Political Law Bar Q and A

Political Law Bar Questions and Answers

Bar Q and A #37

1.) Give three issues that can be properly raised and brought in a pre-proclamation contest.

According to Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code, the following issues can be properly raised:

a. The composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers are illegal;
b. The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, approved to be tampered with, or contain discrepancy in the same returns or in other authenticated copies;
c. The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
d. Substitute or fraudulent returns in controverter polling places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates.

However, according to Section 15 of the Synchronized Election Law, no pre- proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns or the certificates of canvass with respect to the positions of President, Vice- President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives. No pre-proclamation case is allowed in the case of barangay elections.

Textbox

2.) The 1st Legislative District of South Cotabato is composed of General Santos and three municipalities including Polomolok. During the canvassing proceedings before the District Board of Canvassers in connection with the 2007 congressional elections, candidate MP objected to the certificate of canvass for Polomolok on the ground that it was obviously manufactured, submitting as evidence the affidavit of a mayoralty candidate of Polomok. The certificate of canvass for General Santos was likewise objected to by MP on the basis of the confirmed report of the local NAMFREL that 10 election returns from non-existent precincts were included in the certificate. MP moved that the certificate of canvass for General Santos be corrected to exclude the results from the non- existent precincts. The District Board of Canvassers denied both objections and ruled to include the certificate of canvass. May MP appeal the rulings to the COMELEC? Explain.

NO, MP cannot appeal the rulings to the Commission on Elections. Under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, no pre-proclamation controversies regarding the appreciation of election returns and certificates of canvass maybe entertained in elections for members of the House of Representatives. The canvassing body may correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass. His recourse is to file a regular election protest before the HRET (Pimentel v. COMELEC, 548 SCRA 169 [2008]).

Textbox

3.) Under the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881, as amended), briefly differentiate an election protest from a quo warranto case, as to who can file the case and the respective grounds therefor.

An ELECTION PROTEST maybe filed by a losing candidate for the same office for which the winner filed his certificate of candidacy. A QUO WARRANTO CASE may be filed by any voter who is a registered voter in the constituency where the winning candidate sought to be disqualified ran for office.

In an election contest, the issues are: (a) who received the majority or plurality of the votes which were legally cast and (b) whether there were irregularities in the conduct of the election which affected its results.

In a quo warranto case, the issue is whether the candidate who was proclaimed elected should be disqualified because of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Philippines.

Textbox

4.) In the municipal mayoralty elections in 1980, the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes was subsequently declared to be disqualified as a candidate and so ineligible for the office to which he was elected. Would this fact entitle a competing candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to ask and be proclaimed the winner of the elective office? Reasons.

According to Trinidad v. COMELEC, 315 SCRA 175 (1999), if the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified, the candidate who obtained the second-highest number of votes cannot be proclaimed the winner. Since he was not the choice of the people, he cannot claim any right to the office.

However, the alleged "second-placer," should be proclaimed if the certificate of candidacy was void ab initio. In short, the winner was never a candidate at all and all votes were stray votes. Thus, the second-placer is the only qualified candidate who actually garnered the highest number of votes (Tea v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195229 [2012]).

Textbox

5.) Abdul ran and won in the May 2001, 2004 and 2007 elections for Vice-Governor of Tawi-Tawi. After being proclaimed Vice- Governor in the 2004 elections, his opponent, Khalil, filed an election protest before the Commission on Election. Ruling with finality on the protest, the COMELEC declared Khalil as the duly elected Vice- Governor though the decision was promulgated only in 2007, when Abdul had fully served his 2004-2007 term and was in fact already on his 2007-2010 term as Vice Governor. a. Abdul now consults you if he can still run for Vice-Governor of Tawi-Tawi in the forthcoming May 2010 election on the premise that he could not be considered as having served as Vice-Governor from 2004- 2007 because he was not duly elected to the post, as he assumed office merely as a presumptive winner and that presumption was later overturned when COMELEC decided with finality that had lost in the May 2004 elections. What will be your advice? b. Abdul also consults you whether his political party can validly nominate his wife as substitute candidate for Vice- Mayor of Tawi- Tawi in May 2010 elections in case the COMELEC disqualifies him and denies due course to or cancels his certificate of candidacy in view of a false material representation therein. What will be your advice?

a. I shall advice Abdul that he cannot run for Vice- Governor of Tawi-Tawi in the May 2010 elections. His second term should be counted as a full term served in contemplation of the three- term limit prescribed by Section 8, Article X of the Constitution. Since the election protest against him was decided after the term of the contested office had expire, it had no practical and legal use and value. (Ong v. Alegre, 479 SCRA 473)

b. I shall advise Abdul that his wife cannot be nominated as substitute candidate for Vice- Governor of Tawi-Tawi. The denial of due course and cancellation of a certificate of candidacy is not one of the cases in which a candidate may be validly substituted. A cancelled certificate does not give rise to a valid candidacy. Under Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code, a valid candidacy is an indispensable requisite in case of a substitution of a disqualified candidate. (Miranda v. Abaya 311 SCRA 617)

Textbox

6.) Atty. G ran for Governor of the Province of Pampanga, while his close friend, Atty. M, ran for Mayor of the Municipality of Guagua, Pampanga. They both won convincingly. Eventually, the losing candidates timely filed election protests. The losing gubernatorial candidate, Mr. A, filed his protest before the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga (RTC), whereas the losing mayoralty candidate, Mr. B, filed his protest before the Municipal Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga (MTC). (a) Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. A? Explain. (b) Does the MTC have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. B? Explain.

