Ballot-Appreciation-BSKE-2023.pptx

RULES ON BALLOT
APPRECIATION
What We Need To Know

1. Will of Voter is Paramount
2. Ballot is Always PRESUMED VALID
3. Technical Rules are LIBERALLY CONSTRUED,
and
4. Counting is Public and Uninterrupted
Governing Principles On Ballot
Appreciation

It is the act of ASCERTAINING the REAL
INTENT of the voter to whom he is casting
his vote for, on the basis of what is shown
on the face of the ballot.
What is Ballot Appreciation?

Governing principles on
ballot appreciation

a. Elections are all about people’s sovereignty
b. Cardinal objective is to give effect to the choice of
voter
c. Results are not subject to the discretion of
candidates
THE WILL OF THE VOTER IS
PARAMOUNT

a. All doubts shall be resolved in favor of validity
b. No ballot shall be rejected unless for a clear and
sufficient reason
c. Innocent voters should not be prejudiced by
indiscretions of poll workers
THE BALLOT IS ALWAYS
PRESUMED VALID

a. Technical rules should not frustrate the
determination of the popular will
b. Far better to err in favor of popular sovereignty
RULES ARE LIBERALLY
CONSTRUED

COUNTING IS PUBLIC AND
UNINTERRUPTED
a. Electoral Boards are to count and appreciate the votes in
public without interruption
b. They enjoy the presumption of regularity, and no one
can overturn their collegial determination at the polling
place
c. Their decisions, however, are not binding upon the court
in case protests are filed

RULES ON APPRECIATION of votes

R U L E 1 : I N T E N T R U L E
Case 1
If It Is The First Name Or Surname Of A Candidate, It Shall
Be Appreciated In His Favor. (Par. 1, Section 211)
Candidate for Punong Barangay
1. ALFARO, Renato “Nato”
Candidate for Kagawad
1. HANAY, Alvin “Ben”

Case 2
If There Is Another Candidate With The Same First Name Or Surname, It
Shall Be Considered As Stray Vote. (3rd Phrase, Par. 14, Section 211)
Candidates for Punong Barangay
1.CRUZ, Teodoro “Ted”
2.CRUZ, Uldarico “Toto”
Candidates for Kagawad
1.MARQUEZ, Elena “Elen”
2.RAMOS, Elena “Inday Lena”

If A Candidate’s Name Is Erased And Another Clearly Written, Vote Is
Valid for The Latter. (Par. 9, Sec. 211) So are superimpositions.
Case 3
Candidates for Punong
Barangay
1. CORDERO, Bethel “Neneng”
2. TIU, Arlene “Inday Dako”

Case 4
Markings Or Words Of Desistance From Voting Found On
Blank Spaces Do Not Invalidate The Ballot. (Par. 21, Section 211)
1. VILLA, Erlinda “Linda”
1. CERCADO, Eugene “Gene”

RULE 2:
EQUITY OF THE INCUMBENT RULE

RULE 2: EQUITY OF THE INCUMBENT
RULE
Case 1
If There Is Another Candidate With The Same First Name And Surname, But
The Other Candidate Is An Incumbent, The Vote Shall Be Counted In Favor Of
The Incumbent. (2nd Sentence, Par. 2, Section 211)
1.ENRIQUEZ, Joy
2.LEDESMA, Joy (Incumbent)
1.JOCSON, Alberto
2.JOCSON, Glenn (Incumbent)

RULE
Case 2
If It Is The Maiden Or Married Surname Or Both Of A Woman Candidate And There Is
Another Candidate With Such Surname And One Of Them Is An Incumbent, The Vote Is
Counted In Favor Of The Incumbent. (Par. 3, Section211)
1. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Alpha
2. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Lydia (Incumbent)
1. ARANAS-DIAZ, LOURDES
2. ARANAS, Rodolfo (Incumbent)
3. DIAZ, Arnulfo (Incumbent)

RULE
Case 3
If Written on the Same Line and all of which are Surnames of Two or More Candidates,
one of them an Incumbent who Served for at Least One Year, the Vote is Counted in favor
of the Latter (par 4, Section 211).
1.GUMBAN, Ismael
2.MAGNO, Paul (incumbent who
served for at least a year)

