city
proper, were professedly aimed towards alleviating
Respondent, JAC Liner, Inc., a common carrier the traffic congestion alleged to have been caused by
operating buses which ply various routes to and from the existence of various bus and jeepney terminals
Lucena City, assailed, via a petition for prohibition and within the city, as the "Explanatory Note"-Whereas
injunction against the City of Lucena, its Mayor, and
1 
Clause adopting Ordinance No. 1778 states:
the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Lucena before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, City WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises,
Ordinance Nos. 1631 and 1778 as unconstitutional on judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
the ground that, inter alia, the same constituted an
invalid exercise of police power, an undue taking of
1. Declaring City Ordinance No. 1631 as valid,
private property, and a violation of the constitutional
having been issued in the exercise of the
prohibition against monopolies. The salient provisions
police power of the City Government of
of the ordinances are:
Lucena insofar as the grant of franchise to the
Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc., to
Ordinance No. 1631 2
construct, finance, establish, operate and
maintain common bus-jeepney terminal facility
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE LUCENA GRAND in the City of Lucena;
CENTRAL TERMINAL, INC., A FRANCHISE TO
CONSTRUCT, FINANCE, ESTABLISH, OPERATE 2. But however, declaring the provision of
AND MAINTAIN A COMMON BUS-JEEPNEY Sec. 4(c) of Ordinance No. 1631 to the effect
TERMINAL FACILITY IN THE CITY OF LUCENA that the City Government shall not grant any
third party any privilege and/or concession to
Ordinance No. 1778 3
operate a bus, mini-bus and/or jeepney
terminal, as illegal and ultra vires because it
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE ENTRANCE contravenes the provisions of Republic Act
TO THE CITY OF LUCENA OF ALL BUSES, MINI- No. 7160, otherwise known as "The Local
BUSES AND OUT-OF-TOWN PASSENGER Government Code";
JEEPNEYS AND FOR THIS PURPOSE, AMENDING
ORDINACE NO. 1420, SERIES OF 1993, AND 3. Declaring City Ordinance No. 1778 as null
ORDINANCE NO. 1557, SERIES OF 1995 and void, the same being also an ultra vires
act of the City Government of Lucena arising
xxx from an invalid, oppressive and unreasonable
 exercise of the police power, more jeepney terminals within Lucena, including those
specifically, declaring illegal [sections 1(b), already existing, and allow the operation of only one
3(c) and 3(e)]; common terminal located outside the city proper, the
franchise for which was granted to petitioner. The
Decision on the petition hinges on two issues, to wit: common carriers plying routes to and from Lucena
(1) whether the trial court has jurisdiction over the City are thus compelled to close down their existing
case, it not having furnished the Office of the Solicitor terminals and use the facilities of petitioner.
General copy of the orders it issued therein, and (2)
whether the City of Lucena properly exercised its As for petitioner’s claim that the challenged
police power when it enacted the subject ordinances. ordinances have actually been proven effective in
easing traffic congestion: Whether an ordinance is
effective is an issue different from whether it is
Respecting the issue of whether police power was reasonably necessary. It is its reasonableness, not its
properly exercised when the subject ordinances were effectiveness, which bears upon its constitutionality. If
enacted: As with the State, the local government may the constitutionality of a law were measured by its
be considered as having properly exercised its police effectiveness, then even tyrannical laws may be
power only if the following requisites are met: (1) the justified whenever they happen to be effective.
interests of the public generally, as distinguished from
those of a particular class, require the interference of The Court is not unaware of the resolutions of various
the State, and (2) the means employed are barangays in Lucena City supporting the
reasonably necessary for the attainment of the object establishment of a common terminal, and similar
sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive expressions of support from the private sector, copies
upon individuals. Otherwise stated, there must be a of which were submitted to this Court by petitioner.
concurrence of a lawful subject and lawful method. 18
The weight of popular opinion, however, must be
balanced with that of an individual’s rights.
That traffic congestion is a public, not merely a
private, concern, cannot be gainsaid. In Calalang v. QUALIFICATION AND ELECTION
Williams which involved a statute authorizing the
19 

