WRITTEN REPORT BY GROUP 1

I. LAWS GOVERNING ELECTIONS

Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 - The Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines
This Code shall govern all election of public officers and, to the extent
appropriate, all referenda and plebiscites.

Republic Act. No. 6646 - The Electoral Reform Law of 1987

An act introducing additional reforms in the electoral system and for other
purposes.

Republic Act No. 7166 - Synchronized National and Local Elections

An act providing for synchronized national and local elections and for electoral
reforms, authorizing appropriations therefor, and for other purposes.

Republic Act No. 7941 - Party-List Systems Act

An act providing for the election of party-list representatives through the party-list
system, and appropriating funds therefor

Republic Act No. 8346 - Automated Election System

An act authorizing the commission on elections to use an automated election
system in the May 11, 1998 national or local elections and in subsequent national
and local electoral exercises, providing funds therefor and for other purposes

Republic Act No. 8189 - Voter’s Registration Act of 1996

Providing for a general registration of voters, adopting a system of continuing
registration, prescribing the procedures thereof and authorizing the appropriation
of funds therefor.

Republic Act No. 9006 - Fair Election Act

An act to enhance the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
elections through fair election practices.

Republic Act No. 9189 - Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 200

Providing for a general registration of voters, adopting a system of continuing
registration, prescribing the procedures thereof and authorizing the appropriation
of funds thereof.
II. SUFFRAGE

- The right and obligation of qualified citizens to vote in the election of certain national
and local of the government and in the decisions of public questions submitted to
the people. It includes within its scope: election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum
and recall.

- The right of suffrage is a political and not a natural right, it is within the power of the
state prescribe the manner in which such right shall be exercised. Congress is
mandated by the Constitution (Sec.2, Art. V):

a. To provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot, and for
absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad, and;
b. To design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterate to vote without the
assistance of other persons.

SCOPE OF SUFFRAGE:

1. Election – the means by which the people choose their officials for definite and
fixed periods and to whom they entrust, for the time being as their
representatives, the exercise of powers of the government. Involves the selection
or choice of a candidate by popular vote.
2. Plebiscite – the name given to a vote of the people expressing their choice for or
against a proposed law or enactment submitted to them.
In the Philippines: it is applied to an election at which any proposed amendment
to, or revision of, the Constitution is submitted to the people for ratification It is
also required by the Constitution to secure the approval of the people directly
affected, before certain proposed affecting LGUs may be affected
3. Referendum – submission of a law passed by the national or local legislative
body to the registered voters at an election called for the purpose of their
ratification or rejection. The mode for appealing from an elected body to the
whole body of voters.
4. Initiative – process whereby the registered voters directly propose, enact or
amend laws, national or local, through an election called for that purpose
5. Recall – method by which a public officer may be removed from office during his
tenure or before the expiration of his term by a vote of the people after
registration of a petition signed by a required percentage of the qualified votes.
Some Cases on Residence Suffrage:
Nolasco versus COMELEC
275 SCRA 763

FACTS:

Florentino P. Blanco and Eduado A. Alarilla both vied for the mayoral position of
Meycauayan, Bulacan during the election held 8 May 1995. Blanco garnered the
highest number of votes. Edgardo Nolasco was elected vice-mayor. On May 9, Alarilla
filed with the COMELEC a petition to disqualify Blanco on grounds that the latter
committed acts in violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, to wit: giving
money to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing election
functions; for committing acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; and for spending in
his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by the Election Code (P10
million against 97,000 registered voters). On 15 August, the COMELEC disqualified
Blanco on the ground of vote-buying and ordered the Board of Canvassers of
Meycauayan, Bulacan to reconvene and to determine the winner out of the remaining
qualified candidates who shall be immediately proclaimed. Blanco moved for
reconsideration while Nolasco, as vice mayor, intervened in the proceedings. Nolasco
urged that as vice-mayor he should be declared mayor in the event Blanco was finally
disqualified. Both motions were denied. Hence, the petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.

HELD:Yes.

The dispute at bar involves concerns on the right of suffrage which is the bedrock of
republicanism. Suffrage is the means by which people express their sovereign
judgment. As succinctly held in People v. San Juan, “each time the enfranchised citizen
goes to the polls to assert this sovereign will, that abiding credo of republicanism is
translated into living reality. If that will must remain undefiled at the starting level of its
expression and application, every assumption must be indulged in and every guarantee
adopted to assure the unmolested exercise of the citizen’s free choice. For to impede,
without authority valid in law, the free and orderly exercise o the right of suffrage, is to
inflict the ultimate indignity on the democratic process."