RULE 3:
P R I M A C Y O F S U R N A M E S

RULE 3: PRIMACY OF SURNAMES RULE
Case 1
If It Is The First Name Of A Candidate But When Read Sounds Similar To The
Surname Of Another Candidate, The Vote Shall Be Appreciated In Favor Of
The Latter (1st Sentence, Par.2, Sec. 211)
1.TENTATIVA, Benzen “Moi”
2.VINCEN, Ligaya “Gay-Gay”

Case 2
If It Is The First Name Of One Candidate And Surname Of Another, The Vote
Shall Be In Favor Of The Latter (Par. 5, Sec. 211)
1. ROMAN, Pablo “Pabs”
2. SULPICIO, Roman “Sonny”

Case 3 (Exception)
If What Is Written Is The First Name Of One Candidate Coupled With The Surname Of
Another Candidate, Vote Is Considered Stray (Par. 6, Sec. 211)
Candidates for
Punong Barangay
1. CORPUZ, Esteban M.
2. IBAY, Isidro B.

RULE 4:
R U L E S O N M A R R I E D W O M E N

RULE 4: RULES ON MARRIED WOMEN
Case 1
No Other Candidate With Such Surname, Vote Shall Be Appreciated In Favor Of That
Candidate (Par. 1, Sec. 211)
1. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Alpha “Apang”
1. ARANAS-DIAZ, LOURDES “Lulu”
2. MARTEL-PORRAS, MAE “Mae”

Case 2
If It Is The Maiden Or Married Surname Or Both Of A Woman Candidate And
There Is Another Candidate With Such Surname, Vote Is
Considered Stray. (3rd Phrase, Par. 14, Sec. 211)
1. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Alpha “Apang”
2. ARNALDO-RUIZ, Lydia “Lids”
1. ARANAS-DIAZ, LOURDES “Lulu”
2. ARANAS, Rodolfo “Rudy”
3. DIAZ, Arnulfo “Buddy”

Case 3
Another Candidate With Such Surname And One Of Them Is An Incumbent, Vote
Counted In Favor Of Incumbent. (Par. 3, Sec. 211)
1.ARNALDO-RUIZ, Alpha “Apang”
2.ARNALDO-RUIZ, Lydia “Lids” (Incumbent)
1.ARANAS-DIAZ, LOURDES “Lulu”
2.ARANAS, Rodolfo “Rudy” (Incumbent)
3.DIAZ, Arnulfo “Buddy” (Incumbent)

RULE 5:
I D E M S O N A N S R U L E

RULE 5: IDEM SONANS RULE
Case 1
If It Is Incorrectly Written But When Read Has A Sound Similar To The Name
Or Surname Of A Candidate, Vote Shall Be Counted In Favor Of
That Candidate (Par. 7, Sec. 211)
1. PERFECTO, Querubin
1. ARZAGA, Emilio
2. CECILIO, Aurelio
3. GLORIA, Ricardo
4. JULIANO, Teodoro`
5. LONTOC, Jose
6. MONTEZA, Pablo

RULE 6:
RULES ON THE USE OF NICKNAMES

RULE 6: RULES ON THE USE OF
NICKNAMES
Case 1
If It Is The Nickname Of A Candidate And It Is One By Which He Is Generally And Popularly
Known In The Locality, It Shall Be Counted In His Favor If There Is No Other Candidate For The
Same Office With The Same Nickname (2nd Sentence, Par. 13, Sec. 211)
Candidate for Punong
Barangay
1.FERRER, Danilo “Danny”

NICKNAMES
Case 2
If The Vote Is The Registered Nickname Of A Candidate And At The Same Time One Of The Words
Of The Registered Nickname Of Another Candidate Whose Nickname Is Composed Of Two Or More
Words, The Vote Shall Be Counted In Favor Of The Former. (2nd Sentence, Par. 13, Sec. 211
1. NG, Rudy “Toto Rudy”
2. REYES, Omar “Toto”

NICKNAMES
Case 3
If The Nickname Of A Candidate Is Composed Of Two Or More Words, And The Vote Written Is Any
One Of Those Words, And There Is No Other Candidate With The Same Name Or Nickname, The Vote
Is Appreciated In Favor Of That Candidate. (With Reference To Pars. 1, 7, And 13, Sec. 211)
1.LEE, May “Inday May”

RULE 7:
RULES ON THE USE OF INITIALS

RULE 7: RULES ON THE USE OF INITIALS
Case 1
If Erroneous Initial Of The First Name, Surname Or Middle Initial Accompanies The
Correct Surname Or First Name Of A Candidate, The Vote Is Valid (Par. 10, Sec. 211)
1.RODRIGUEZ, Teodoro