(a) The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. A. COMELEC has jurisdiction over an election contest between a losing gubernatorial candidate and a proclaimed winner of the gubernatorial post. [Section 2(2), Article IX-C, 1987 CONST.]

(b) The MTC does not have jurisdiction over the case filed by Mr. B. The RTC has jurisdiction over an election contest between a losing municipal mayoralty candidate and a proclaimed municipal mayor. [Section 2(2), Article IX-C, 1987 CONST.]

Textbox

7.) Candidate X, a naturalized Filipino citizen, ran for Congressman for the Lone District of Batanes. After a close electoral contest, he won by a slim margin of 500 votes. His sole opponent, Y, filed an election protest before the Commission on Election (COMELEC), claiming that X should be disqualified to run for said position because he is not a natural-born citizen. While the case was pending, X was proclaimed by the Provincial Election Supervisor of Batanes as the duly elected Congressman of the province. (a) Distinguish between natural-born and naturalized citizen under the 1987 Constitution. (b) Is X qualified to run for Congress? Explain. (c) Did X’s proclamation divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to decide the case and vest the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) jurisdiction to hear the case? Explain.

(a) Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. [Art. IV, Sec. 2, 1987 Const.]

On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who acquire Philippine Citizenship through either: 1) Judicial naturalization under CA 473 or
2) Administrative Naturalization Law (R.A. 9139). A third option is Derivative Naturalization, which is available to alien women married to Filipino husbands found under section 15 of CA 473 which provides that: “Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.”

(b) No, X is not qualified to run for Congress. The Constitution prescribes that no person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines [Art. VI, Sec. 6, 1987 Const]. In this case, X is a naturalized citizen and is thus not qualified to run for Congress.

(c) No, COMELEC maintains its jurisdiction over the matter. To divest the COMELEC of jurisdiction over election cases of Members of the House of Representatives, the following requisites must concur:

1. Valid Proclamation;
2. Valid oath; and
3. Assumption of office on June 30.

Thus, the mere proclamation of X does not yet transfer jurisdiction from the COMELEC to the HRET. [Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, October 22, 2013]

Textbox

8.) Administrator. A year after, or in May 2014, administrative charges for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service were filed against them before the Office of the Ombudsman. In defense, Mayor X argued that his subsequent reelection in May 2013 absolved him from any administrative liability for any alleged anomalous activity during his first term in office. Y raised the same defense of condonation, having been retained by Mayor X as City Administrator for a second term. On December 10, 2015, the Ombudsman rendered its ruling in the case, finding both Mayor X and Y administratively liable. Citing the Supreme Court’s Decision in Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (G.R. Nos. 217126-27), which was initially promulgated on November 10, 2015, the Ombudsman rejected their defense of condonation. With the motions for reconsideration of Mayor X and Y having been denied by the Ombudsman on March 10, 2016, they elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals. (a) Did the Ombudsman err in not giving credence to the defense of condonation as raised by Mayor X? explain. (b) How about Y? Can he validly invoke the condonation doctrine to absolve him of the charge? Explain.

(a) Yes, the Ombudsman erred in not giving credence to the defense. Although in Carpio- Morales v Court of Appeals abandoned the condonation doctrine, the Supreme Court also pronounced that such ruling may not be applied retroactively, for the reason that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. Considering that the acts of Mayor X were committed in 2013, before the Carpio-Morales case, Mayor X can still validly invoke the condonation doctrine. (Office of the Ombudsman v Vergara, G.R. No. 216871, December 6, 2017).

(b) No, the condonation doctrine only applies to elective officials. Y, being the City Administrator, is an appointive official and can therefore not validly invoke the doctrine. (Carpio-Morales v Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015).

Textbox

9.) Distinguish briefly between Quo Warranto in elective office and Quo Warranto in appointive office.

In quo warranto in elective officer, the issue is the ineligibility of the elected candidate (Section 3(E), Rule 1, Rules Of Procedure In Election Cases). If he is ineligible, the candidate who got the second highest number of votes cannot be proclaimed elected (Sinsuat
v. COMELEC, 492 Scra 264). A voter may file for quo warranto against an elected candidate. The petition should be filed within ten days after the proclamation of the elected candidate.

In quo warranto in appointive office, the issue is the legality of the appointment. The court will decide who between the parties has the legal title to the office (Nachura, Outline Reviewers in Political Law, P. 567). It is the Solicitor General, a public prosecutor, or a person claiming to be entitled to the public office who can file a petition for quo warranto against an appointive official (Section 2 And 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court). The petition should be filed within one year after the cause of action accrued (Section 11, Rules 66 of the Rules of Court)

Textbox

10.) Under the Constitution, what are the three main sources of revenues of local government units?

The following are the main sources of revenues of local government units under the constitution:

a. Taxes, fees, and charges. (Section 5, Article X)
b. Share in the national taxes. (Section 6, Article X)
c. Share in the proceeds of the utilizations and development of the national wealth within their areas. (Section 7, Article X)

Textbox