Professional Documents
Culture Documents
69)
GROUNDS:
FRIVALDO v COMELEC
FACTS:
(i) Juan G. Frivaldo, who unquestionably
obtained the highest number of votes in
three successive elections but who was
twice declared by this Court to be
disqualified to hold such office due to his
alien citizenship, and who now claims to
have re-assumed his lost Philippine
citizenship thru repatriation;
(ii) Raul R. Lee, who was the second placer
in the canvass, but who claims that the
votes cast in favor of Frivaldo should be
considered void; that the electorate
should be deemed to have intentionally
thrown
away
their
ballots;
and
that legally, he
secured
the
most
number of valid votes; or
(iii) The incumbent Vice-Governor, Oscar
G. Deri, who obviously was not voted
directly to the position of governor, but
who according to prevailing jurisprudence
should take over the said post inasmuch
as, by the ineligibility of Frivaldo, a
"permanent vacancy in the contested
office has occurred"?
In an order10 dated June 21, 1995, but
promulgated according to the petition
"only on June 29, 1995," the Comelec en
banc directed "the Provincial Board of
Canvassers of Sorsogon to reconvene for
FACTS:
Both petitioner Villaber and respondent
Douglas R. Cagas were rival candidates for
a congressional seat in the First District of
Davao del Sur during the May 14, 2001
elections. Villaber filed his certificate of
candidacy for Congressman on February
19, 2001,[1] while Cagas filed his on
February 28, 2001.
On March 4, 2001, Cagas filed with the
Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor,
Commission On Elections (COMELEC),
Davao del Sur, a consolidated petition [3] to
disqualify Villaber and to cancel the latters
certificate of candidacy. Cagas alleged in
the said consolidated petition that on
March 2, 1990, Villaber was convicted by
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, for
violation of BP 22 and was sentenced to
suffer one (1) year imprisonment.
Cagas
further
alleged
that
this
crime involves moral turpitude; hence,
under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election
Code, he is disqualified to run for any
public office.
CA: Affirmed
Petitioner alleged: BP 22 does NOT involve
MORAL TURPITUDE
COMELEC: Villaber disqualified
ISSUE: W/N BP22 cases involve moral
turpitude
HELD:
As to the meaning of moral turpitude, we
have consistently adopted the definition in
Blacks Law Dictionary as an act of
baseness, vileness, or depravity in the
private duties which a man owes his fellow
men, or to society in general, contrary to
the accepted and customary rule of right
and duty between man and woman, or
conduct contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals.
We, however, clarified in Dela Torre vs.
Commission on Elections[15] that not
FACTS:
Petitioner Romeo Lonzanida was duly
elected and served two consecutive terms
as municipal mayor of San Antonio,
Zambales prior to the May 8, 1995
elections. In the May 1995 elections
Lonzanida ran for mayor of San Antonio,
Zambales and was again proclaimed
winner. He assumed office and discharged
the duties thereof. His proclamation in
1995 was however contested by his
then opponent Juan Alvez who filed an
election protest before the Regional
Trial Court of Zambales, which in a
decision dated January 9, 1997
declared a FAILURE OF ELECTION.
Accordingly, the office of the mayor of the
Municipality of San Antonio, Zambales is
hereby declared vacant.
Both parties appealed to the COMELEC. On
November 13, 1997 the COMELEC resolved
the election protest filed by Alvez and after
a revision and re-appreciation of the
contested ballots declared Alvez the duly
elected mayor of San Antonio, Zambales by
plurality of votes cast in his favor totaling
1,720 votes as against 1,488 votes for
Lonzanida. On February 27, 1998 the
COMELEC issued a writ of execution
ordering Lonzanida to vacate the post,
which obeyed, and Alvez assumed office
for the remainder of the term.
ON THE THIRD TIME. In the May 11, 1998
elections
Lonzanida
again
filed
his
certificate of candidacy for mayor of San
Antonio. On April 21, 1998 his opponent
Eufemio Muli timely filed a petition to
disqualify Lonzanida from running for
mayor of San Antonio in the 1998 elections
on the ground that he had served
three consecutive terms in the same
post. On May 13,
1998,
petitioner
Lonzanida was proclaimed winner.
COMELEC: issued the questioned resolution
granting the petition for disqualification
upon a finding that Lonzanida had served
three consecutive terms as mayor of San
Antonio, Zambales and he is therefore
disqualified to run for the same post for the
fourth time.
ABUNDO v COMELEC
FACTS:
4 successive regular elections, namely, the
2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010 national and
local elections, Abundo vied for the
position of municipal mayor of Viga,
Catanduanes. In both the 2001 and
2007 runs, he emerged and was
proclaimed as the winning mayoralty
candidate and accordingly served the
corresponding terms as mayor. In the
2004 electoral derby, however, the Viga
municipal board of canvassers initially
fully
served
three
personal
reservations
of
the ponente (expressed
during
the
Court's en banc deliberations), that Article
73
of
the
Rules
and
Regulations
Implementing the Local Government Code
of 1991, to the extent that it confines the
term "fugitive from justice" to refer only to
a person (the fugitive) "who has been
convicted by final judgment." is an
inordinate and undue circumscription of
the law.
RULING: REMANDED TO THE COMELEC TO
PROCEED
ANOTHER
CONTENTION:
Private
respondent thus suggests that regardless
of the ground for disqualification, the
votes cast for the disqualified candidate
should result in considering the votes cast
for him as stray as explicitly mandated by
Section 211(24) in relation to Section 72 of
the OEC.
We disagree.
ACTION
GROUN
DS
EFFECTS
SUB
PETITION
FOR
DISQUAL.