RULE 7: RULES ON THE USE OF INITIALS
Case 2
If It Contains Initials Only, Vote Considered As Stray Vote (Par. 14, Sec. 211)
Candidate for
Punong Barangay
1.GUPIT, Mark M. “Macmac”

RULE 8:
RULE ON THE USE OF PREFIXES

RULE 8: RULE ON THE USE OF PREFIXES
Case 1
If A Prefix Accompanies The First Name and/or Surname Of A Candidate Vote
Is Valid. (Par.12, Sec. 211)
Candidate for
Punong Barangay
1.CASTRO, Leon “Boy”

PREFIXES
Notes on Prefixes
1
The prefixes enumerated in paragraph 12, section
211 OEC (Sr., Mr., Datu, Don, Ginoo, Hon., Gob) are just
examples and are not exclusive. Thus, expressions which
connote respect and something equivalent to the Tagalog
“ka” or the English “Mr.” were considered legitimate.
Prefixes, however, may be utilized as identification
marks.
• in every ballot only one is given a prefix, the rest none
• in several ballots, different prefixes were given one candidate
2

RULE 9:
RULE INVOLVING APPELATIONS OF
AFFECTION OR FRIENDSHIP

RULE 9: RULE INVOLVING APPELATION OF AFFECTION OR
FRIENDSHIP
Case 1
If What Is Written Is The First Name Or Surname Of The Candidate With Nicknames Or Appellations
Of Affection And Friendship, Vote Is Valid Except When They Were Used As Means To Identify The
Voter, In Which Case The Whole Ballot Is Invalidated. (Par. 13, Sec. 211)
Candidate for
Punong Barangay
1. ANG, Jose “Joe”

If Written On Different Lines, All Of Which Are Surnames Of Two Or More Candidates And For An
Office That Allows The Election Of More Than One And There Are Same Number Of Such Surnames
Written As There Are Candidates With That Surname, Votes Are Considered Valid. (Par. 4, Sec. 211)
1.GO, Arnold “Bongbong”
2.GO, Esther “Ma’am Esther”
3.GO, Noel “Noel”
RULE 10: SPECIAL CASES
Case 1

If A Candidate’s Name Appears On A Space For Which He Is A Candidate And In
Another Space On Which He Is Not A Candidate, Valid For The Office For Which
He Is Running And Stray On The Other. (Par. 8, Sec. 211)
1. Alban, Romeo ”Roming”
Case 2

If The Number Of Names Written Exceed Those To Be Voted, Only Those Firstly Written
Within The Authorized Number Are Deemed Valid. (Par. 18, Sec. 211)
1. ABAD, Gil “Nonong”
2. CO, Nancy “Nans”
3. DOLLEDO, Hans “Boy”
4. ELLANGA, Aida “Nang Ayds”
5. MORENO, William “Bill”
6. SOTERO, Eden “Pangga”
7. TORRE, Jay “Jay”
8. VILLA, Ma. Teresita “Teray”
Case 3

If It Is That Of A Non-candidate, The Vote Shall Be Considered A Stray Vote
(1st Phrase, Par. 19, Sec. 211)
Candidates for
Punong Barangay
1. AUSTRIA, Artemio “Toto”
2. SEMOY, Alicia “Gingging"
Case 4

If What Is Written Is The First Name Of A Candidate But With A Different Surname Or Correct
Surname But With A Different First Name, Vote Is Considered Stray. (Par. 15, Sec 211)
Candidate for
Punong Barangay
1.VILLAVERT, Alberto A.
Case 5

If A Name Of A Known Existing Person Who Is A Non-candidate Accompanies The First Name Or
Surname Of A Candidate, The Vote Is Considered In Favor Of The Latter (Par. 11, Sec. 211)
Candidates for
Punong Barangay
1. JIMENEZ, Ralph
“Nonoy”
2. NADAL, Francisco “Boc”
Case 6

If What Is Named Are Two Or More Candidates for a Position for Which The Law
Allows The Election Of Only One, The Vote Is Considered Stray. (Par. 17, Sec. 211)
Candidates for
Punong Barangay
1. BEDIA, Myla “Maymay”
2. CALVO, Michael “Mike”
Case 7

