Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 177 views

    Cases - Midterms

    Uploaded by

    dwight yu
    1) Alejandro v. Comelec ruled that COMELEC Resolution 6624 declaring weekends and holidays as working days was intended for COMELEC employees, not to limit filing periods for election cases. Thus, the petition filed on the next working day after the deadline falling on a Sunday was timely. 2) Gardiner v. Romulo ruled that failure to provide voting booth doors and guard rails, and placing writing shelves facing the side of booths instead of the rear, was a fatal disregard of law as it did not offer secrecy as required. 3) Santiago v. Ramos ruled that by assuming office as senator, the petitioner had effectively abandoned her prior election protest, rendering it moot.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cases - Midterms

    Uploaded by

    dwight yu
    177 views2 pages
    1) Alejandro v. Comelec ruled that COMELEC Resolution 6624 declaring weekends and holidays as working days was intended for COMELEC employees, not to limit filing periods for election cases. Thus, the petition filed on the next working day after the deadline falling on a Sunday was timely. 2) Gardiner v. Romulo ruled that failure to provide voting booth doors and guard rails, and placing writing shelves facing the side of booths instead of the rear, was a fatal disregard of law as it did not offer secrecy as required. 3) Santiago v. Ramos ruled that by assuming office as senator, the petitioner had effectively abandoned her prior election protest, rendering it moot.

    Original Title

    Cases - Midterms.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Alejandro v. Comelec ruled that COMELEC Resolution 6624 declaring weekends and holidays as working days was intended for COMELEC employees, not to limit filing periods for election cases. Thus, the petition filed on the next working day after the deadline falling on a Sunday was timely. 2) Gardiner v. Romulo ruled that failure to provide voting booth doors and guard rails, and placing writing shelves facing the side of booths instead of the rear, was a fatal disregard of law as it did not offer secrecy as required. 3) Santiago v. Ramos ruled that by assuming office as senator, the petitioner had effectively abandoned her prior election protest, rendering it moot.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    177 views2 pages

    Cases - Midterms

    Uploaded by

    dwight yu
    1) Alejandro v. Comelec ruled that COMELEC Resolution 6624 declaring weekends and holidays as working days was intended for COMELEC employees, not to limit filing periods for election cases. Thus, the petition filed on the next working day after the deadline falling on a Sunday was timely. 2) Gardiner v. Romulo ruled that failure to provide voting booth doors and guard rails, and placing writing shelves facing the side of booths instead of the rear, was a fatal disregard of law as it did not offer secrecy as required. 3) Santiago v. Ramos ruled that by assuming office as senator, the petitioner had effectively abandoned her prior election protest, rendering it moot.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Alejandro v. Comelec, G.R. No.

    167101

    FACTS: Petitioner was proclaimed the new vice-mayor in the Municipality of Alicia, Isabela on May 13, ‘04 by
    the Municipal board of Canvassers (MBC). On May 24, his rival candidate for the position, private respondent
    Co, filed for the annulment of the proclamation claiming that he was a victim of “dagdag-bawas” committed by
    the MBC. Petitioner then prayed that such petition be denied because it was filed out of time since it should
    have been filed by private respondent Co on May 23 or within 10 days. Even if the said date was a Sunday,
    petitioner Alejandro insisted that the same was a working day; hence, there was no reason why private
    respondent Co could not have complied with the 10-day reglementary period.

    ISSUE/S: W/N respondent’s petition to annul was timely filed

    RULING (Mainpoint in Bold): Yes. Reso. No. 6624, which declared all Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays from
    Oct. 2003 until June 30, 2004 as working days in the COMELEC, was an internal resolution intended merely for
    COMELEC employees. The resolution was for the guidance of the employees to report for work during
    weekends and holidays because of the approaching elections, and for the general public to give them
    more time to register as voters. It was never conceived to limit the period for filing election
    controversies, contests and offenses. Hence, since the last day for private respondent Co to file the petition
    to annul petitioner Alejandro’s proclamation fell on May 23, a Sunday, he seasonably filed the same on the next
    working day or on May 24.

    Gardiner v. Romulo, G.R. No. L-8921

    FACTS: Gardiner filed an appeal from a judgement of the CFI in an election protest for the office of the provincial
    governor of Tarlac. The polling places were located in the upper stories of the respective buildings and there
    was nothing at the entrance of the all 5 booths and there was no guard rail in front of the entrances. The school
    desks placed in each booth were so arranged that the voter sat facing the side of the booth, so that anyone
    passing along the row of booths could easily see what was being written by the voter if he took the trouble to
    look.

    ISSUE/S: W/N Irregularities in the selection of polling stations and the construction of the voting booths

    RULING (Mainpoint in Bold): Yes. The requirements of the Election Law providing for the locations of polling
    stations and the construction of booths and guard rails for the latter may be departed from in some particulars
    and yet preserve in substantial form the secrecy which the law requires. But the failure to provide doors and
    guard rails for the booths and the placing of the writing shelf so that it faces the side instead of the rear
    of the booth are, combined, a fatal disregard of law, inasmuch as such an arrangement does not offer,
    even in substantial for the secrecy and seclusion which, according to the purpose of the spirit of the
    Election Law, is its most mandatory requirement.

    Penera v Comelec – You are only considered a candidate during campaign period.

    Santiago v. Ramos (253 SCRA 55)


    FACTS

    Miriam Defensor-Santiago filed a protest against Fidel Ramos in the 1992 elections. She later filed for candidacy
    for Senator in the 1995 elections. Ramos argues that, in filing, she entered into a political contract with the
    electorate, that if elected, she would assume office as senator, discharge her functions and serve her
    constituents without qualification, condition, or reservations
    ISSUE/RULING
    Yes, her protest has been deemed abandoned. In assuming her office as a senator, the protestant
    has effectively abandoned or withdrawn her protest to protect and pursue the public interest involved in the
    matter of who is the real choice of the electorate and such abandonment operated to render moot the protest.

    Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210, G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991

    FACTS: Herein petitioner opposed the nomination of Christian Monsod for COMELEC Chairman by the Former
    President Corazon Aquino because he allegedly does not possess the required qualification of having been
    engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Monsod was a member of the Bar since 1960.

    ISSUE: Was the constitutional requirement of being “engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years”
    satisfied?

    RULING: YES.
    Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of
    industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a Iawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor—verily more
    than satisfy the constitutional requirement. Engaging in the practice of law does not have to be habitual
    nor involve courtroom practice.

    You might also like