In a mayoralty election, the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes
cannot be proclaimed winner in the case the winning candidate is disqualified. In this
case Alarilla, cannot be proclaimed winner. To simplistically assume that the second
placer would have received the other votes would be to substitute judgment for the mind
of the voter. The second placer is just that, a second placer. He lost the elections. He
was repudiated by either a majority or plurality of voters. He could not be considered the
first among qualified candidates because in a field which excludes the disqualified
candidate, the conditions would have substantially changed.

Hence, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion insofar as it failed to follow
the above doctrine.

Angel Naval versus COMELEC

729 SCRA 299

FACTS:

Angel G. Naval was elected three (3) times as a member of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan representing the Second District in Camarines Sur. In the 2013 local
elections, he again filed his certificate of candidacy for membership to represent the
Third District of the province. Nelson B. Julia, a candidate for the same position
questioned Naval’s eligibility considering that he was running for a fourth (4th) term
which violates the inflexible three-term limit rule enshrined in the Constitution and the
Local Government Code. The COMELEC ruled that Naval was not eligible. The
territorial jurisdiction which he sought to serve for the 2013-2016 is the same as the
territorial jurisdiction he previously served. The electorate who voted for him in 2004,
2007, 2010, is the same electorate in the 2013 elections. Naval contended that the First,
Second and Third Legislative Districts of Camarines Sur were not merely renamed but
are composed of new sets of Municipalities. With the separation of Gainza and Milaor
from the towns that comprised the Second District, the voters from the Third Legislative
District are no longer the same ones as those who elected him in 2004 and 2007. He
further invoked Article 94 of Administrative Order No. 270 prescribing the Implementing
Rules & Regulations of the Local Government Code that Sanggunian Members are
elected by districts, hence, the right to choose representatives of the Sanggunian
pertains to each of the districts. He was elected in 2004 and 2007 by the Second
District. In 2010 & 2013, it was the Third District which brought him to office, hence, his
election in 2013 was only his second term as SB member of the Third District. Finally,
he argued that he garnered majority of the votes from his constituents whose will and
mandate should be upheld.

ISSUE:Whether or not the contention of Naval that the will and mandate of majority
voters should be upheld is correct.
HELD:

No, for the exercise of the right of suffrage is not absolute.

True, election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. In the exercise of
suffrage, a free people expects to achieve the continuity of government and the
perpetuation of its benefits. However, in spite of its importance, the privileges and rights
arising from having been elected may be enlarged or restricted by law.

Hence, while it is settled that in elections, the first consideration of every democratic
policy is to give effect to the expressed will of the majority, there are limitations to being
elected to a public office. The constitution and statutes are explicit anent the existence
of term limits, the nature of public office, and the guarantee from the State that citizens
shall have equal access to public service. Section 8, Article X of our Constitution, on
term limits, is significantly reiterated by Section 43(b) of the LGC. Moreover, the Court
has time and again declared that a public office is a public trust and not a vested
property right.

Kabataan Party List versus COMELEC

777 SCRA 574

FACTS:

RA 10367 mandates the COMELEC to implement a mandatory biometrics registration

system for new voters in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent, and updated
list of voters through the adoption of biometric technology. The said provision
likewise directs that “registered voters whose biometrics have not been captured shall
submit themselves for validation.” “Voters who fail to submit for validation on or before
the last day of filing of application for registration for purposes of the May 2016 elections
shall be deactivated. COMELEC issued then a Resolution No. 9721 as amended by
Resolutions No. 9863 and 10013. Among others, the said Resolution provides that: “the
registration records of voters without biometrics data who failed to submit for validation
on or before the last day of filing of applications for registration for the purpose of
the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections shall be deactivated. Kabataan Party List
filed the instant petition with application for temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (WPI) assailing the constitutionality of the
biometrics validation requirement imposed under RA 10367, as well as COMELEC
Resolution Nos. 9721, 9863, and 10013, all related thereto.

ISSUE: Whether or not the statutory requirement of biometric validationabsolutely

curtails the exercise of the right of suffrage.