Director of Public Works to promulgate rules and Borja, Jr. v. Comelec, 295 SCRA 157
regulations to regulate and control traffic on national
roads, this Court held:
Facts: 
In enacting said law, therefore, the National Assembly
was prompted by considerations of public
convenience and welfare. It was inspired by a desire Jose T. Capco, Jr. was elected as Vice-Mayor of
to relieve congestion of traffic, which is, to say the Pateros on January 18, 1988 for a term ending
least, a menace to public safety. Public welfare, then, on June 30, 1992. On September 2, 1989, he
lies at the bottom of the enactment of said law, and became Mayor, by operation of law, upon the
the state in order to promote the general welfare may death of the incumbent, Cesar Borja.
interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with Thereafter, Capco was elected and served as
business and occupations. (Emphasis supplied)
20  Mayor for two more terms, from 1992 to
1998. On March 27, 1998, Capco filed a
The questioned ordinances having been enacted with Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of Pateros in
the objective of relieving traffic congestion in the City the May 11, 1998 elections. Petitioner
of Lucena, they involve public interest warranting the Benjamin U. Borja, Jr., who was also a
interference of the State. The first requisite for the candidate for mayor, sought Capco’s
proper exercise of police power is thus present. disqualification on the ground that Capco
would have already served as Mayor for 3
consecutive terms by June 30, 1998; hence, he
This leaves for determination the issue of whether would be ineligible to serve for another
the means employed by the Lucena Sangguniang term. The Second Division of the Comelec
Panlungsod to attain its professed objective were declared Capco disqualified but the Comelec en
reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive banc reversed the decision and declared Capco
upon individuals. eligible to run for mayor. Capco was
subsequently voted and proclaimed as mayor. 
With the aim of localizing the source of traffic
congestion in the city to a single location, the subject
24 
Issue: 
ordinances prohibit the operation of all bus and
 Prior to the finality of the election
Whether or not a vice-mayor who succeeds to
protest, Abundo did not serve in the
the office of mayor by operation of law and mayors office and, in fact, had no legal
serves the remainder of the term is considered right to said position. During the
to have served a term in that office for the pendency of the election protest,
purpose of the three-term limit. 
Abundo ceased from exercising power
Held:  or authority. Consequently, the period
during which Abundo was not serving
No. The term limit for elective local officials
as mayor should be considered as a
must be taken to refer to the right to be rest period or break in his service
elected as well as the right to serve the same because prior to the judgment in the
elective position. Consequently, it is not
enough that an individual has served three
election protest, it was Abundos
consecutive terms in an elective local office, he opponent, Torres, who was exercising
must also have been elected to the same such powers by virtue of the still then
position for the same number of times before valid proclamation.
the disqualification can apply. Capco
was qualified to run again as mayor in the next Petition is PARTLY GRANTED.
election because he was not elected to the
office of mayor in the first term but simply
found himself thrust into it by operation of law. Chua v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No. 216607, April
Neither had he served the full term because he 9, 2016
only continued the service, interrupted by the
death, of the deceased mayor. The vice- Dual citizens are disqualified from running for any
mayor’s assumption of the mayorship in the elective local position. They cannot successfully run
event of the vacancy is more a matter of and assume office because their ineligibility is
chance than of design. Hence, his service in inherent in them, existing prior to the filing of their
that office should not be counted in the certificates of candidacy. Their certificates of
application of any term limit. candidacy are void ab initio, and votes cast for them
will be disregarded. Consequently, whoever garners
the next highest number of votes among the eligible
Abundo v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No. 201716,
candidates is the person legally entitled to the
January 8, 2013 position.

