Notes in Election Law
Differences between Election Protest and Quo Warranto Proceedings
While both have one objective which is to remove the winning candidate from office, an election protest may be distinguished from quo warranto proceedings as follows:
DIFFERENCE
ELECTION PROTEST
QUO WARRANTO
As to who may file
Filing is limited to a candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy, and has been duly voted for
Petition may be made or filed by any voter.
As to the grounds
Based on fraud or irregularity
Refers to questions of disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning candidate
As to the purpose
To ascertain who actually obtained the majority of the legal votes in the election, and is therefore entitled to the office
To unseat the ineligible person from the office, but not to install the protestant in his place
As to effect when petition is granted
Protestant may be installed if proven that he actually obtained the majority legal votes
The respondent may be unseated, but the petitioner will not be seated in the vacated office
As to the allegations stated in the complaint
Where one alleges that fraud and illegality affected the conduct of the election, even if one were to denominate the same as quo warranto, the contest is really an election protest
Where the petition alleges a defect or absence of qualification for an office, it is a quo warranto proceeding, even if labeled an election protest
COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 promulgated last March 22, 2010
The Comelec Rules of Procedure on Disputes in an Automated Election System
Part I, Rule 1
Section 2. Applicability – These rules shall apply to election disputes under the Automated Election System (AES) using the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS), and shall cover pre-proclamation controversies and election protests.
The resolution will not only apply to the May 10, 2010 Elections, but also to all subsequent automated elections that will use the PCOS machine.
Section 4. Suspension of the
While both have one objective which is to remove the winning candidate from office, an election protest may be distinguished from quo warranto proceedings as follows:
DIFFERENCE
ELECTION PROTEST
QUO WARRANTO
As to who may file
Filing is limited to a candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy, and has been duly voted for
Petition may be made or filed by any voter.
As to the grounds
Based on fraud or irregularity
Refers to questions of disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning candidate
As to the purpose
To ascertain who actually obtained the majority of the legal votes in the election, and is therefore entitled to the office
To unseat the ineligible person from the office, but not to install the protestant in his place
As to effect when petition is granted
Protestant may be installed if proven that he actually obtained the majority legal votes
The respondent may be unseated, but the petitioner will not be seated in the vacated office
As to the allegations stated in the complaint
Where one alleges that fraud and illegality affected the conduct of the election, even if one were to denominate the same as quo warranto, the contest is really an election protest
Where the petition alleges a defect or absence of qualification for an office, it is a quo warranto proceeding, even if labeled an election protest
COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 promulgated last March 22, 2010
The Comelec Rules of Procedure on Disputes in an Automated Election System
Part I, Rule 1
Section 2. Applicability – These rules shall apply to election disputes under the Automated Election System (AES) using the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS), and shall cover pre-proclamation controversies and election protests.
The resolution will not only apply to the May 10, 2010 Elections, but also to all subsequent automated elections that will use the PCOS machine.
Section 4. Suspension of the