HELD:

No.

Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Constitution delineates the current parameters for the
exercise of suffrage: Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not
otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall
have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they
propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy,
property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

Biometrics validation is not a “qualification” to the exercise of the right of suffrage, but a
mere aspect of the registration procedure, of which the State has the right to reasonably
regulate. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage. It is not a
qualification for such right. The process of registration is a procedural limitation on the
right to vote. Thus, although one is deemed to be a “qualified elector,” he must
nonetheless still comply with the registration procedure in order to vote. Thus, unless it
is shown that a registration requirement rises to the level of a literacy, property or other
substantive requirement as contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution, that is,
one which propagates a socio-economic standard which is bereft of any rational basis to
a person’s ability to intelligently cast his vote and to further the public good, the same
cannot be struck down as unconstitutional, as in this case.

Bagumbayan-VNP, Gordon versus COMELEC

787scra 1

FACTS:

Bagumbayan-VNP, Inc. Is a non-stock corporation and operates through Bagumbayan

Volunteers for a new Philippines, a national political party duly registered with
COMELEC. Former Sen. Gordon in this case, is a registered voter and taxpayer
authored R. A. 9369, the law that amended R. A. 8436, otherwise known as the
Automated Election System Law. Petitioners allege that under this Act, there are
several safeguards or Minimum System Capabilities to ensure sanctity of the ballot and
that implementation of the VVPAT or the Voter Verification Paper Audit Trail security
feature as found in section 6(e) (f) and (n). Petitioners claimed that VVPAT consists of
physical paper records of voter ballots asvoters have cast them on an electronic voting
system and also seek to compel the COMELEC to have the vote- counting machine
issue receipts once a person has voted.

ISSUE:Whether or not the inclusion of VVPAT which is a mandatory requirement under

the automated election laws has been violated by the COMELEC.

HELD:

Yes.

Under section 28 of R. A. No. 9369, amendingsection 35 of R.A. No. 8436, anyone

interfering with and impeding the use of counting devices and the processing, storage,
generation and transmission of election results, data or information commits a felonious
act. However, the Court compelled with COMELEC to comply with the provisions of
section 6 (e), (f), and (n) of R. A. No. 8436, as amended that mandamus is proper to
enforce the public right and compel the performance of a public duty. Under the
Constitution, the Court has the original jurisdiction over petitions for mandamus not the
COMELEC because the functions of the COMELEC vested by law to enforce and
administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections in the country.

QUALIFICATIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS

Qualifications of Voters

Article V, Section 1 of the1987 Constitution provides as follows:

Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not

otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who
shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place
wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the
election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed
on the exercise of suffrage.

Suffrage, both as a right and duty, is given to those who possess the
following qualifications:

1. Philippine citizenship;

2. Age of eighteen years or over;

3. Residence in the Philippines for at least one year preceding the

election;

4. Residence in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six
months preceding the election; and

5. Freedom from any disqualification prescribed by law.

Citizenship Qualification

The Philippine constitutional provision is not just an assertion of the

citizen’s right to vote; it is primarily an exclusion of non-citizens from suffrage.
Aliens are denied participation in the government. Citizenship is made the essential
foundation of the right of suffrage.

Age Qualification

Section 100 of the 1971 Election Code provides as follows:

Sec. 100. Who may be Registered in the Permanent List. - All persons

possessing all the qualifications of a voter and none of the disqualifications shall
have the right and duty to be registered in the permanent list of voters of the city,
municipality or municipal district wherein they reside and be included in the
precinct book of voters of their corresponding precincts. Any person who may
not have on the date of the registration any of the qualifications required may
also be registered upon proof that on the date of the election he shall have such
qualification.
The right to vote begins on the citizen’s eighteenth birthday. The right to
register as a voter, however, exist even before one’s eighteenth birthday provided
one will be eighteen on the day of voting.

Residence Qualification

In Nuval vs. Guray,1 the meaning of the word “residence” was established as
“permanent residence or domicile.”

In Gallego vs. Verra,2 the term “residence” as used in the election law is
synonymous with “domicile” which imports not only intention to reside in a fixed
place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of
such intention. In order to acquire domicile by choice, the following requisites
must concur:

1. Residence or bodily presence in the new locality;

2. An intention to remain there; and

3. An intention to abandon the old domicile.

There must be an animus non revertendi and an animus manendi. The

purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period
of time. The acts of the person must conform with his purpose. The change of
residence must be voluntary; the residence at the place chosen for the domicile
must be actual; and to the fact of residence there must be added animus manendi.

