FERNANDEZ V. COMELEC (ELECTION)

The Court dismisses the instant petition.

Considering that the term of the contested office has already expired, the petition has been rendered moot and academic.
RA 9164 provides that the term of the SK officials elected in the 15 July 2002 synchronized barangay and SK elections shall be 3 years, commencing from 15 August 2002, and ending at noon on 30 November 2005. RA 9340 however, amended said law and reset the barangay elections to October 2007, thereby extending the term of those elected in 2002 up to noon of November 2007. On the latter date, therefore, the term of the barangay and SK officials elected in 2002 expired. It is thus an exercise in futility for the Court to indulge itself in a review of the records and in an academic discussion of the applicable legal principles to determine who really won the said elections because whatever judgment is reached, the same can no longer have any practical legal effect or in the nature of things, can no longer be enforced.

As to the issue of jurisdiction, the 1987 Constitution vests in the COMELEC appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Construed in relation to the provision of RA 7160 that includes in the enumeration of barangay officials the SK chairman, the constitutional provision indeed sanctions the appellate review by the COMELEC of election protests involving the position of the SK chairman, as in the instant case. Hence, we find nothing improper in the COMELEC's assumption of jurisdiction over respondent's appeal.

UGDORACION V. COMELEC (ELECTION)

We find no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC's cancellation of Ugdoracion's certificate of candidacy for material misrepresentation. Accordingly, the petition must fail.

Section 74, in relation to Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code requires that the facts in the COC must be true, and any false representation therein of a material fact shall be a ground for cancellation thereof, thus:

Section 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy - The certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and that he is eligible for said office; if for Member of the Batasang Pambansa, the province, including its component cities, highly urbanized city or district or sector which he seeks to represent; the political party to which he belongs; civil status; his date of birth; residence; post office address for all election purposes; profession or occupation; that he will support and defend the Constitution and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he will obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country that the obligation assumes by his oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated in the COC are true to the best of his knowledge.

Section 78. Petitioner to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy- A verified petition to deny due course or to cancel a COC may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than 25 days from the time of the filing of the COC and shall be decided after due notice and hearing not later than 15 days before the election.

The false representation contemplated by Section 78 of the Code pertains to material fact, and is not simply innocuous mistake. A material fact refers to a candidate's qualification for elective office such as one's citizenship and residence.

Ugdogracion argued that his supposed involuntary acquisition of a permanent resident status in the USA which he insists did not result in the loss of his domicile of origin.

We are not convinced. A Filipino's acquisition of a permanent resident status abroad constituted an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. In short, "green card" status in the USA is a renunciation of one's status as a resident of the Philippines. Ugdogracion's acquisition of a lawful permanent resident status in the US amounted to an abandonment and renunciation of his status as a resident of the Philippines; it constituted a change from his domicile of origin, which is Bohol, to a new domicile of choice, which is the USA.

TAMAYO-REYES V. COMELEC (ELECTION LAW)

SC dismissed the petition.

It should be noted that what Tamayo-Reyes filed was a petition for correction of manifest errors and nullification of proclamation, which is a pre-proclamation controversy.

A PRE-PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY refers to any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition or political parties before the board or directly with the COMELEC, or any matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235, and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code, in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of the election returns. It is limited to the examination of the election returns on their face and the COMELEC, as a general rule, need not go beyond the face of the returns and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and investigate the alleged election irregularities.

Albeit it is regrettable that the COMELEC took 21 months from filing to resolve the case, it nonetheless acted correctly when it ordered the dismissal of the petition. It did not gravely abuse its discretion when it considered only 5 out of the 10 irregularities pointed out by Tamayo-Reyes as matters proper for correction of manifest errors. Applying the data proffered by Tamayo-Reyes herself, it turned out that private respondent would still emerge as the duly elected vice Mayor of Taytay Rizal.

The correction of manifest errors in the election returns, in the entries in the Statement of Votes by precinct per municipality or in the certificate of canvass. For errors to be manifest, they must appear on the face of the certificates of canvass or election returns sought to be corrected., and objections thereto must have been made before the Board of Canvassers and specifically noted in the minutes of their respective proceedings. This Court defined "manifest" as evident to the eye and understanding; visible to the eye; that which is open, palpable, and incontrovertible; needing no evidence to make it more clear, not obscure, or hidden.

CABRERA V. COMELEC (ELECTION, REMEDIAL)

The Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Involving Municipal Barangay Officials clearly command, in no uncertain terms THE FILING OF THE PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE BRIEF and compliance with the required contents of the said brief. By express language, the failure to comply therewith shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the preliminary conference, which, in turn, shall be sufficient cause for the dismissal of the protest.

Petitioner admitted himself that his preliminary conference brief did not contain essential statements required by the Rules. His abject disregard of the express mandate of the Rules must bear dire consequences, for following the Rules, his protest must now be dismissed.

The Rules should not be taken lightly. They were purposely adopted to provide an expeditious and inexpensive procedure for the just determination of election cases before the courts.

The PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE ANS ITS GOVERNING RULES ARE NOT MERE TECHNICALITIES WHICH MAY BE IGNORED. They are tools meant to expedite the disposition of election cases and must perforce, be obeyed.

JUAN V. COMELEC (ELECTION, REMEDIAL)

A ballot indicates the voter's will. There is no requirement that the entries in the ballot be written nicely or that the name of the candidate be spelled accurately. In the reading and appreciation of ballots, every ballot is presumed valid unless there is a clear reason to justify its rejection.

The object of appreciation of ballots is to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the voter, if it can be determined with reasonable certainty. When placed in issue, the appreciation of contested ballots and election documents which involves a question of fact is best left to the determination of the COMELEC.

The SC is not a trier of facts. The Court's jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of the COMELEC on this matter operates only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. Verily, only where grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the SC interfere with the COMELEC's judgment. Proof of such grave abuse of discretion is found wanting in this case.