https://www.facebook.com/192738107252172/

ASK Law, Naga City (2026)

07/04/2026

Estoppel in Election Case

Although a party cannot waive jurisdictional issues and may raise them at any stage of the proceedings, estoppel may bar a party from raising such issues.

By active participating and invoking COMELEC jurisdiction and by belatedly invoking lack of jurisdiction (non-payment/insufficient payment of appeal fees) only after the COMELEC has rendered judgment or order adverse to him—i.e., not at the earliest opportunity, a party will be estopped (estoppel by laches).

Divinagracia, Jr. vs. COMELEC
G.R. NOS. 186007 & 186016 | July 27, 2009

End Note: You can access the full text of the case by following this link: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/49482 ; or by scanning the QR Code (following the link) found at the bottom right corner of the attached image/s.

Please Follow, Like/Heart and Share. Thank you!

Content 90.1_2026_Divinagracia, Jr. vs. COMELEC, G.R. NOS. 186007 & 186016

07/04/2026

Two Appeal Fees in Election Cases

Two (2) Appeal Fees by two different jurisdictions: (1) P1,000.00 appeal fee before the Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court or lower courts within the five-day period; (2) appeal fee of P3,200.00 before COMELEC at the Commission's Cash Division through the ECAD or by postal money order payable to the Commission on Elections through ECAD, within a period of fifteen days (15) from the time of the filing of the Notice of Appeal with the lower court.

The non-payment or the insufficient payment of the additional appeal fee to the COMELEC Cash Division does not affect the perfection of the appeal and does not result in outright or ipso facto dismissal of the appeal. COMELEC is given the discretion to dismiss the appeal or not.

However, Non-payment or insufficient/incomplete payment of 2 Appeal Fees in election cases will no longer be tolerated or excused. Discretion remains, but leniency is disfavored.

1) What perfects the appeal (trial court appeal fee): non-payment here is fatal
In election protests/contests appealed to the COMELEC from the trial court, perfection of the appeal is achieved by (a) timely filing the Notice of Appeal and (b) timely payment of the appeal fee to the court a quo within the 5-day period.

2) The “additional COMELEC appeal fee” (COMELEC fee): may be dismissed, not ipso facto—but after Divinagracia, leniency is gone
For notices of appeal filed after July 27, 2009, “errors” in non-payment or incomplete payment of the two appeal fees are “no longer excusable.” That means COMELEC and the courts is expected to enforce dismissal. Discretion remains, but leniency is disfavored.

Effect:
Unpaid/short COMELEC additional appeal fee: appeal is still “perfected,” but COMELEC may dismiss; post-Divinagracia, excuses for non-payment/short payment are no longer acceptable as a rule.

Unpaid trial-court appeal fee within 5 days: outright dismissal per COMELEC’s own guideline as recognized in Lloren, and it also means the appeal wasn’t properly perfected under the trial-court appeal rule.

Divinagracia, Jr. vs. COMELEC
G.R. NOS. 186007 & 186016 | July 27, 2009

End Note: You can access the full text of the case by following this link: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/49482 ; or by scanning the QR Code (following the link) found at the bottom right corner of the attached image/s.

Please Follow, Like/Heart and Share. Thank you!

Content 90_2026_Divinagracia, Jr. vs. COMELEC, G.R. NOS. 186007 & 186016

30/03/2026

When is Rule 64 the proper and when is Rule 65 certiorari available to assail a COMELEC order?

Rule 64 of the Rules of Court applies only to judgments or final orders of the COMELEC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. The rule does not apply to interlocutory orders of the COMELEC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions or to its administrative orders. Rule 64, a procedural device for the review of final orders, resolutions or decision of the COMELEC, does not foreclose recourse to this Court under Rule 65 from administrative orders of said Commission issued in the exercise of its administrative function.

As a general rule, an administrative order of the COMELEC is not a proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari. But when the COMELEC acts capriciously or whimsically, with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing such an order, the aggrieved party may seek redress from this Court via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules.

Macabago vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 152163 | November 18, 2002

End Note: You can access the full text of the case by following this link:https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/pdf/philrep/2002/G.R.%20No.%20152163.pdf ; or by scanning the QR Code (following the link) found at the bottom right corner of the attached image/s.

Please Follow, Like/Heart and Share. Thank you!