In Faypon vs. Quirino,3 it was ruled that the registration of a voter in the
place other than his residence of origin has not been deemed sufficient to constitute
abandonment or loss of such residence. There is a strong presumption that one’s
domicile of origin remains his voting domicile until clearly abandoned for another.

1
52 Phil. 645 (1928)
2
73 Phil. 453 (1941)
3
96 Phil. 294 (1954)
The manifest intent of the law in imposing a residence qualification is “to
exclude a stranger and a newcomer, unacquainted with the conditions and needs of
the community and not identified with the latter.” The reasons underlying the
residence as a qualification for candidacy and that as a qualification for voting are
the same, namely the need for familiarity with the contemporary conditions and
needs of the locality.

The residence qualification for purposes of suffrage has two sets of meaning,
to wit:

“shall have resided in the Philippines residence means domicile

for at least one year,”
“shall have resided in… the place residence means either domicile or
wherein they propose to vote for at temporary residence of at least six
least six months,” months

Some Cases on Residence Qualification:

Sabili vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 193261, April 24, 2012

Facts:

When petitioner filed his COC for mayor of Lipa City for the 2010 elections, he
stated therein that he had been a resident of the city for two (2) years and eight (8)
months. Prior to the 2010 elections, he had been twice elected (in 1995 and in 1998)
as Provincial Board Member representing the 4th District of Batangas. During the
2007 elections, petitioner ran for the position of Representative of the 4th District of
Batangas, but lost. The 4th District of Batangas includes Lipa City. However, it is
undisputed that when petitioner filed his COC during the 2007 elections, he and his
family were then staying at his ancestral home in Barangay (Brgy.) Sico, San Juan,
Batangas.

Private respondent Florencio Librea (private respondent) filed a "Petition to

Deny Due Course and to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and to Disqualify a
Candidate for Possessing Some Grounds for Disqualification" against him before the
COMELEC. Citing Section 78 in relation to Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code,
private respondent alleged that petitioner made material misrepresentations of fact in
the latter’s COC and likewise failed to comply with the one-year residency
requirement under Section 39 of the Local Government Code. Allegedly, petitioner
falsely declared under oath in his COC that he had already been a resident of Lipa
City for two years and eight months prior to the scheduled 10 May 2010 local
elections.

Private respondent’s evidence were as follows: (1) Certificates regarding

ownership of real property; (2) petitioner’s Voter Registration and Certification; (3)
petitioner’s COCs in previous elections; (3) Certifications regarding petitioner’s family
members; and (4) Affidavits of Lipa City residents.

Petitioner’s evidence were as follows: (1) his Income Tax Returns and
corresponding Official Receipts for the years 2007 and 2008; (2) Certification from the
barangay captain of Pinagtong-ulan; (3) Affidavit of his common-law wife, Bernadette
Palomares; and (4) Affidavits from a previous property owner, neighbors, Certificate
of Appreciation from the barangay parish and Memorandum from the local chapter of
Guardians Brotherhood, Inc.

Issue:

Whether or not Sabili had complied with the one-year residency requirement
for local elective officials

Held:

Yes, Sabili had complied with the one-year residency requirement for local
elective officials.

Sabili’s actual physical presence in Lipa City is established not only by the
presence of a place (Pinagtong-ulan house and lot) he can actually live in, but also
the affidavits of various persons in Pinagtong-ulan, and the Certification of its
barangay captain. Petitioner’s substantial and real interest in establishing his domicile
of choice in Lipa City is also sufficiently shown not only by the acquisition of additional
property in the area and the transfer of his voter registration, but also his participation
in the community’s socio-civic and religious life, as well as his declaration in his ITR
that he is a resident thereof.
The Court reiterated its ruling in Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections97 that "to
successfully challenge a winning candidate's qualifications, the petitioner must clearly
demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to constitutional and legal
principles that overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent will
of the people, would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very democratic
institutions and juristic traditions that our Constitution and laws so zealously protect
and promote.

Jalosjos v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 193237, October 9, 2012

Facts:

Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City on October 26, 1973. He migrated
to Australia in 1981 when he was eight years old and there acquired Australian
citizenship.