The declaration of being the winner in Maquiling v. Comelec, 709 Phil. 408
an election protest grants the local
Facts: Arnado was a natural born Filipino citizen,
elected official the right to serve the but lost his citizenship upon naturalization as citizen
unexpired portion of the term. Verily, of United States of America. Sometime on 2008
while he was declared winner in the and 2009, his repatriation was granted and he
protest for the mayoralty seat for the subsequently executed an Affidavit of Renunciation
of foreign citizenship. On November 2009, Arnando
2004-2007 term, Abundos full term filed for a certificate of candidacy and won the said
has been substantially reduced by the election. But prior from his declaration as winner, a
actual service rendered by his pending action for disqualification was filed by
Balua, one of the contenders for the position. Balua
opponent (Torres). Hence, there was alleged that Arnando was not a citizen of the
actual involuntary interruption in the Philippines, with a certification issued by the
term of Abundo and he cannot be Bureau of Immigration that Arnando’s nationality is
USA-American and a certified true copy of
considered to have served the full computer-generated travel record that he has been
2004-2007 term. using his American passport even after
renunciation of American citizenship. A division of
the COMELEC ruled against Arnando but this 1. Political
decision was reversed by the COMELEC en Banc 2. Fiscal
stating that continued use of foreign passport is not 3. Policy decision
one of the grounds provided for under Section 1 of 4. Devolution (mandanas)
Commonwealth Act No. 63 through which
Philippine citizenship may be lost. Meanwhile,
Maquiling petition that should be declared winner
as he gained the second highest number of votes.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION- ARE those created
Issue: Whether or not continued use of a foreign by law
passport after renouncing foreign citizenship affects Elements:
one’s qualifications to run for public office. 1. Legal creation
2. Name
Held: Yes. The use of foreign passport after 3. Inhabitants
renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is a positive 4. Territory
and voluntary act of representation as to one’s - Vested with dual function, private and
nationality and citizenship; it does not divest Filipino
governmental functions
citizenship regained by repatriation but it recants
the Oath of Renunciation required to qualify one to
run for an elective position which makes him dual Recall on how name can be change. There is
citizen. Citizenship is not a matter of convenience. requisite. Consoltation with phil historical
It is a badge of identity that comes with attendant commission. Every 10 yrs and upon ratification.
civil and political rights accorded by the state to its
citizens. It likewise demands the concomitant duty Types
to maintain allegiance to one’s flag and country a. Provinces
b. City (Component and Independent, Highly
urbanized)
LECTURE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE c. Municipality
d. Barangay
LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION e. Autonomous region

ART 10 OF 1987 CONSTITUTION Creation and dissolution:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
Highly and ICC is not created. It is by mere
a. Local Autonomy- decentralization in the conversion made by President.
context of administration versus power.
In order that there is valid creation: Requisites
MAndanas vs Executive Secretary: discuss 1. Plebiscite (who are involved in plebiscite)
administration and power. Applicable under 1987 2. Verifiable Indicators and viability (see
constitution. Administration exercise of power can below)
also be exercise ARMM.

Administration: basically the devolution of powers.

Wider reach of services to the communities in the
pursuit of national goals. Province, Muniocipalities,
Cities, barangay.

Local Government Code in the context of

decentralization – give us the context under which
the power given are to be exercise. Par d of sec 3:
creation of their own resources and powers and
supervisory power of provinces.

4 categories of decentralization
 GOVERNMENTAL POWERS
1. General Welfare ( limitation:within
Income present: must be present in 2 consecutive territorial limits, equal protection and
year. due process)-

Check the requisites and alternatives (Aquino vs Formal (within corp power and
comelec) the Income, territory or population. passed in accordance with the
Not necessary that all concur. Income is more procedure prescribed by law)
important.
Substantive: ,must not contravene,
NAvaro vs ermita: if composed of island, law reasonable, not prohibit trade but regulate, must
allow the creation of city and municipality in not unfair or oppressive, fair and not
meeting the land area. There is no similar discriminatory.
exemption. In so far as provinces can apply.
There is general islands may comprise provinces. 2. Delegation of Poloice Power
3. Power to provide basic services and
Beginning of Corporate Existence: upon facilities- endeavor to be self reliant,
ratification of plebiscite or by chief executive of discharge the functions and
sandiagn unless otherwise provides. responsibilities exercise such other
power (Sec 17 of RA 7160)
DIVISIOn AND MERGER: if divide, the
remainder shall not be reduce to minimum. DEVOLUTION: it is mandatory
having been directed by law,
a. Same requirement. mandatory. Exception- public works
funded by National Government
ABOLITION: can happened when there is under the GAA and partially funded
reduction of requirement is irevesible and from foreign source.
specify the LGU to which it will be incorporated.
4PS funded by GAA- having been an
issue in Imbong vs Ochoa dapat LGU
DE FACTO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION: will provide services funding of the
a. Valid law authorizing inc GAA
b. Attempt in goodfaith to organize 4. Power to generate and Apply
c. Colorable compliance with the law Resources- should create an
d. Assumption of corporate power organization responsible for
government plan. National taxes
Pelaez vs general: undeclared unconstitutional. dapat not just internal taxes and
SC said that the municipality in calabang were directly release. Share in development
not de facto because it is recognized after a long wealth and resources.
period of time. 5. Exercise of Taxing Power and other
revenue raising power:
GENERAL POWERS OF LGUS Principle: 1. Uniform
Equittable
1. Sources: Sec 25 Art II Sec 5,6,7 and Art X Public purpose
2. Statutes Not unjust, excessive, oppressive
3. Charter Not contrary to law
4. Doctrine of right of self- organization
_ Note: Interpla enactment of local tax
Classification ordinance diba dpat my power of
a. Express, impled, intramural, extramuyral review by DOJ, notice and hearing,
question of constitutionality reviewd
Execution of powers by DOJ
 6. EMINENT DOMAIN only by Fiscal Attorney unless
There should be ordinance odisqualified
authorizing 3. To have corporate seal
Public purpose, prior offer, exercise 4. To acquire or convey real or personal
by chief executive property
5. Procuremnt of supplies thru compettve
Issue: What are the difference biodding
between ordinance and resolution, or 6. ENTER INTO CONTRACT- must be
what constitute prior offer. Socialized within the power, entered by proper
Housing what is the order of priority. authority, with authorization, formal
7. LOCAL LEGISLATIVE POWER requirements.
- Like how Congres there is formal VOID ULTRA VIRES- if non compliance
requisite shall be followed with 1st and 3rd requisited
- Products of legislative action VOID SUBJECT To RATIFICATION-
- Approval of Ordinance 2nd and 4th requisites
- 1. Sanguniang Panlalawigan,
Panglungsod at Bayan MUNICIPAL LIABILITY
- Veto Power- exercise by CE once only A. When died or injured due to
- Item veto is allowed dilapidated roads.
B. As a rule there should be liable when
In Barangay- no veto power death or injury occurs.
C. When act thru special agent
Review of Ordinance: manner of supervisory D. Failure of municipal police
power exercise by Sanguniang Panlalawigan. E. LIABILITY FOR TORTS- if engage
only in proprietory function and for
Ordinance is effective after 10 days from illegal dismissal if with malice
publication or posted in bulletin board. personal loability of officer
Publication is necessary in case with penal F. LIABILITY OF CONRACTS_ intra
sanction vires- liable, if ultra vires- not liable