Content 89_2026_Macabago vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 152163

29/03/2026

May the COMELEC totally ban the holding of exit polls?

The holding of exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press. Hence, the Comelec cannot ban them totally in the guise of promoting clean, honest, orderly and credible elections. Quite the contrary, exit polls -- properly conducted and publicized -- can be vital tools in eliminating the evils of election-fixing and fraud. Narrowly tailored countermeasures may be prescribed by the Comelec so as to minimize or suppress the incidental problems in the conduct of exit polls, without transgressing in any manner the fundamental rights of our people.

A petition for certiorari, Rule 65, is the procedural vehicle to assail and strike down COMELEC action alleged to be issued with grave abuse of discretion.

Exceptions to the Moot and Academic principle, in this case: (a) duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules; (b) Capable of repetition yet evading review (To set aside the resolution of the issue now will only postpone a task that could well crop up again in future elections). Also, time is of the essence in the case and that it involves transcendental constitutional issues.

The procedural requirement that a motion for reconsideration must first be filed before resorting to the special civil action of certiorari may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice, when the issue involves the principle of social justice or the protection of labor, when the decision or resolution sought to be set aside is a nullity, or when the need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy available.

ABS-CBN vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 133486. January 28, 2000

End Note: You can access the full text of the case by following this link:https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/pdf/philrep/2000/G.R.%20No.%20133486.pdf ; or by scanning the QR Code (following the link) found at the bottom right corner of the attached image/s.

Please Follow, Like/Heart and Share. Thank you!

Content 88_2026_ABS-CBN vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133486

28/03/2026

If a COMELEC Division issues an interlocutory order, where should the aggrieved party file the MR?

The remedy of the aggrieved party is neither to file a motion for reconsideration for certification to the COMELEC En Banc nor to elevate the issue to this Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It is the same COMELEC’s Division which issued the interlocutory order who should resolve the motion for reconsideration of the order.

The COMELEC En Banc shall decide motions for reconsideration only of "decisions" of a Division, meaning those acts having a final character.

Furthermore, the present controversy [petitioner’s attempt to have the COMELEC en banc take cognizance of, and resolve, the interlocutory Orders of the COMELEC Second Division—specifically via his Omnibus Motion to (a) certify his MR to the en banc and (b) stay the Division’s order—even though those Division Orders did not finally dispose of the election protest] does not fall under any of the instances of which the COMELEC En Banc can take cognizance. Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides:

SEC. 2. The Commission En Banc. - The Commission shall sit en banc in cases hereinafter specifically provided, or in pre-proclamation cases upon a vote of a majority of the members of the Commission, or in all other cases where a division is not authorized to act, or where, upon a unanimous vote of all the Members of a Division, an interlocutory matter or issue relative to an action or proceeding before it is decided to be referred to the Commission en banc.

This case is not among those specifically provided under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure in which the COMELEC may sit en banc. Neither is it one where a Division is not authorized to act nor one where the members of the Second Division have unanimously voted to refer the issue to the COMELEC En Banc. Thus, the COMELEC En Banc is not the proper forum where petitioner may bring the assailed interlocutory Orders for resolution.

Panlilio vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 181478 | July 15, 2009

End Note: You can access the full text of the case by following this link:https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/pdf/philrep/2009/G.R.%20No.%20181478.pdf ; or by scanning the QR Code (following the link) found at the bottom right corner of the attached image/s.

Please Follow, Like/Heart and Share. Thank you!

Content 87_2026_Panlilio vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181478

27/03/2026

May the Supreme Court review, via certiorari, an interlocutory order or final resolution of a COMELEC Division?

The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections.

The mode by which a decision, order or ruling of the Comelec en banc may be elevated to the Supreme Court is by the special civil action of certiorari [now under Rule 64 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure].

Rule 65, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, requires that there be no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A motion for reconsideration is a plain and adequate remedy provided by law. Failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for dismissal of the petition.

In like manner, a decision, order or resolution of a division of the Comelec must be reviewed by the Comelec en banc via a motion for reconsideration before the final en banc decision may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari. The pre-requisite filing of a motion for reconsideration is mandatory.

Similarly, the Rules of Procedure of the Comelec provide that a decision of a division may be raised to the en banc via a motion for reconsideration.

