November 2012


G.R. No. 190582               April 8, 2010
ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS 

Facts:
Comelec refused to recognize Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs),as a party list based on moral grounds. In the elevation of the case to the Supreme Court, Comelec alleged that petitioner made misrepresentation in their application.

Issue:
Whether or not Ang Ladlad LGBT Party qualifies for registration as party-list.

Ruling:
SEE: ANG LADLAD RULING


Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and  WORDPRESS

Case Digest: Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Comelec

Posted on

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Category

,

,

,

,

,

,


G.R. No. 154198            January 20, 2003
PETRONILA S. RULLODA vs. COMELEC and REMEGIO PLACIDO

Facts:
Comelec denied petitioner’s request to substitute her deceased husband in the Barangay Chairman Candidacy despite the fact that petitioner apparently garnered the highest votes when constituents wrote her name in the ballots. Respondents cited resolution 4801 and Section 7 of the Omnibus Election Code which prohibits substitution of candidates. Private respondent Placido contended that it was only right that he be proclaimed winner since he was the only one who filed a certificate of candidacy and, hence, the only candidate running.

Issue:
Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion when Comelec denied petitioner’s request that she be allowed to run for elections.

Ruling: see: RULLODA VS. COMELEC RULING


Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and  WORDPRESS

Case Digest: Rulloda vs. Comelec

Category

,

,

,

,

,


G.R. No. 147589            June 26, 2001
ANG BAGONG BAYANI vs. Comelec
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 147613 June 26, 2001
BAYAN MUNA vs. Comelec

Facts
Petitioners challenged the Comelec’s Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, which approved the participation of 154 organizations and parties, including those herein impleaded, in the 2001 party-list elections. Petitioners sought the disqualification of private respondents, arguing mainly that the party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented; not the mainstream political parties, the non-marginalized or overrepresented. Unsatisfied with the pace by which Comelec acted on their petition, petitioners elevated the issue to the Supreme Court. 

Issue:
1.     Whether or not petitioner’s recourse to the Court was proper.
2.     Whether or not political parties may participate in the  party list elections.
3.     Whether or not the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Omnibus Resolution No. 3785.

Ruling:SEE: Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec RULING


Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and  WORDPRESS

Case Digest: Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec

Category

,

,

,

,

,

,


G.R. No. 150605           December 10, 2002
EUFROCINO M. CODILLA, SR. vs. HON. JOSE DE VENECIA, ROBERTO P. NAZARENO, in their official capacities as Speaker  and Secretary-General of the House of Representatives, respectively, 
and MA. VICTORIA L. LOCSIN


Facts:
Petitioner garnered the highest votes in the election for representative in the 4th district of Leyte as against respondent Locsin. Petitioner won while a disqualification suit was pending. Respondent moved for the suspension of petitioner’s proclamation. By virtue of the Comelec ex parte order, petitioner’s proclamation was suspended. Comelec later on resolved that petitioner was guilty of soliciting votes and consequently disqualified him. Respondent Locsin was proclaimed winner. Upon motion by petitioner, the resolution was however reversed and a new resolution declared respondent’s proclamation as null and void. Respondent made his defiance and disobedience to subsequent resolution publicly known while petitioner asserted his right to the office he won.

Issues:
1.     Whether or not respondent’s proclamation was valid.
2.     Whether or not the Comelec had jurisdiction in the instant case.
3.     Whether or not proclamation of the winner is a ministerial duty.

RULING: See: Codilla vs.De Venecia RULING

Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and  WORDPRESS

1. 