On November 22, 2008, at age 35, he decided to return to the Philippines and
lived with his brother in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. Four days upon his return, he took
an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, hence, he was issued a
Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration.
On September 1, 2009 he renounced his Australian citizenship, executing a sworn
renunciation of the same in compliance with Republic Act No. 9225.

From the time of his return, Jalosjos acquired a residential property in the
same village where he lived. He applied for registration as a voter in the Municipality
of Ipil but respondent Erasmo, the Barangay Captain, opposed the said act.

The Election Registration Board approved it and included Jalosjos’ name in the
COMELEC voters’ list. Erasmo filed before the MTC a petition for the exclusion of
Jalosjos’ name from the official voters’ list. MTC denied Erasmo’s petition. He
appealed to RTC but RTC affirmed MTC’s decision.

On November 28, 2009 Jalosjos filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for
Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay Province for the May 10, 2010 elections.

Erasmo filed a petition to deny due course or to cancel Jalosjos’ COC on the
ground that Jalosjos made material misrepresentation in the same since he failed to
comply with (1) the requirements of R.A. 9225 and (2) the one-year residency
requirement of the Local Government Code. COMELEC ruled against Jalosjos
because, according to it, he failed to comply with the 1-year residency requirement.
Jalosjos won the elections.

Issue:

Whether or not Jalosjos failed to comply with the 1-year residency requirement

Held:

No, Jalosjos did not fail to comply with the 1-year residency requirement.

Quezon City was Jalosjos’ domicile of origin, the place of his birth. His domicile
was changed from Quezon City to Australia when he migrated there at the age of
eight, acquired Australian citizenship, and lived in that country for 26 years. Australia
became his domicile by operation of law and by choice.

But, when he came to the Philippines in November 2008 to live with his brother
in Zamboanga Sibugay, it is evident that Jalosjos did so with intent to change his
domicile for good. He left Australia, gave up his Australian citizenship, and renounced
his allegiance to that country. In addition, he reacquired his old citizenship by taking
an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in his being issued a
Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration.

By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited his legal right to live in Australia, clearly proving
that he gave up his domicile there. And he has since lived nowhere else except in Ipil,
Zamboanga Sibugay.

Mitra vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 191938, October 19, 2010

Facts:

When his COC for the position of Governor of Palawan was declared
cancelled, Mitra was the incumbent Representative of the Second District of Palawan.
This district then included, among other territories,
the Municipality of Aborlan and Puerto Princesa City. He was elected Representative
as a domiciliary of Puerto Princesa City, and represented the legislative district for
three (3) terms immediately before the elections of 2010.

On March 26, 2007 (or before the end of Mitra’s second term as
Representative), Puerto Princesa City was reclassified as a "highly urbanized city"
and thus ceased to be a component city of the Province of Palawan. The direct legal
consequence of this new status was the ineligibility of Puerto Princesa City residents
from voting for candidates for elective provincial officials.

On March 20, 2009, with the intention of running for the position of Governor,
Mitra applied for the transfer of his Voter’s Registration Record from Precinct No.
03720 of Brgy. Sta.
Monica, Puerto Princesa City,toSitioMaligaya,Brgy.IsaubMunicipaliy of Aborlan,
Province of Palawan. He subsequently filed his COC for the position of Governor of
Palawan as a resident of Aborlan.
Soon thereafter, respondents Antonio V. Gonzales and Orlando R. Balbon, Jr.
(the respondents) filed a petition to deny due course or to cancel Mitra’s COC.

Issue:

Whether or not Mitra is qualified to run as Governor of Palawan.

Held:

Yes, Mitra is qualified to run as Governor of Palawan. The Supreme Court

ruled that Mitra did not misrepresent himself and that he met the residency
requirement as mandated by the law. 

The election of Abraham Kahlil Mitra as governor of Palawan in the May 10,
2010 elections was upheld in a vote of 11-3. The respondents were not able to
present a convincing case sufficient to overcome Mitra’s evidence of effective transfer
to and residence in Aborlan and the validity of his representation on this point in his
COC. Likewise, the "COMELEC could not present any legally acceptable basis to
conclude that Mitra’s statement in his COC regarding his residence was a
misrepresentation."

