Jay Mark A.

Santos
JD 2-C
ELECTION CONTEST
 Refer to election disputes or issue
pertaining the determination of popular
will AFTER the proclamation of
presumptive winners in the Philippine
elections.

( who should be the rightful occupant of

the position contested as well as the
qualifications of the proclaimed winner.)
Two (2) Distinct Classes
 1. those pertain to the casting and
counting of the ballots.
(who obtain number of the highest number
of votes) = Election Protest

 2. those which pertain to the eligibility of

the candidates.
 = Petition for Quo Warranto
POINTS PETITION FOR ELECTION PROTEST
OF QUO WARRANTO
DISTINCTI
ON
A s to Is to disqualify an elected Is to annul the election
OFFICE official on the ground of of an elected candidate
INELIGIBILITY due to age, on the grounds of frauds,
citizen or the commission irregularities in the
of acts enumerated conduct of election and
under Sec. 68 BP 881 counting and
canvassing of votes
ISSUE Lacking in the Is who obtained the
INVOLVE qualification of the highest number of votes
D winning candidate
WHO Any registered voters Can only be filed by a
CAN FILE candidate who has duly
filed a certificate of
candidacy and has
been voted for THE
SAME OFFICE.
CONSEQUENC
E IF ADVERSE
While protestee
Protestant
PARTY may be ousted, may assume
UNSEATED
the petitioner will
office after
not e seated. protestee is
unseated
PARTIES
CONCERNED
Protestant
DESIGNATED as While the
Petitioner and adverse party
Respondent shall known as
the Protestee
ELECTION PROTEST:
A party seeking to raise issues resolution of
which would compel or necessitate
Comelec to pierce the veil of election
returns which are prima facie regular on
their face, has his proper remedy in a
regular election protest.
 It may include correction of manifest
errors in the election returns or a
statement of votes such that if corrected
the result will be altered.
Effects of Petition to annul or
suspend Proclamation
 The running of the reglementary period to
file an election protest is tolled by a
party’s elevation to the Supreme Court of
a COMELEC decision or resolution of a
proclamation case .
 The computation of the prescriptive
period, or the remainder of said period for
filing election contest, does not
commence to run until the SC hands
down its verdict.
ELECTION PROTEST FOR NATIONAL
AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
A petition contesting the
election of a national or local
officer-elect shall be filed
before the proper forum and
within the term fixed by law.
 PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR FILING
ELECTED ADJUDUCATIVE ELECTION PETITION FOR
OFFICIALS BODY PROTEST QUO
WARRANTO

PRESIDENT and Presidential 30 days from 10 days from

VICE PRESIDENT Electoral proclamation proclamation
Tribunal (PET)

SENATORS Senate 15 days 10 days

Electoral
Tribunal (SET)
CONGRESSMEN House of 15days 15 days
Representativ
e Electoral
Tribunal
( HRET)
ELECTED ADJUDUCATIVE ELECTION PETITION FOR
OFFICIALS BODY PROTEST QUO
WARRANTO

REGIONAL, Commission 10 days from 10 days from

PROVINCIAL, AND on Election proclamation proclamation
CITY OFFICIALS

MUNICIPAL Regional Trial 10 days 10 days

OFFICIALS Court
BARANGAY Municipal Trial 10days 10 days
OFFICIALS Court
NATURE OF ELECTION PROTEST
 it is a special summary proceeding, the
object is to expedite the settlement of the
controversy between candidates as to
who received the majority of the legal
ballots
 Quo warranto and Election
contest cannot be joined in
Single Proceeding
The two procedures are very
different and are governed by
different legal provisions.
 IF JOINED
 It is the duty of the Election contest
adjudicators to order their separation so that
each may proceed independently of the
other.
 In case one of them should be dismissed on
jurisdictional or other legal ground its
dismissal should not affect the other action.
 They can file it within the same
ADJUDUCATOR.
Can a candidate who
withdraws his candidacy may
file an election protest?

 No, he has no legal standing.

 Having withdrawn his certificate of
candidacy , his right thereto has been
lost.
JURISDICTIONAL FACTS
 IN ORDER to confer jurisdiction it is necessary
to allege in the election protest the following:
 1. the protestant is a candidate voted for in
the said election and has presented a
certificate of candidacy
 2. the protestee has been proclaimed in said
election
 3. the date when the proclamation of the
result of the election was made so that it may
be seen that the protest was filed within the
term fixed by law
AMENDMENTS OF PROTEST
 As a matter of rule, it may be stated in
general that amendments ( form or
substance) may be allowed as a matter
of right within the period to file an original
protest ,
 after the expiration if the term no
substantial amendment may be allowed.
 In case of death of either the
Protestant or Protestee
 PROTESTEE:
-NO heir should be allowed to continue holding
the office.