Local Intiative and Referendum Estoppel not applicable

- Local initiative is the procedure by filing Doctrine of Implied Municipal
Liability- a municipality may become
a petition in Sangunian concern and
obligated upon an implied contracts to
submit the proposition to COMELEC
pay reasonable value of the BENEFIT
together with the signature signing before
accepted or appropriated by it as
the election registrar. Then Setting of the
which it is general power of contract.
plebiscite.
- Limitation- shall not be exercise more
LOCAL OFFICIALS
than once a year
Elective and Appointive
PROHIBITIONS
Referendum- voters may amend, disapproved
1. Engaging in business or pecuniary
interest, interest in any cokpit,
Reclassification of Land- not included
purchase real estate forfeited,
prohibition under RA 6713
2/3 votes roads to be closed
2. Practice of Profession
3. Sahll not appear in cases in behalf
CORPORATE POWERS
of public officer, Docters can
1. Continous succession
practice in emergency provided no
2. Sue and be sued- suits commenced by
compensation
Local Chief Executive under the
4. Prohibition against appointment
authority of Sangunian, it is represented
ELECTiVE LOCAl OFFICIAL BOUNDARY DISPUTES
1. Qualification 1. Settle Amicably- primary juris barngays,
2. Age Requirement. 23, 21 18, 15-21 Sangunina
3. Disqualification Sec 40 (In addition in 2. ICC- RTC
OEC) in Sec 68.
4. Manner of Election Municipality and ICC- no provision therefore
5. Term and Limit of Office RTC

Consecutive terms of 3 years.

1. If mayor died-
2. After completing terms, he did not run
but the official is recalled
3. In the middle of term natalo and protest
tas nanalo siya
4. Whether the protest is resolve at the
beginning or end
5. Id dimissised

EXAMPLE

Succession:
Pagnamatay ung governor sinu papalit sa vice
mayor. Ranking by political party (Farinas)

RECALL- how it is initiated, process, limitation

and effectivity.

RESIGNATION: who will act kanino tinetender

yung resignation inorder to be valid.

DISCIPLINE: Provincial- President

CC Municpality- SPanlalawigan then to OP
Baragay- PAnglunsod0 Panlalawigan

PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION
Penalty- can be suspended
Removal- only by order of the court

Condonation Doctrine

APPOINTIVE LOCAL OFFICIAL

1. Responsibilitu for HRD
2. Administrative Discipline with Preventive
Suspension

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATION
- Relationship between Executive and LGU
consistent with local autonomy
- Coordination and Consultation