If It Is Illegible Or Cannot Sufficiently Identify The Candidate For
Whom It Is Intended, Stray Vote. (Par. 14, Sec. 211)
1.LAPUZ, John “Jon”
1.DOJILLO, Nilo “Calong”
2.VIDAL, Rodrigo “Jing”
Case 8

RULE 11:
RULE ON MISPLACED VOTES

If It Is That Of A Candidate For An Office For Which He Did Not Present Himself, The
Vote Shall Be Considered A Stray Vote. (2nd Phrase, Par.19, Sec. 211)
1.GABITO, Sergio “ Sarge”
1.DAGANI, Girlie “Paday”
2.JACOBA, Andrea “Nene”
3.PRADO, Marivic “Becbec”
RULE 11: RULE ON MISPLACED VOTES
Case 1

Exceptions to the Rule on Misplaced Votes
1. Correct Sequence Rule
2. Evident Intent Rule
3. Neighborhood Rule

JURISPRUDENCE
The following shall be considered VALID VOTES (Velasco v
COMELEC, et.al. G.R. No. 166931-Feb. 22, 2007):
 A single misplacement of a name written:
a. Off-center from the designated space
b. Slightly underneath the line for the contested office
c. Immediately above the title for the contested office or
d. In the space for an office immediately following that for
which the candidate presented himself24

JURISPRUDENCE
The following shall be considered VALID VOTES (Velasco v COMELEC, et.al. G.R. No.
166931-Feb. 22, 2007):
 A general misplacement of an entire series of names intended to be
voted for the successive offices appearing in the ballot
 A single or double misplacement of names where such names were
preceded or followed by the title of the contested office or where the
voter wrote after the candidate’s name a directional symbol indicating
the correct office for which the misplaced name was intended

A General Misplacement Of An Entire Series Of Names Intended To Be Voted For
The Successive Offices Appearing On The Ballot
1. CASTILLO, Angie “Ging”
1. AMADOR, Leah “Bing”
2. CERCADO, Manuel “Manny”
3. GONZALES, Leo “Parts”
4. GUMBAN, Daisy “Meg”
5. MALLADA, Rose “Rose”
6. ROMULO, Adrian “Bords”
7. SABAN, Marie “Mar”
RULE 11: MISPLACED VOTES (exception)
1. Correct Sequence Rule – Case 1

A Single Or Double Misplacement Of Names Where Such Names Were
Preceded Or Followed By The Title Of The Contested Office
1.LAO, Mary “May”
1.GO, Eduard “Ed”
2.TORRES, Irene “Princess”
2. Evident Intent Rule – Case 1

Where The Voter Wrote After The Candidate’s Name A Directional Symbol Indicating
The Correct Office For Which The Misplaced Name Was Intended
1.Ruiz, Juan “Jun”
1.GO, Eduard “Ed”
2.TORRES, Irene “Princess”
2. Evident Intent Rule – Case 2

JURISPRUDENCE
The neighborhood rule is a settled rule stating
that where the name of a candidate is not written in
the proper space in the ballot, but is preceded by
the name of the office for which he is a candidate,
the vote should be counted as valid for said
candidate.
(Battalla vs. COMELEC, et. al. – G.R. No. 184268 Sept. 15, 2009)

A Single Misplacement of a Name Written off-center from the designated space
Candidate for Punong
Barangay
1.LEDONIO, Marlon
“Lonlon”
3. Neighborhood Rule – Case 1

A Single Misplacement of a Name Written Slightly Underneath the Line
for the Contested Office
PO, Mario “Mayok”

A Single Misplacement of a Name Written Immediately Above the Title
for the Contested Office
1.SINON, Betty “Bet”

A Single Misplacement of a Name Written in the Space for An Office
Immediately Following that for which the Candidate Presented Himself
1.BARON, Angel “Angie”

PUNONG BARANGAY
1. Co, Carlos “Tibong” E.
2. Abad, Jose “Osing” F.
Vote is counted in favor of candidate
Carlos “Tibong” Co.
Exception to rule 19.
The space for Punong Barangay is blank. Tibong
Co is written on the first line of the space for
Barangay Kagawad. The votes are valid for Co
under the neighborhood rule (Abad vs. Co and
COMELEC – G.R. No. 167438 July 25, 2006) .
Barangay Elections

3. Neighborhood Rule – Cases 5 and 6

A stray vote - for Teodoro
Bataller’s name is not found on
or near any of the lines
corresponding to the offices of
Punong Barangay and
kagawads, and, thus, does not
relate to any office.
(Battalla vs. COMELEC, et al. – G.R. No.
184268 Sept. 15, 2009)

