- It is a principle that the House Electoral Tribunal is an independent body and that each member also enjoys security of tenure. The membership in the HRET may not be terminated except for a just cause. What are some of these just causes?
Answer: (Bondoc v. Pineda; Lazatin v. Comelec) a) death (b) expiration of the member’s congressional term of office (c) resignation from the political party that he represents (d) formal affiliation with another political party or removal for other valid cause.
- The general rule is that after proclamation the usual remedy of any party aggrieved in the election is to file an election protest. What is/are the exceptions to this rule?
Answer: When the proclamation is null and void. (Mutuc v. Comelec)
3. The rule is that there is no rule, constitutional or statutory, which provides for an appeal from a decision or final order or resolution of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. In this case, how or what procedure is possible inorder to reverse the ruling of the HRET?
Answer: (Lerias v. HRET; Puzon v. HRET; Garcia v. HRET(1999; Arroyo v. HRET (1995) Judicial review is still possible under the supervisory or extraordinary, not appellate jurisdiction, of the Supreme Court, through a special civil action of certiorari or prohibition.
4. Who has jurisdiction over cases involving the qualifications of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) before election? Will your answer be the same if the qualification/or eligibility of the SK is questioned after his election? Explain.
Answer: (Marquez v. Comelec(1999) Before the election, the matter shall be decided by the city/municipal election officer. After his election the matter shall be filed before the municipal/metropolital trial courts.
5.The Comelec rules prohibits the filing of a motion to dismiss in election protests. Will this prohibition apply also to election protests involving barangay officials? Explain.
Answer: IN barangay election protests, a motion to dismiss is not a prohibited pleading. (Maruhom v. Comelec (1994))
6. In one case involving an electoral protest where the ballots involving 4,000 votes, the court did not allow to present the voters to testify as to whom they voted. In another case involving one polling place, the voters were not allowed to testify. Which ruling is correct here?
Answer: Lomugdang v. Javier (1967) and Salvani v. Garduno 52 Phil 673. (p. 568 of the book)
7. Is a demurrer to evidence allowed in electoral protest? Why?
Answer: Jardiel v. Comelec; Enojas jr. v. Comelec (1997); Gementiza v. Comelec (2001) Not allowed. A demurrer to evidence is not allowed in election cases. If one is filed, the movant is deemed to have submitted the case for resolution on the merits, as he is considered to have waived the presentation of his evidence.
8. The annulment of an election on the grounds of fraud, irregularities and violations of election laws may be raised as an incident to an election contest. What are the two grounds for an annulment of an election in an election protest?
Answer: Carlos v. Angeles (2000) (1) the illegality must be more than 50% of the votes cast and (2) the good votes can be distinguished from the bad ones. It is only when these two conditions are established that the annulment of the election can be justified because the remaining votes do not constitute a valid constituency. In other words, an election must not be annulled and the votes disenfranchised whenever it is possible to determine a winner on the basis of valid votes cast, and discard the illegally cast votes.
9. (A) What are the grounds for an execution pending appeal of an election protest filed before the RTC? (B)What are some of the good reasons for granting the same?
Answer: (A) There must be a motion for execution pending appeal by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party; there must be a good reason for the execution pending appeal; the good reason must be stated in the order (b) the public interest involved or the will of the electorate; the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office; the length of time that the election contest has been pending (Ramas v. Comelec (1998); Nazareno v. Comelec (1997); Alvarez v. COmelec (2001); Edding v. COmelec (1995); Relongpango v. Comelec (1995); Malaluan v.Comelec; Zarate v. Comelec(2001); Alvarez v. COmelec (2001)
10.A violation of any of the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code, which is not specifically penalized under Sections 261 and 262 thereof is not a criminal offense in accordance with the maxim expression unius est exclusion alterius. It can be the basis of another action however. What is that action?
Answer: Administrative action or charge. (Malinias v. Comelec(2002).
No comments:
Post a Comment