either: the case will still proceed, and it is not a

ground for dismissal of the contest , since it is a
determination of what candidate has been In fact
elected is a matter clothed by public interest,
wherefore, public policy demands that an
election contest, duly commenced, be not abate
by the death of the contestant.
The burden of Proof
 on the protestant

 Best and most conclusive evidence:

 -BALLOTS

 When it appears that the ballot box has been

unlawfully opened and its contents disturbed
to the extent that it is uncertain whether the
ballots found therein where actually cast by
the voters..
PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL (PET)
A.M. NO. 10-4-29-SC
THE 2010 RULES OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL
JURISDICTION:
 THE PET is the sole judge of all contest
relating to election, returns, and
qualification of the PRESIDENT and VICE-
PRESIDENT.
Election Protest who may file
 Registered candidate for President
or Vice President.
 Those obtained second or third
highest number of votes.
HOW, WHERE and WHEN TO FILE

 Filinga verified election protest with the

Clerk of the PET within 30 days after the
proclamation of the winner.

 ThePRESCRIPTIVE period is jurisdictional

and cannot be extended.
DECISION:
 THE DECISION of PET shall become
final after ten 10days after receipt
of the copy by the parties or their
counsel if no motion for
reconsideration is filed.
MOTIONS
 NO MOTION FOR RE-OPENING THE CASE.

A party my file a motion for

reconsideration once.

 Ifthe motion is denied the decision will

become final and executory upon
personal service on the parties of the
resolution.
If the MR is granted
 Theparty adverse affected may file a
motion for reconsideration within 10 days
from receipt of the resolution otherwise it
becomes final and executory.
SENATE
ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL (SET)
ADOPTED AND APPROVED
RULES ON SEPTEMBER 24,
1987 BUT WAS AMENDED
ON 1992,1996, 1999, 2003
JURISDICTION:
 The SET in the sole judge of all contest relation
to the election, returns, and qualifications of
members of the senate.

 Theword “sole” in Section 17, article VI of the

1987 constitution and section 250 of omnibus
Election code underscores the exclusivity of
the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over election contest
relating to its members.
The authority conferred upon
SET is categorical and
complete.
 ELECTION PROTEST
 VERIFIEDPETITION
 BY ANY CANDIDATE, WHO HAS DULY FILED A
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY AND HAS BEEN
VOTED FOR THE OFFICE OF SENATORS.
 WITHIN 15DAYS AFTER THE PROCLAMATION OF
THE PROTESTEE.

 Nojoint election protest shall be admitted but

the tribunal may consolidate individual protest
and hear and decide them jointly.
Abandonment of election Protest

 In Pimentel vs Honasan the relief prayed

for by protestant Pimentel to be declared
winner in the 1995 senatorial election has
been abandoned through protestant
Pimentel’s filing of his candidacy for
senetorial seat in the 11th congress of the
Phil.
 His active campaigning therefor and
eventual victory and assumption to office
as elected senator abandon his protest.
SUMMARY DISMISSAL
 An election protest or petition for quo warranto
may be summarily dismissed by the SET without
requiring the answers of both side if, inter alia:

 1 insufficient in form
 2. beyond prescriptive period
 3. filing fees not paid ( first 100 k in case of cash
deposits)
 4. the petition or copies thereof is not clearly
legible
DECISION
 The SET’s decision shall become final ten
days after receipt of copy thereof by the
parties or counsel f no motion for
reconsideration is filed.
HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL (HRET)
SECTION 17, OF ARTICLE VI
OF THE CONSTITUTION
JURISDICTION
 The Constitution gives HRET sole
jurisdiction over contest involving
the election, returns and
qualifications of the House of
Representatives.
QUESTION ON PARTY LIST SEAT
ALLOCATION and INTRA PARTY
CONTROVERSY
 HRET has no jurisdiction, only the comelec has
been granted the authority to enforce and
administer all laws and regulation relative to
the conduct of an election, initiative,
referendum and recall and decide.

 Section 8 RA 7941 expressly grants the

registered party on their own prerogative.
 (qualification under the same RA HRET )
ELECTION PROTEST REQUISITES:
 1. VERIFIED PETITION contesting the
election or returns of any Member of the
House of Representatives.
 2. by any Candidate who has duly filed a
COC and has been voted for the same
office.
 3. within 15 days after the proclamation of
the winner. ( AZNAR vs BACALTOS DATE
OF PROCLAMATION)
An election protest shall state:
 1. the date of proclamation of winners and the
number of votes obtained by the parties per
proclamation
 2. the total number of contested individual
and clustered precinct per municipality/city
 3. the individual and clustered precinct
number and location of the contested precinct
and
 4. the specific acts or omission complained of
constituting the electoral frauds, anomalies or
irregularities in the contested precinct.
Pena vs Abueg JR.
 The HRET dismissed the case for the failure
of the protestant to specify which are the
700 precinct out of the said 743 precinct
that are included in the protest, he even
failed t allege the municipalities where
the protested precinct are located.
Butalid vs Bravo JR.
 HRET reiterate that failure to identify:
 1 specific precinct being protested
 2. specific precinct where the alleged
fraud and other irregularities occurred
and to specifically allege on how they
occurred

 Is ground for the dismissal of the Petition.

