Comelec holds mock elections ahead of BARMM parliamentary polls
Comelec officials led by Chairperson George Erwin Garcia, other election stakeholders, and the media monitored the conduct of mock polls in Butig, Lanao del Sur, and in Bongao and Simunul in Tawi-Tawi.
Voting started at 7 a.m. and ended at 10 a.m.
''Counting and canvassing for the mock elections has officially closed, with the Certificates of Canvass in all levels 100% received at around 11:07 a.m.,'' the Comelec said.
Only 73 seats will be up for grabs in the October elections as the seven seats previously allocated to Sulu are considered temporarily vacant.
''These vacancies may be subsequently filled through presidential appointment or as may later be determined by a ruling of the Supreme Court or future legislation from the Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA) or the Philippine Congress,'' the Comelec said in a statement on July 15.
The Supreme Court upheld the Bangsamoro Organic Law's (BOL) validity in September last year, but it also ruled that Sulu is not a part of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM).
Sulu province rejected the ratification of the BOL during the plebiscite in 2019.
'As Sulu rejected the Bangsamoro Organic Law in the plebiscite, it was wrong to include the province in BARMM,' SC spokesperson Camille Ting said then. — VBL, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
2 hours ago
- GMA Network
House says SC can still reverse ruling on VP Sara impeach raps
"[O]n the part of the House, we believe that our actions on the impeachment are right and in accordance with our laws and the Constitution,' House spokesperson Princess Abante said on Tuesday, July 29, 2025. The House of Representatives believes the Supreme Court can still reverse its decision on the articles of impeachment filed against Vice President Sara Duterte, provided that it considers the official records of the House of Representatives involving the initiation of the impeachment case. 'The House will file a motion for reconsideration. It is up for the Senate to decide on how they will act on the impeachment complaint now, but on the part of the House, we believe that our actions on the impeachment are right and in accordance with our laws and the Constitution,' House spokesperson Princess Abante told reporters. 'The filing of MR is one of the legal actions we could take. Kung suntok sa buwan po iyan, iyan po ay kasama pa rin po sa pwede namin gawin. Kung maitatama naman po yung mga erroneous data where the Supreme Court decision were based upon, puwede pa rin naman po na mabago ang desisyon,' she added. (If it is shooting for the moon, well, that is still one of the remedies we could avail of. If we are able to correct the erroneous data where the Supreme Court based its decision, it can still change its mind.) The Supreme Court voided the impeachment case against the Vice President, saying it violated the one-year bar rule which only allows one impeachment complaint filed against an impeachable official per year. The Supreme Court, contrary to its two previous rulings, also said that House initiated more than one complaint because it 'initiated' another impeachment complaint by archiving the first three impeachment raps on February 5, an action that the House did after transmitting the consolidated impeachment complaint endorsed by over 215 House members to the Senate, also on February 5. The 215 signatories were more than the Constitutional requirement of one-third of the House members endorsing the impeachment complaint, a situation that allows the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for the immediate holding of an impeachment trial, bypassing House justice panel deliberations. Prior to its decision on the Vice President's case, previous Supreme Court decisions in the Francisco v. House and Gutierrez v. House state that the initiation of the impeachment complaint starts with its referral to the House Committee on Justice. The first three impeachment complaints against the Vice President that were archived on February 5 were not referred by the House Secretary General to the House Justice panel. Further, the High Court said the House maxing out the 10 session days before acting on and archiving the first three impeachment complaints is also a grave abuse of discretion. The House, however, has argued that the consolidated impeachment case was Constitutionally-compliant because it met the Constitutional threshold of over one-third of House members endorsing it before being transmitted to the Senate. In addition, the House has also argued that the archiving of the first three impeachment complaints is not considered an initiation of an impeachment complaint as provided in the High Court decisions on the Francisco v. House and Gutierrez v. House cases. The Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President accuse her of: conspiracy to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez; malversation of P612.5 million in confidential funds with questionable liquidation documents; bribery and corruption in the DepEd during Duterte's tenure by handing out cash to former DepEd Undersecretary Gloria Jumamil-Mercado (Procurement Head), Bids and Awards Committee Member Resty Osias, DepEd Chief Accountant Rhunna Catalan and Special Disbursing Officer Edward Fajarda; unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets in the Vice President's Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth where her wealth increased by four times from 2007 from 2017; involvement in extrajudicial killings in Davao City; destabilization, insurrection, and public disorder efforts, which include: boycotting the State of the Nation Address (SONA) while declaring herself "designated survivor," leading rallies calling for Marcos' resignation, obstructing congressional investigations by ordering subordinates not to comply with subpoenas, threatening bodily harm against the First Couple and Romualdez, among others; and the totality of the Vice President's conduct as the second highest official of the land. — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
6 hours ago
- GMA Network
Senate to decide on SC ruling on VP Sara impeachment on Aug. 6 — Chiz