The case at bar is an election protest involving the position of Governor, Eastern Samar. It is within the original jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections in division. Admittedly, petitioner did not ask for a reconsideration of the division's resolution or final decision. In fact, there was really no resolution or decision to speak of because there was yet no promulgation, which was still scheduled on June 20, 2000 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Petitioner went directly to the Supreme Court from an order of "promulgation of the Resolution of this case" by the First Division of the Comelec.

Under the existing Constitutional scheme, a party to an election case within the jurisdiction of the Comelec in division can not dispense with the filing of a motion for reconsideration of a decision, resolution or final order of the Division of the Commission on Elections because the case would not reach the Comelec en banc without such motion for reconsideration having been filed and resolved by the Division.

The instant case does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule in certiorari cases dispensing with a motion for reconsideration prior to the filing of a petition. In truth, the exceptions do not apply to election cases where a motion for reconsideration is mandatory by Constitutional fiat to elevate the case to the Comelec en banc, whose final decision is what is reviewable via certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Ambil, Jr. vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 143398 | October 25, 2000

End Note: You can access the full text of the case by following this link:https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/pdf/philrep/2000/G.R.%20No.%20143398.pdf ; or by scanning the QR Code (following the link) found at the bottom right corner of the attached image/s.

Please Follow, Like/Heart and Share. Thank you!

Content 86_2026_Ambil, Jr. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 143398

26/03/2026

May the COMELEC annul a candidate’s proclamation even after the candidate has assumed office?

In an election case, the Comelec is mandated to ascertain by all means within its command who the real candidate elected by the electorate is. The Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law or the rules that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election but also the correct ascertainment of the results.

Disputes in the outcome of elections involve public interest; as such, technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. Laws governing such disputes must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections.

What is involved in the present petition is the correction of a manifest error in reflecting the actual total number of votes for a particular candidate. The Comelec was correct in annulling the proclamation of petitioner for being based on an erroneous computation of votes. Where the proclamation is null and void, the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive the Commission the power to declare such proclamation a nullity. A defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office.

Saliguin vs. COMELEC
G.R. NO. 166046 | March 23, 2006

End Note: You can access the full text of the case by following this link:https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/pdf/philrep/2006/G.R.%20NO.%20166046.pdf ; or by scanning the QR Code (following the link) found at the bottom right corner of the attached image/s.

Please Follow, Like/Heart and Share. Thank you!

Content 85_2026_Saliguin vs. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 166046

25/03/2026

When to File Motion for Reconsideration of a COMELEC Division order or resolution?

Motions for Reconsideration; Section 2, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that a motion for reconsideration should be filed within five (5) days from receipt of the COMELEC Order or Resolution.

[“Section 2. Period for Filing Motions for Reconsideration. - A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling of a Division shall be filed within five (5) days from the promulgation thereof. Such motion, if not proforma, suspends the ex*****on or implementation of the decision, resolution, order or ruling.”]

In this case, it appears that the Motion for Reconsideration of private respondent Congressman Cayetano was filed out of time. Section 2, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that a motion for reconsideration should be filed within five (5) days from receipt of the COMELEC Order or Resolution. Congressman Cayetano himself admitted that he received a copy of the October 3, 2001 Resolution of the COMELEC 2nd Division on October 9, 2001. The records show that it was only ten (10) days after said receipt, or on October 19, 2001, that private respondent Cayetano filed his undated and unverified Motion for Reconsideration. Clearly, the COMELEC 2nd Division had no jurisdiction to entertain his Motion.

Buac vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 155855 | January 26, 2004

End Note: You can access the full text of the case by following this link:https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/pdf/philrep/2004/G.R.%20No.%20155855.pdf ; or by scanning the QR Code (following the link) found at the bottom right corner of the attached image/s.

Please Follow, Like/Heart and Share. Thank you!

Content 84.1_2026_Buac vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 155855

25/03/2026

Who has Jurisdiction over Plebiscite?

A case assailing the regularity of the conduct of a plebiscite does not fit the kind of a case calling for the exercise of judicial power—it does not involve the violation of any legally demandable right and its enforcement.

Determination of the result of a plebiscite is not fit for the exercise of judicial power. The determination of the public will is a subject that does not fit the jurisdiction of civil courts, for civil courts are established essentially to resolve controversies between private persons.