Petition for quo warranto
 it may be filed by any registered voter of
the DISTRICT CONCERNED.
IMPORTANT NOTE
Under rule 17, of the 2011 HRET Rules now
provides that a petition for quo warranto
may be filed by any registered voter of the
district concerned against a member of the
House of Representatives, on the ground of
citizenship, at any time during his tenure.
(amores vs HRET and Villanueva)
 Amores VS HRET and
Villanueva
 Amores filed a petition for quo warranto against
CIBAC reps. Joel Villanueva questioning the age
requirements as YOUTH representative.
 The HRET dismissed the case because it is not filed
on time.

 AMORES filed petition for certiorari

 THE SC granted the PETITION stating that
constitutional requirement is a continuing
requirements .
DECISION
 THE
HRET subsequently conducts an
appreciation of ballots in the contested
precinct.

 Decision of HRET becomes final and

executory as against party 10 days after
his receipt of a copy thereof if no motion
for reconsideration is filed.
COMMISSION
ON ELECTION
(COMELEC)
Section 249
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
 THE COMELEC shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction over all contest relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of the elective, regional,
provincial and city officials.

 An election filed by losing candidate with eth

electoral tribunal pending the election contest with
the comelec does not deprive the comelec its
jurisdiction where the protest was filed Ex
abundante cautela.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 THE COMELEC shall exercise appellate
jurisdiction over all contest involving elective
municipal officials decided by the trial court of
general jurisdiction or involving elective
barangay officials decided by trial courts of
limited jurisdiction.
JURISDICTION OF THE
COMELEC DOEST NOT COVER
 1.
PROTEST OVERORGANIZATIONAL SET UP
OF KATIPUNAN NG MGA BARANGAY.`
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND
MANDAMUS
 THE
COMELEC is vested with exclusive
authority to hear and decide petitions
mentioned.

 Boththe Supreme Court and Comelec,

however have concurrent jurisdiction to
such writs over decisions of trial court of
general jurisdiction in ELECTION CASES
involving elective municipal officials.
 DECISION FINAL AND NOT
APPEALABLE
 DECISION MADE BY THE COMELEC, on
election contest involving municipal and
barangay elective officials shall be final and
executory. However this only applies in the
question of fact.
 THE SC is not divested its authority to resolved
question of law as inherent in the judicial
power. Nevertheless in the absence of
jurisdictional infirmity or an error of law
COMELEC decision entitled to the utmost
respect.
Who may file?
 Any candidate who was voted for in the
same office and received the second or
third highest number of votes or in a multi-
slot position was among the next four
candidates following the last ranked.
 SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF
ELECTION CONTEST
1. THE comelec HAS No
jurisdiction
2. the protest is insufficient in
form
3. the petition is filed within the
prescribed period
4. filing fee is not paid .
DECISION
 THECOMELEC SHALL DECIDE THE
ELECTION CONTEST WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM
THE DATE IT IS SUBMITTED FOR THE
DECISION.
MUNICIPAL AND
BARANGAY
ELECTION
CONTEST
A.M. NO 07-4-15-SC
RULE 2 ELECTION CONTEST
 RTC= exclusive original jurisdiction over all
election cases involving elective
municipal officials.

 MTC= shall have exclusive original

jurisdiction over all election contest
involving barangay officials (including SK)
 Theirdecisions are however appealable
to the COMELEC whose decision, in turn,
are considered final and executory.

 Note: Pre proclamation controversies may

no longer be entertained by the comelec
after the winning candidates have been
proclaimed and assumed office.
Who may file?
 Any candidate who was voted for in the
same office and received the second or
third highest number of votes or in a multi-
slot position was among the next four
candidates following the last ranked.

 The petition must be verified

DECISION
 THE court shall decide the election contest
within 30days from the date the case
submitted for decision, in no case beyond 6
months after its filing, unless the SC authorizes
an extension in writing.

 Failure to comply with this timeline shall be

considered serious offense and be aground
for disciplinary action against the judge.
FINALITY OF THE DECISION
 THEcourt’s promulgated decision shall
become final and executory 5 days after
the receipt of notice by the party if no
appeal is taken.
BATALLA VS COMELEC
 Facts:
 ErnestoBattalla (113) and Teodoro Battaller
(108) were candidates for the position of
Punong Barangay in Barangay Mapulang
Daga, Bacacay, Albay .

