Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HENRY P. LANOT v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 189698 2009-12-01	ELEAZAR P. QUINTO v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
Petitioners further posit that the provision considering them as ipso facto resigned from office upon the filing of their CoCs is discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause in the Constitution.[8]
	GR No. 181613 2009-11-25	ROSALINDA A. PENERA CARPIO, J.
In Lanot v. Commission on Elections,[9] Lanot, et al., filed a petition for disqualification against the then Pasig City mayoralty candidate Vicente P. Eusebio for engaging in various forms of election campaign on different occasions outside of the designated campaign period after he filed his COC during the 2004 local elections. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Law Department recommended the disqualification of Eusebio for violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code, which recommendation was approved by the COMELEC First Division. The COMELEC en banc referred the case back to the COMELEC Law Department to determine whether Eusebio actually committed the acts subject of the petition for disqualification.
	GR No. 181613 2009-11-25	ROSALINDA A. PENERA CARPIO, J.
The Court, speaking through Justice Carpio, adjudged that Eusebio was not liable for premature campaigning given that the latter committed partisan political acts before he became a candidate. The Court construed the application of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8463 vis-à-vis the provisions of Sections 80 and 79(a) of the Omnibus Election Code. Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 moved the deadline for the filing of certificates of candidacy to 120 days before election day. The Court ruled that the only purpose for the early filing of COCs was to give ample time for the printing of official ballots. Congress, however, never intended the early filing of a COC to make the person filing to become immediately a "candidate" for purposes other than the printing of ballots. This legislative intent prevented the immediate application of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code to those filing to meet the early deadline. The clear intention of Congress was to preserve the "election periods asx x x fixed by existing law" prior to Republic Act No. 8436 and that one who files to meet the early deadline "will still not be considered as a candidate."[10]
	GR No. 181613 2009-09-11	ROSALINDA A. PENERA v. COMELEC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In view of the third paragraph of Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8436, as amended, the Dissenting Opinion argues that Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code can not be applied to the present case since, as the Court held in Lanot v. Commission on Elections,[34] the election campaign or partisan activity, which constitute the prohibited premature campaigning, should be designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates. Under present election laws, while a person may have filed his/her COC within the prescribed period for doing so, said person shall not be considered a candidate until the start of the campaign period. Thus, prior to the start of the campaign period, there can be no election campaign or partisan political activity designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate to public office because there is no candidate to speak of.
	GR No. 181613 2009-09-11	ROSALINDA A. PENERA v. COMELEC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For this reason, the plain declaration in Lanot that "[w]hat Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code prohibits is `an election campaign or partisan political activity' by a `candidate' `outside' of the campaign period,"[41] is clearly erroneous.
	GR No. 180164 2008-06-17	FLORENTINO P. BLANCO v. COMELEC AZCUNA, J.
...Vote-buying has its criminal and electoral aspects. Its criminal aspect to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused cannot be the subject of summary hearing. However, its electoral aspect to ascertain whether the offender should be disqualified from office can be determined in an administrative proceeding that is summary in character. [10] In Lanot v. COMELEC,[11] the Court further explained:...The electoral aspect of a disqualification case determines whether the offender should be disqualified from being a candidate or from holding office. Proceedings are summary in character and require only clear preponderance of evidence. An erring candidate may be disqualified even without prior determination of probable cause in a preliminary investigation. The electoral aspect may proceed independently of the criminal aspect, and vice versa.
	GR NO. 166639 2007-04-24	ROGELIO P. JUAN v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
This Court is not a trier of facts.[20] 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 Court interfere with the COMELEC's judgment.[21]