What grabs the eyeball is the intent of the Constitution and election laws to subject only contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of elected officials—from the barangay to the President of the Philippines—to the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial powers of courts or administrative tribunals; The enforcement and administration of a law relative to a plebiscite falls under the jurisdiction of the COMELEC under Section 2(1), Article IX (C) of the Constitution which gives it the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of a plebiscite.

Buac vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 155855 | January 26, 2004

End Note: You can access the full text of the case by following this link:https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/pdf/philrep/2004/G.R.%20No.%20155855.pdf ; or by scanning the QR Code (following the link) found at the bottom right corner of the attached image/s.

Please Follow, Like/Heart and Share. Thank you!

Content 84_2026_Buac vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 155855

24/03/2026

May the COMELEC en banc take cognizance, in the first instance, of a petition for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order of a trial court in an election protest, or must it first be referred to a COMELEC Division?

The authority to resolve petition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protest, like the questioned order of the trial court [interlocutory order denying the motion to dismiss private respondent's election protest], falls within the division of the COMELEC and not on the COMELEC en banc. Note that the order denying the motion to dismiss is but an incident of the election protest. If the principal case, once decided on the merits, is cognizable on appeal by a division of the COMELEC, then, there is no reason why petitions for certiorari relating to incidents of election protest should not be referred first to a division of the COMELEC for resolution. Clearly, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of petitioner's petition in the first instance.

Soller vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 139853 | September 05, 2000

End Note: You can access the full text of the case by following this link:https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/pdf/philrep/2000/G.R.%20No.%20139853.pdf ; or by scanning the QR Code (following the link) found at the bottom right corner of the attached image/s.

Please Follow, Like/Heart and Share. Thank you!
Content 83_2026_Soller vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 139853

23/03/2026

When must COMELEC sit En Banc or Division?

Under Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC exercises both administrative and quasi-judicial powers. The COMELEC’s administrative powers are found in Section 2 (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of Article IX-C. COMELEC en banc can act directly on matters falling within its administrative powers.

The COMELEC’s exercise of its quasi-judicial powers is subject to Section 3 of Article IX-C which expressly requires that all election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, shall be decided by the COMELEC in division, and the motion for reconsideration shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc. COMELEC is mandated to decide cases first in division, and then upon motion for reconsideration en banc, only when the COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial powers.

The COMELEC is empowered in Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution to “prosecute cases of violations of election laws.” The prosecution of election law violators involves the exercise of the COMELEC’s administrative powers. Thus, the COMELEC en banc can directly act on it. In sum, the second sentence of Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution is not applicable in administrative cases.

Baytan vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 153945 | February 04, 2003

End Note: You can access the full text of the case by following this link:https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/pdf/philrep/2003/G.R.%20No.%20153945.pdf ; or by scanning the QR Code (following the link) found at the bottom right corner of the attached image/s.

Please Follow, Like/Heart and Share. Thank you!

Content 82_2026_Baytan vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 153945

22/03/2026

Violation of Sec. 109 of OEC No Loger an ‘Election Offense’

Sec. 109 of OEC provides for the forms and contents of a statement of contributions and expenditures. Sec. 262 of the same law lists violation of Sec. 109 as an election offense.

However, in 1991, RA 7166 was enacted, which amends and repeals parts of OEC. Sec. 39 of RA 7166 repealed the inclusion of Section 109 in Section 262’s enumeration of “other election offenses.” Violation of Sec. 109 is not automatically an election offense via Sec. 262 anymore.

Moreover, Section 14 of RA 7166 provides for “Statement of Contributions and Expenditures: Effect of Failure to File Statement.” In the said section, “failure to file the statements or reports in connection with electoral contributions and expenditures are required herein shall constitute an administrative offense.” Non-compliance with SOCE requirements under Section 14 of RA 7166 results to administrative fine (P1,000.00–P30,000.00); and for second/subsequent offense, fine (P2,000.00–P60,000.00) + perpetual disqualification.

R.A. No. 7166
November 26, 1991

End Note: You can access the full text of the case by following this link: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/1796 ; or by scanning the QR Code (following the link) found at the bottom right corner of the attached image/s.

Please Follow, Like/Heart and Share. Thank you!

Content 81_2026_R.A. No. 7166

ASK Law

07/04/2026

07/04/2026

30/03/2026

29/03/2026

28/03/2026

27/03/2026

26/03/2026

25/03/2026

25/03/2026

24/03/2026

23/03/2026

22/03/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share