 During the October 29, 2007 barangay elections.

Batalla was proclaimed the winner.
 Bataller filed an election protest before the
MCTC claiming misappreciation of seven
ballots. The MCTC found that Batalla and
Bataller had garnered an equal number of
votes.
 Batalla received the Decision on February 20,
2008 and filed his Notice of Appeal of the
trial court’s decision and paid the appeal fee
on February 22, 2008.
 However, he paid the additional appeal
docket fee only on March 5, 2008, or 11 days
after receiving the MCTC’s decision. The
COMELEC First Division dismissed Batalla’s for
failure to pay the appeal fee as prescribed by
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure within the
five-(5)-day reglementary period. The Comelec
En Banca ffirmed
 .Issue:
 1. Whether or not the appeal was perfected.

 2 Whether or not the 5 ballots will be declared void

and the petitioner will be declared winner.

 Held: The appellant in an electoral protest case

decided by the trial court must file his notice of
appeal and pay the appeal fee to the trial court
that rendered the decision, and must pay to the
COMELEC Cash Division the required additional
appeal fee.
 Under the present COMELEC Rules of Procedure,
an appellant from a decision of a trial court in an
election protest case is given a reglementary period of
5 days from the receipt of a copy of the decision
within which to pay the additional appeal fee to
theCOMELEC Cash Division.
 . However, the COMELEC En Banc issued on July
15, 2008 COMELEC Resolution No. 8486, which
allowed the payment of the additional appeal
fee to the COMELEC Cash Division within 15
days from the filing of the notice of appeal.
Said Resolution has effectively amended Sec. 4,
Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Therefore, Batalla had already perfected his
appeal by paying the required appeal fees.
He paid the appeal fee to the trial court on
February 22, 2008 within the five-day period
from receipt of the decision and the additional
appeal fee to the COMELEC Cash Division on
March 5, 2008 or within 15 days from the filing of
his notice of appeal.
 2.only 3 ballots properly appreciated in favor of
bataller.
 The NEIGHBORHOOD RULE APPLY!
 -where the name of the candidate is not written
in the proper space in the ballot but is preceded
by t he name of the office for which he is a
candidate.

 The object should be ascertain carry into effect

the intention of the voter if it could be determined
with reasonable certainty.
 Petitioner Joselito R. Mendoza was proclaimed the
winner of the 2007 gubernatorial election for the
province of Bulacan, besting respondent Roberto M.
Pagdanganan by a margin of 15,732 votes.
 On 1 June 2007, respondent filed the Election
Protest which, anchored on the massive electoral
fraud allegedly perpetrated by petitioner, was raffled
to the Second Division of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) as EPC No. 2007-44.
 With petitioners filing of his Answer with Counter-
Protest on 18 June 2007, the COMELEC proceeded to
conduct the preliminary conference and to order a
revision of the ballots from the contested precincts
indicated in said pleadings.

 Upon the evidence adduced and the memoranda
subsequently filed by the parties, the COMELEC
Second Division went on to render the 1 December
2009 Resolution, which annulled and set aside
petitioners proclamation as governor of Bulacan
 and proclaimed respondent duly elected to said
position by a winning margin of 4,321 votes.
 Coupled with a directive to the Department of
Interior and Local Government to implement the
same, the resolution ordered petitioner to
immediately vacate said office, to cease and desist
from discharging the functions pertaining thereto and
to cause a peaceful turn-over thereof to respondent.
 there was no majority vote of the members
obtained in the Resolution of the Commission En
Banc promulgated on February 8, 2010. At said
scheduled re-hearing, it further appears that the
parties agreed to submit the matter for resolution
by the COMELEC En Banc upon submission of
their respective memoranda, without further
argument. As it turned out, the deliberations
which ensued again failed to muster the required
majority vote since, with three (3) Commissioners
not taking part in the voting, and only one dissent
therefrom, the assailed 1 December 2009
Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division only
garnered three concurrences.
Issue:
 Whetheror not the comelec committed
grave abuse of discretion.
 Thegrave abuse of discretion of the COMELEC is
underscored by the fact that the protest that
petitioner Pagdanganan filed on 1 June 2007
overstayed with the COMELEC until the present
election year when the end of the term of the
contested office is at hand and there was
hardly enough time for the re-hearing that was
conducted only on 15 February 2010. As the
hearing time at the division had run out, and the
re-hearing time at the banc was fast running
out, the unwanted result came about:
incomplete appreciation of ballots; invalidation
of ballots on general and unspecific grounds;
unrebutted presumption of validity of ballots.