The Senate is set to discuss the decision of the Supreme Court declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional on August 6, 2025, Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero said Tuesday. During the plenary session, Escudero said the date was set next week in order to give the senators 'ample and sufficient time' to study the SC ruling. This was agreed upon by the senators present in the caucus or meeting held early Tuesday afternoon. '[We] place on record the agreement arrived upon in caucus earlier to set on a date certain the disposition of the matter pertaining to the Supreme Court decision in relation to the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte,' Escudero said. "For the record, it was agreed in caucus that the matter will be decided upon by the Senate on August 6, 2025, when we open session on that date in order to afford ample and sufficient time to the members to study the 97-page Supreme Court decision, excluding the concurring and separate opinions filed by five or six additional magistrates of the Supreme Court,' he added. Voting 13-0, the Supreme Court earlier declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional, saying that it was barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. The high court also found that the articles violated Duterte's right to due process. The SC decision is immediately executory but a motion for reconsideration may be filed. The high court also emphasized that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. Senate impeachment court spokesperson Atty. Regie Tongol earlier said that the court is set to vote whether to proceed with the deliberations after receiving the high court's ruling on the articles of impeachment filed against Duterte. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's decision to void the impeachment of Duterte, arguing that the ruling was based on what it described as incorrect findings that contradict official records. — RSJ, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
6 hours ago
- GMA Network
Escudero denies alleged insertions in 2025 budget
Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero on Tuesday denied claims that there are billions of pesos worth of insertions in the 2025 national budget. At a press conference, Escudero called the reports a 'demolition job' in connection to his earlier bid to retain his Senate presidency post. 'Sabi nilang noong una P9 billion daw 'yung sa Sorsogon, P12 billion daw 'yung Bulacan. Sunod sinabi na P142 billion, sunod binura nila 'yun, ginawang P150 billion. Alin ba talaga ang sasagutin ko roon? Pangalawa, noong una ang sinabi ako lang, sunod sinama si Senator Villanueva, sunod buong Senado na raw 'yun,' he said. (They first said that it was P9 billion in Sorsogon, P12 billion in Bulacan. Next they said it was P142 billion, then they deleted it, making it P150 billion. Which one do I really have to answer? Secondly, they said it was only me at first, then Senator Villanueva was included, then the entire Senate.) 'Bibigyan ko kayo ng kabuuang sagot. Ang kabuuang panukala amendment kaugnay sa 2025 budget ay umaabot sa humigit kumulang P600 bilyon. Nilipat- lipat, tinanggal, dinagdag. So, kung totoo man 'yung sinasabi nila na P150 billion ang binago ng Senado, nasaan 'yung P500 bilyon 'yung magbabagong 'yun saan nanggaling?' (I will give you a complete answer. The total proposed amendment on the 2025 budget amounted to approximately P600 billion. It was later on revised. If their allegation that the Senate changed P150 billion, where's the remaining P500 billion?) In December last year, signed into law the P6.326-trillion national budget for 2025 and vetoed over P194 billion worth of line items that are not consistent with his administration's priorities. Former executive secretary Vic Rodriguez, Davao City 3rd District Representative Isidro Ungab, and others have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to declare the 2025 national budget as unconstitutional amid alleged irregularities and supposed blank items in the bicameral conference committee report. Marcos, meanwhile, maintained that there were no blank pages in the bicameral conference committee report on the 2025 national budget. Escudero further denied that there was a P150 billion insertion to the 2025 General Appropriations Act. He also said that there were 'changes' in the budget for the province of Sorsogon, but it did not amount to P9 billion, as speculated. 'Para sa'kin, hindi parang makalipas ang 27 taon, ngayon lamang yata ako maaakusahan ng isang bagay na ganyan. Ang masakit dinamay pa si Senator Joel,' he expressed. (After 27 years, It's only now that I'm being accused of something like this. What hurts more is that Senator Joel is being included.) To avoid similar insinuations, Escudero said he will suggest that Senator Sherwin Gatchalian, who is set to lead the Senate committee on finance, to release a list of each senator's proposed amendments in the national budget. The Senate President further asked the government agencies not to request for a budget higher than what was submitted by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). This, as President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr. said in his fourth State of the Nation Address (SONA) that the government would operate under a reenacted budget in 2026, warning that he will veto a proposed budget bill that will not be in harmony with his administration's programs and priorities. The President also said he will return any proposed Generation Appropriations bill that is not fully aligned with the National Expenditure Program (NEP). 'Ang panukalang budget ay nanggagaling hindi lamang sa executive pero pati sa Kongreso. Hindi naman porket binalangkas ng executive lahat 'yun ay tama na. Hindi naman porket binalangkas ng executive lahat 'yun ay hindi na pwedeng baguhin at tila nakaukit na sa bato,' Escudero said. (The proposed budget comes not only from the executive but also from Congress. Just because it was the executive that outlined everything, all of those are already right and cannot be changed.) 'Ang marapat na dapat baguhin, dapat baguhin dahil 'yung mga kalihim mismo ng Pangulo ay humihiling sa Kongreso ng dagdag o pagbabago sa kani-kanilang budget. So siguro kung may ganyang uri ng kautusan ang Pangulo dapat pagsabihan din niya ang kanyang mga kalihim na kapag may sinumite ng budget ang DBM para sa kanilang departamento, 'wag na silang humirit pa dahil bago sila makahirit ang pagkukunan ay ibang departamento rin,' he added. (What should be changed, must be changed because the President's cabinet secretaries themselves are asking the Congress for an increase or change in their respective budgets. So maybe the President should also tell his secretaries that when the DBM submits a budget for their department, they should stop asking for an increase because the source for that increase will be gotten from the budget of another agency.) The DBM defines a reenacted budget as a situation where the previous year's GAA is extended and remains in effect for a preceding year until such time the Congress passes a budget bill into law. Marcos approved earlier this month the P6.793-trillion NEP for Fiscal Year 2026. — BAP, GMA Integrated News