RULE 12:
RULE ON DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES

If It Is The First Name Or Surname Of A Candidate Disqualified By Final
Judgment, Considered As Stray Vote (Par. 24, Sec. 211)
1.FULLON, Ken
“Bords” (Disqualified)
RULE 12: RULE ON DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES
Case 1

1. Votes cast in favor of a candidate who has been DISQUALIFIED by final
judgment shall be considered STRAY VOTES. (Sec 211 par. 24)
2. Votes cast in favor of a candidate whose certificate of candidacy
was CANCELLED or DENIED DUE COURSE shall be
considered STRAY votes for being a non-candidate. (Sec. 211 par. 19)
3. Votes cast in favor of a candidate who has WITHDRAWN shall be
considered STRAY votes. (Sec. 211 par. 19)
4. Votes cast in favor of a candidate who has been declared NUISANCE due to
the same name and/or surname with a bona fide candidate shall not be
deemed stray votes but may be COUNTED in favor of the latter.
RULE 12: RULE ON DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES

What is a Marked Ballot?
RULE 13: MARKED BALLOTS
One which is marked by the voter for the purpose of identifying the ballot as
one that he accomplished considered INVALID ballot.
What are its Elements?
(a) The voter must have placed the mark; and
(b) The mark was placed deliberately for purpose of identifying the voter or the
ballot.
NOTE: Marks made by the voter unintentionally do not invalidate
the ballot. Neither do marks made by some person other than the voter.

Kinds of Marked Ballots
RULE 13: MARKED BALLOTS
Marked Ballot Due to Unnecessary Markings (MB-UM)
-invalidation may immediately be done
1
Marked Ballots Due to Pattern Voting (MB-PV)
- requires presentation of evidence aliunde to be invalidated
2

MARKED BALLOTS
Marked Ballot Due to Unnecessary Markings (MB-UM)

If the Ballot is Signed by the Voter, it is deemed a Marked Ballot
1. IRENEA, Grace
1. AVELINO, Carlo
RULE 13: MARKED BALLOTS MB-UM
Case 1

If The Names Are Written In Extraordinarily Big Letters, The Ballot Is
Considered Marked
1. BARCE, Lito
Case 2

If Names Are Written Twice In A Single Space, Such Are Deemed
Marked Ballots
1. CHAVEZ, Mark “Macoy”
1. ANAD, Andrew “Gingging”
2.BANOY, Eleuterio “Primo”
3.CALVAN, Mae “Maymay”
Case 3

If A Candidate’s Name Is Written More Than Twice On A Single Ballot,
The Ballot Is Considered Marked
1. NABAR, Porferio “Peryong”
Case 4

Irrelevant Remarks, Impertinent Words, and/or Derogatory Expressions
Found on Ballots Render Such Ballots Invalid
Candidate for
Punong Barangay
1. LIM, Isidro “Sarge”
Case 5

1. Names of candidates are written upside down;
2. Presence of irrelevant expressions (e.g. ”Have a good
time Mr. Pacito”, “Forget Me Not”, “Tse na Lang”,
“Jugador” (Gambler), My Vote is Heartily Dedicated,
etc.);
3. Names of candidates were written in ordinary writing
except for one which was written in big Gothic letters;
OTHER INSTANCES OF MARKED BALLOTS
(UM)

MARKED BALLOTS
Marked Ballots Due to Pattern Voting (MB-PV)

1. Appearance of same names on several ballots on precisely same space, cast
only in one precinct.
2. Name of one candidate clearly and markedly indented to the right as to render
the ballot easily distinguishable.
3. 14 ballots marked with word "Joker”, six (6) with "Alas”, seven (7) with
"Queen”, and seven (7) ballots with word "Kamatis, all in the number 7 space
for Kagawad.
4. 15 ballots in same precinct contained letter "C" after the name "Galido.”
5. In every ballot only one candidate is given a prefix, the rest none. In
several ballots prefixes given to one and the same candidate are of
different nature.
6. Candidates surname accompanied by different first names, nicknames, and
appellations.
INSTANCES OF MARKED BALLOTS DUE TO
PATTERN VOTING

