x x x 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.

The criminal aspect of a disqualification case determines whether there is probable cause to charge a candidate for an election offense. The prosecutor is the COMELEC, through its Law Department, which determines whether probable cause exists. If there is probable cause, the COMELEC, through its Law Department, files the criminal information before the proper court. Proceedings before the proper court demand a full-blown hearing and require proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict. A criminal conviction shall result in the disqualification of the offender, which may even include disqualification from holding a future public office.

The two aspects account for the variance of the rules on disposition and resolution of disqualification cases filed before or after an election. When the disqualification case is filed before the elections, the question of disqualification is raised before the voting public. If the candidate is disqualified after the election, those who voted for him assume the risk that their votes may be declared stray or invalid. There is no such risk if the petition is filed after the elections. x x x.^[66]

[ G.R. No. 212398, November 25, 2014 ]

EMILIO RAMON “E.R.” P. EJERCITO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND EDGAR “EGAY” S. SAN LUIS, RESPONDENTS.

IPRA notes

Besides, when Congress enacted the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) or Republic Act 8371⁹ in 1997, it provided in Section 56 that "property rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested" upon its effectivity "shall be recognized and respected." In this case, ownership over the subject lands had been vested in CMU as early as 1958. Consequently, transferring the lands in 2003 to the indigenous peoples around the area is not in accord with the IPRA.

(CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY, Represented by Officer-In-Charge Dr. Rodrigo L. Malunhao, Petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE CHAIRPERSON AND COMMISSIONERS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, and THE LEAD CONVENOR OF THE NATIONAL ANTI-POVERTY COMMISSION, Respondents. EN BANC G.R. No. 184869 ,September 21, 2010)

Bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or prisoner needing medical care outside the prison facility. A mere claim of illness is not a ground for bail.⁵³ It may be that the trend now is for courts to permit bail for prisoners who are seriously sick.⁵⁴ There may also be an existing proposition for the "selective decarceration of older prisoners" based on findings that recidivism rates decrease as age increases.