(SEC. 68)
can
be
premised on
Section
12
or 68 of the
OEC,
or
Section
40
of the LGC.
person who
is
disqualified
under
Section 68 is
merely
prohibited to
continue as
a candidate,
Can
be
validly
substituted
HELD:
Petition lacks merit.
CONTENTION:
he
"acceptance,"
she
claims, is an indication of the conditional
natureof the pardon, with the condition
being embodied in the third Whereas
Clause of the pardon, i.e., "WHEREAS,
Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly
committed to no longer seek any elective
position or office." She explains that the
aforementioned commitment was what
impelled former President Arroyo to
pardon former President Estrada, without
it, the clemency would not have been
extended.
Moreover, Risos-Vidal puts a premium on
the ostensible requirements provided
under Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised
Penal Code, to wit:
ART. 36. Pardon; its effects. A pardon
shall not work the restoration of the right
to hold publicoffice, or the right of
suffrage, unless such rights be expressly
restored by the terms of the pardon.
IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE PARDON. He
was granted a pardon that fully
restored allhis civil and political
rights, which naturally includes the
right to seek public elective office,
the focal point of this controversy.
The wording of the pardon extended to
former President Estrada is complete,
unambiguous, and unqualified. The only
reasonable, objective, and constitutional
interpretation of the language of the
pardon is that the same in fact conforms
to Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal
Code.
MAQUILING v COMELEC
FACTS: <supra>
ISSUE: The third question is whether or not
the rule on succession in the Local
Government Code is applicable to this
case
An ineligible candidate who receives the
highest number of votes is a wrongful
winner. By express legal mandate, he
could not even have been a candidate in
the first place, but by virtue of the lack of
material time or any other intervening
ROMMEL
ARNADO
FLORANTE CAPITAN
DECLARED
DULY-
COMELEC,
FACTS:
etitioner Arnado is a natural-born Filipino
citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship
after he was naturalized as citizen of the
United
States
of
America
(USA).
Subsequently, and in preparation for his
plans to run for public office in the
Philippines, Arnado applied for repatriation
under Republic Act No. 92255 (RA 9225)
before the Consul General of the
Philippines in San Franciso, USA. He took
an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of
probative
weight.-the
original
certified true copy thereof was
presented.
or
not
FACTS:
Romeo D. Lonzanida (Lonzanida) and
Estela D.
Antipolo (Antipolo) were
candidates for Mayor of San Antonio,
Zambales in the May 2010 National and
Local Elections. Dra. Sigrid S. Rodolfo
(Rodolfo) filed a petition under Section 78
of the Omnibus Election Code to disqualify
Lonzanida and to deny due course or to
cancel Lonzanidas certificate of candidacy
on the ground that Lonzanida was elected,
and had served, as mayor of San Antonio,
Zambales for four (4) consecutive terms
immediately prior to the term for the May
2010 elections.
Rodolfo asserted that Lonzanida made a
false material representation in his
certificate of candidacy when Lonzanida
certified under oath that he was eligible
for the office he sought election. Section
8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and
Section 43(b) of the Local Government
Code both prohibit a local elective official
from being elected and serving for more
than three consecutive terms for the same
position.
COMELEC: Cancelled Lonzanidas COC;
Lonzanida and Efren Racel Aratea (Aratea)
garnered the highest number of votes and
were respectively proclaimed Mayor and
Vice-Mayor.
Aratea took his oath of office as Acting
Mayor before Regional Trial Court (RTC)
Judge of Olongapo. On the same date,
Aratea wrote the DILG and requested for
an opinion on whether, as Vice-Mayor, he
was legally required to assume the Office
of the Mayor in view of Lonzanidas
disqualification.
DILG
stated
that
Lonzanida
was
disqualified to hold office by reason of his
criminal
conviction,
and
as
a
consequence, his office was deemed
permanently vacant, and thus, Aratea
should assume the Office of the Mayor in
an acting capacity
Lonzanida filed
candidacy.
his
certificate
of
OF
EQUAL
i.
Farias, et al. v. Executive
Secretary, et al. is Controlling
In Farias, the constitutionality of Section
14 of the Fair Election Act, in relation to
Sections 66 and 67 of the Omnibus
Election Code, was assailed on the ground,
among others, that it unduly discriminates
against appointive officials. As Section 14
repealed Section 67 (i.e., the deemedresigned provision in respect of elected
officials) of the Omnibus Election Code,
elected
officials
are
no
longer
considered ipso facto resigned from their
respective offices upon their filing of
certificates of candidacy. In contrast, since
Section 66 was not repealed, the limitation
on appointive officials continues to be
operative they are deemed resigned when
they file their certificates of candidacy.
CAMPAIGN, ELECTION
(ART. X, OEC)
PROPAGANDA
The
term
election
campaign
or
partisan poll activity refers to an act
designed to promote the election or defeat
of a particular candidate/s to a public
office.It includes:
(a) forming orgs or groups of persons
(b) holding political caucuses, mtgs,
rallies or other similar assemblies,
(c) making speeches, announcements,
or
commentaries,
or
holding
interviews, and
(d) publishing or distributing campaign
lit.or matls,
(e) directly or indirectly, soliciting
votes, pledges or support for or
against any candidate.
PROHIBITED ACTS
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person, w/n
a voter or a candidate, or for any party, or
association of persons, to engage in an
election campaign or partisan poll activity
except during election period (Sec.
80)
[Accdg to RA 7166, Sec. 5 thereof provides
that campaign periods are thereby fixed
as follows:
(a) For Pres, VP and Senators, 90 days
before the day of the election; and
4.3.
Print,
broadcast
or
outdoor
advertisements donated to the candidate
or political party shall not be printed,
published, broadcast, or exhibited without
ACTION
BY
THE