1. The names voted for are in very large block letters. The writing could
well be the voter’s habitual one, there being no evidence to show
otherwise.
2. Voters tend to follow arrangement appearing in sample
ballots distributed by each candidate. This, standing alone, does not
render the ballot marked.
3. The writing of name of candidate twice in space for Mayor
would indicate only the enthusiasm of the voter voting for the said
candidate.
4. Having voters belonging to the same precinct writing the names
of particular candidates in an identical manner in a ballot is not
necessarily invalid.
INSTANCES WHERE BALLOTS DEEMED
VALID and NOT MARKED

RULE 14:
BALLOTS WRITTEN BY ONE

Q. When can there be multiple ballots “Written by One” person?
WRITTEN BY ONE
A. This arises when there are several ballots with similar handwriting in excess
of number of officially recognized disabled and illiterate voters in a polling
place plus the voter himself.
Q. Are “Written by One” ballots valid?
A. Yes, provided the handwritings thereon are similar to the signature of a
register assistor found in the Minutes of Voting; one ballot by the assistor
and for not more than three illiterate or disabled voters unless the assistor is
a member of the Electoral Board. Otherwise, the ballots should be rejected.

Q. How can one determine that a handwriting is that of one person only?
A. When the writings in the subject ballots are strikingly alike, with presence not
only of class characteristics but also individual characteristics or dents and
scratches in sufficient quantity.
Q. Is there a need for technical examination of ballots?
A. The rule is, the Commission or the Electoral Tribunal may or may not make
the determination without need of calling handwriting experts.
WRITTEN BY ONE

RULE 15:
WRITTEN BY TWO OR MORE PERSONS

Q. When can we say that the ballot was filled out by two or more persons?
A. When ballot shows distinct and marked dissimilarities in the writing of the
names of some candidates from the rest.
Q. What are it effects?
A. If tampered entries made after ballot was cast, it is VALID. If it bears fillings
of two or more persons when cast, ballot is deemed marked thus VOID.],
Q. What is the presumption if there are such dissimilarities found on the ballot?
A. Such dissimilarities made before ballot was deposited in the ballot box.

Q. How do we resolve doubts?
A. When there is doubt as to whether the names were written by two
persons, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the validity of the
ballot.
Q. Are all dissimilarities indications of marked ballots?
A. NO. It is very rare that 2 specimens of a person’s handwriting or
signature are exactly alike.
Minor and insignificant variations in handwriting are
even perceived as indicia of genuineness rather than falsity.

Use Of Any Type Of Writing Instrument Does Not Invalidate The
Ballot. (Par. 16, Sec. 211)
1. RUIZ, Leopoldo “Polding”
1. BRIONES, Lourdes “Lulu”
2. SALIDO, Daisy, “Nene”
3. SOLIS, Raul “Toto”
RULE 16: MISCELLANEOUS CASES
Case 1

The Use Of A Mechanical Process Renders The Ballot Null And
Void (Par. 20, Section 211)
1. RODRIGUEZ, Tomas “Tom”
Case 2

Commas, Dots, Lines Or Hyphens, Traces Of The Letter “T”, “J” And Similar Ones, Unfinished Names,
Different Handwritings, Accidental Flourishes, Strokes, Or Strains Do Not Invalidate The Ballot Unless
Deliberately Done To Identify The Voter. (Par. 22, Section 211)
1. BORJA, Miguel “Miki”
1. JEREOS, Angel “Pards”
Case 3

Ballots Written In Arabic, Where Such Is Of General Use,
Are Valid. (Par. 25, Section 211)
1. BAHADUR, Ahwaz
2.SHAZIL, Aalimah
1. BAHARAH, Noralia
2.LAMAH, Haadi
3.SAAHIR, Alyssa
Case 4

An Accidental Tearing Or Perforation Does Not Affect The Validity Of The
Ballots. (Par. 26, Section 211)
1. SY, Magdalena “Magdal”
1. ACSAY, Ben “Ben”
Case 5

The Failure To Remove The Detachable Coupon Does Not Annul Such
Ballot. (Par. 27, Section 211)
1. YAP, Joseph
Case 6

OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE
Violation of the provisions, or pertinent portions,
of Section 211 of this Code shall constitute election
offense (Section 262)
IT’S AN ELECTION OFFENSE!

“you can never make the same mistake twice because the second time you make it, it’s not a
mistake, it’s a choice.”
-anonymous

Ballot-Appreciation-BSKE-2023.pptx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ballot-Appreciation-BSKE-2023.pptx

Editor's Notes