Case Digest: Codilla vs. de Venecia

Category

,

,

,

,

G.R. No. 163193             June 15, 2004

SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., petitioner,
JOSE CONCEPCION, JR., JOSE DE VENECIA, EDGARDO J. ANGARA, DR. JAIME Z. GALVEZ-TAN, FRANKLIN M. DRILON, FRISCO SAN JUAN, NORBERTO M. GONZALES, HONESTO M. GUTIERREZ, ISLETA, AND JOSE A. BERNAS, Petitioners-in-Intervention, 
vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

Facts:
Comelec issued resolutions adopting an Automated Elections System including the assailed resolution, Resolution 6712, which provides for the electronic transmission of  advanced result of “unofficial” count. Petitioners claimed that the resolution would allow the preemption and usurpation of the exclusive power of Congress to canvass the votes for President and Vice-President and would likewise encroach upon the authority of NAMFREL, as the citizens’ accredited arm, to conduct the "unofficial" quick count as provided under pertinent election laws. Comelec contended that the resolution was promulgated in the exercise of its executive and administrative power "to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections” Comelec added that the issue is beyond judicial determination.

Issue:
Whether or not Comelec's promulgation of  Resolution 6712 was justified.

Ruling: SEE BRILLANTES VS. COMELEC RULING


Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and  WORDPRESS

Case Digest: Brillantes vs. Comelec

Category

,

,

,

,

,

,


G.R. No. 161434             March 3, 2004
MARIA JEANETTE C. TECSON and FELIX B. DESIDERIO, JR. vs.COMELEC, FPJ and VICTORINO X. FORNIER, 

G.R. No. 161634             March 3, 2004
ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ vs.FPJ

G. R. No. 161824             March 3, 2004
VICTORINO X. FORNIER, vs. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FPJ

Facts:
Petitioners sought for respondent Poe’s disqualification in the presidential elections for having allegedly misrepresented material facts in his (Poe’s) certificate of candidacy by claiming that he is a natural Filipino citizen despite his parents both being foreigners. Comelec dismissed the petition, holding that Poe was a Filipino Citizen. Petitioners assail the jurisdiction of the Comelec, contending that only the Supreme Court may resolve the basic issue on the case under Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution.

Issue:
Whether or not it is the Supreme Court which had jurisdiction.
Whether or not Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that Poe was a Filipino citizen.

Ruling: SEE TECSON VS. COMELEC
Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and  WORDPRESS

Case Digest: Tecson vs. Comelec

Category

,

,

,

,

,


G.R. No. 150605           December 10, 2002

EUFROCINO M. CODILLA, SR. vs

HON. JOSE DE VENECIA, ROBERTO P. NAZARENO, in their official capacities as Speaker 
and Secretary-General of the House of Representatives, respectively, 
and MA. VICTORIA L. LOCSIN

Facts:

Petitioner garnered the highest votes in the election for representative in the 4th district of Leyte as against respondent Locsin. Petitioner won while a disqualification suit was pending. Respondent moved for the suspension of petitioner’s proclamation. By virtue of the Comelec ex parte order, petitioner’s proclamation was suspended. Comelec later on resolved that petitioner was guilty of soliciting votes and consequently disqualified him. Respondent Locsin was proclaimed winner. Upon motion by petitioner, the resolution was however reversed and a new resolution declared respondent’s proclamation as null and void. Respondent made his defiance and disobedience to subsequent resolution publicly known while petitioner asserted his right to the office he won.

Issues:
1.     Whether or not respondent’s proclamation was valid.
2.     Whether or not the Comelec had jurisdiction in the instant case.
3.     Whether or not proclamation of the winner is a ministerial duty.


Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and  WORDPRESS

Case Digest: Codilla vs. de Venecia

Posted on

Monday, November 26, 2012

Category

,

,

,


Nicolas-Lewis, et al vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 162759 August 4, 2006

Facts: 
Petitioners were dual citizens by virtue of RA 9225. Petitioners sought to avail their right of suffrage under RA 9189 or the  Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003. Comelec, however, did not allow petitioners to vote in the 2004 election, reasoning the petitioners faield to comply with the requirement of 1-year residency prior the elections as provided for under Article 5, Sec 1 of the Constitution.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners may participate in the election sans the compliance of the 1 year residency.