Asistio vs. Aguirre

G.R. No. 191124, April 27, 2010

Facts: 
On January 26, 2010, private respondent Enrico R. Echiverri (Echiverri) filed
against petitioner Luis A. Asistio (Asistio) a Petition for Exclusion of Voter from the
Permanent List of Voters of Caloocan City (Petition for Exclusion) before the MeTC,
Branch 52,Caloocan City presided over by public respondent Judge Arthur O.
Malabaguio. Echiverri alleged that Asistio is not a resident of Caloocan City,
specifically not of123 Interior P. Zamora St.,Barangay 15,Caloocan City, the address
stated in his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Mayor in the 2010 Automated
National and Local Elections. Echiverri, also a candidate for Mayor of Caloocan City,
was the respondent in a Petition to Deny Due Course and/or Cancellation of the
Certificate of Candidacy filed by Asistio. According to Echiverri, when he was about to
furnish Asistio a copy of his Answer to the latters petition, he found out that Asistios
address is non-existent. To support this, Echiverri attached to his petition a
Certification issued by the Tanggapan ng Punong Barangay of Barangay 15 Central,
Zone 2, District II of Caloocan City. He mentioned that, upon verification of the 2009
Computerized Voters List (CVL) for Barangay 15, Asistios name appeared under
voter number 8, with address at 109 LibisGochuico,Barangay 15,Caloocan City.
Judge Malabaguio rendered a decision removing the name of Asistio from
thelistofpermanentvotersofCaloocanCity.

Meanwhile, Echiverri filed with the COMELEC a Petition for

Disqualification,which was docketed as SPA No. 10-013 (DC). The Petition was
anchored on the grounds that Asistio is not a resident that he had been previously
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Asistio, in his Answer with Special and
Affirmative Defenses (Com Memorandum),raised the same arguments with respect to
his residency and also argued that the President of the
Philippinesgrantedhimanabsolutepardon.

Issue: 

Should Asistios name be removed from the permanent list of voters in Precinct
1811A of Caloocan City?

Held: 

The right to vote is a most precious political right, as well as a bounden duty of
every citizen, enabling and requiring him to participate in the process of government
to ensure that it can truly be said to derive its power solely from the consent of its
constituents. Time and again, it has been said that every Filipinos right to vote shall
be respected, upheld, and given full effect. A citizen cannot be disenfranchised for the
flimsiest of reasons. Only on the most serious grounds, and upon clear and
convincing proof, may a citizen be deemed to have forfeited this precious heritage of
freedom. In this case, even if the appellate docket fees were not filed on time, this
incident alone should not thwart the proper determination and resolution of the instant
case on substantial grounds. Blind adherence to a technicality, with the inevitable
result of frustrating and nullifying the constitutionally guaranteed right of suffrage,
cannot be countenanced.

The residency requirement of a voter is at least one (1) year residence in the
Philippines and at least six (6) months in the place where the person proposes or
intends to vote. Residence, as used in the law prescribing the qualifications for
suffrage and for elective office, is doctrinally settled to mean domicile, importing not
only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place,
coupled with conduct indicative of such intention inferable from a person’s acts,
activities, and utterances. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence where,
when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. In the
consideration of circumstances obtaining in each particular case, three rules must be
borne in mind, namely: (1) that a person must have a residence or domicile
somewhere; (2) once established, it remains until a new one is acquired; and (3) that
a person can have but one residence or domicile at a time.

Domicile is not easily lost. To successfully effect a transfer thereof, one must
demonstrate: (1) an actual removal or change of domicile; (2) a bona fide intention of
abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one; and (3) acts
which correspond with that purpose. There must be animus manendi coupled with
animo non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be
for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the
residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.

Asistio has always been a resident of Caloocan City since his birth or for more
than 72 years. His family is known to be among the prominent political families in
Caloocan City. In fact, Asistio served in public office as Caloocan City Second District
representative in the House of Representatives, having been elected as such in the
1992, 1995, 1998, and 2004 elections. In 2007, he also sought election as City
Mayor. In all of these occasions, Asistio cast his vote in the same city. Taking these
circumstances into consideration, gauged in the light of the doctrines above
enunciated, it cannot be denied that Asistio has qualified, and continues to qualify, as
a voter of Caloocan City. There is no showing that he has established domicile
elsewhere, or that he had consciously and voluntarily abandoned his residence in
Caloocan City. He should, therefore, remain in the list of permanent registered voters
of Precinct No. 1811A,Barangay 15,Caloocan City.
That Asistio allegedly indicated in his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor, both
for the 2007 and 2010 elections, a non-existent or false address, or that he could not
be physically found in the address he indicated when he registered as a voter, should
not operate to exclude him as a voter of Caloocan City. These purported
misrepresentations in Asistio’s COC, if true, might serve as basis for an election
offense under the Omnibus Election Code (OEC),or an action to deny due course to
the COC.But they do not serve as proof that Asistio has abandoned his domicile in
Caloocan City, or that he has established residence outside of Caloocan City. 