Ruling: 
see: NICOLAS-LEWIS VS. COMELEC RULING

Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and  WORDPRESS

Case Digest: Nicolas-Lewis, et al vs. Comelec

Posted on

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Category

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,


G.R. No. 152295            July 9, 2002
Montesclaros, et al vs. Comelec, et al

Facts:

Petitioners sought to prevent the postponement of the 2002 SK election to a later date since doing so may render them unqualified to vote or be voted for in view of the age limitation set by law for those who may participate. The SK elections was postponed since it was deemed "operationally very difficult" to hold both SK and Barangay elections simultaneously in May 2002. Petitioners also sought to enjoin the lowering of  age for membership in the SK.
Issue:
Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction imputable to respondents.

Held:
see: MONTESCLAROS VS. COMELEC RULING


Case Digest: Montesclaros, et al vs. Comelec, et al

Category

,

,

,

,

,


G.R. No. 180363               April 28, 2009
EDGAR Y. TEVES, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HERMINIO G. TEVES

Facts:
In Oct 2007, petitioner was officially disqualified to run for a congressional seat in the May 2007 election because of a Sandiganbayan decision rendered against him in 2005 involving a crime, allegedly, of moral turpitude.

The Comelec likewise rendered the issue raised by petitioner as moot since the latter lost in the said election.

Issue: 
Whether or not there WAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION when Comelec disqualified petitioner in view of the petitioner’s conviction.

Ruling:
see: TEVES VS. COMELEC RULING


Case Digest: Teves vs. Comelec

Category

,

,

,


G.R. No. 170365               February 2, 2010
ABDUL GAFFAR P.M. DIBARATUN vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ABDUL CARIM MALA ABUBAKAR

Facts: 
The Comelec en banc ruled a failure of elections in precinct No. 6a/7a, Lanao del Sur
on the second instance stated in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, that is, the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes. The Election on said precinct was disrupted by a commotion, was untimely suspended and never resumed. The Comelec decision, consequently nullified the proclamation of herein petitioner dibaratun as winner.

Petitioner Dibaratun contended that Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring a failure of elections for acting on herein respondents’ petition even if such petition was filed out of time.

Issue:
Whether or not Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring a failure of elections

Ruling:
SEE: DIBARATUN VS. COMELEC AND ABUBAKAR RULING


Case Digest: Dibaratun vs. Comelec and Abubakar

Category

,

,

,

,


G.R. No.  148334.  January 21, 2004
ARTURO M. TOLENTINO and ARTURO C. MOJICA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SENATOR RALPH G. RECTO and SENATOR GREGORIO B. HONASAN

FACTS:
Petitioners assailed the manner by which the simultaneous regular and special elections of 2001 were conducted by the COMELEC.Petitioners contend that, if held simultaneously, a special and a regular election must be distinguished in the documentation as well as in the canvassing of their results. Thirteen senators were proclaimed from the said election with the 13th placer to serve that of the remaining term of Sen. Guingona, who vacated a seat in the senate.
Petitioners sought for the nullification of the special election and, consequently, the declaration of the 13th elected senator.

Issue:
1Whether or not  Court had jurisdiction.
2Whether or not the petition was moot.
3Whether or not petioners had locus standi.
4Whether a Special Election for a Single, Three-Year Term
Senatorial Seat was Validly Held on 14 May 2001

RULING:
see: TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC RULING

Case Digest: Tolentino and Mojica vs. Comelec

Category

,

,

,

,

,


Ampatuan, et al. vs. COMELEC
G. R. No. 149803.  January 31, 2002

The petitioners were proclaimed victorious in the May 14, 2001 Maguindanao Provincial election after the order suspending such proclamation was lifted by the COMELEC, which issued the same.  Respondents petitioned, before the Supreme Court, the suspension of  the effects of  the said proclamation and insisted that there had been a “failure of election”. The COMELEC  ordered the consolidation of respondents’ petitions and  a random technical examination on several precincts.

Petitioners contended that by virtue of their proclamation, the proper remedy available to respondents was not a petition for declaration of failure of elections but an election protest.

Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC had jurisdiction to act on respondents’ petitions even after proclamation of petitioners as winners

Ruling: see: AMPATUAN VS. COMELEC RULING

Case Digest: Ampatuan, et al. vs. COMELEC

Category

,

,

,

,