Prohibited Qualifications: Literacy Test, Property and Other Substantive

Requirements

A constitutional enumeration of the classes of citizens who shall enjoy

suffrage is final and exclusive of all other classes. Congress can neither add to nor
subtract from the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution.

The prohibition against literacy test is in keeping with the objective of

encouraging popular participation and equalizing the privileges and rights of the
people.4

In Maquera vs. Borra,5 it was held that under republicanism and social
justice, any property qualification for the exercise of civil and political rights
would be unconstitutional.

By express provision of the Constitution, the legislature is now forever

banned from imposing any substantive qualification similar in nature to literacy or
ownership of property.

In Yra vs. Abano,6 it was held that what is prohibited by the Constitution is
the imposition of additional substantive requirements. These are to be
distinguished from procedural requirements in the nature of implementing
regulations designed to ensure the purity of the electoral process. Thus, while it has
always been recognized that registration of voters may be imposed as a
precondition for the exercise of suffrage, one who possesses the qualifications and
4
Explanatory Note of Resolution No. 3 of the Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms
5
15 SCRA 7 (1965)
6
52 Phil. 380 (1928)
none of the disqualifications provided by law is considered a qualified voter even if
he is not registered. Registration is merely a process whereby qualifications are
verified.

In Ceniza vs. COMELEC,7 the exclusion from suffrage of the residents of

highly urbanized cities, which were constitutionally qualified as distinct from
component cities and were outside the jurisdiction of the government of the
provinces, was held valid.

Registration Requirement

Although suffrage is a right protected by the fundamental law, it has always

been recognized that certain procedural requirements must be complied with
before the right can be exercised. Among these is the legal obligation to register
pursuant to Republic Act No. 8189 (Voter’s Registration Act of 1996).

Disqualifications of Voters

The Constitution says that suffrage may be exercised by citizens “not

otherwise disqualified by law.” While the enumeration of the qualifications is
made exclusive by the Constitution itself, the legislature is at the same time given
the power to prescribe disqualifications. The disqualifications should not be in the
form of qualifications.

Disqualifications must be understood as grounds for the forfeiture of the

right of suffrage. Suffrage, like any other civil or political right, or even like
citizenship itself, may be lost.

Section 75 of the 1978 Election Code, P.D. 1296, and subsequently B.P. 881
read as follows:

The following shall be disqualified from voting:

7
95 SCRA 763 (January 28, 1980)
a. Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer
imprisonment of not less than one year, such disability not
having been removed by plenary pardon: Provided, however,
That any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall
automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of
five years after service of sentence;

b. Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by

competent court or tribunal of having committed any crime
involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government, such as
rebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and firearms
laws, or any crime against national security, unless restored to
his full civil and political rights in accordance with law:
Provided, That he shall regain his right to vote automatically
upon expiration of five years after service of sentence.

c. Insane or incompetent persons as declared by competent

authority.

The rationale for the disqualification of the insane or feeble-minded is that

the act of voting is an act of choice, an intelligent act. Hence, it must be exercised
only by those who are capable of an intelligent act.

The rationale for disqualification on grounds of conviction for a crime was

explained in People vs. Corral8 as follows:

The manifest purpose of such restrictions is to preserve the purity of

elections. The presumption is that one rendered infamous by conviction of
felony, or other base offense indicative of moral turpitude, is unfit to exercise the
privilege of suffrage or to hold office. The exclusion must for this reason be
adjudged a mere disqualification, imposed for protection and not for
punishment, the withholding of a privilege and not a denial of a personal right.”

B. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for
registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality
wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon
approval by the Election Registration Board.

8
Who may Register?

- All citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law who are at least
eighteen (18) years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least
one (1) year, and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six (6) months
immediately preceding the election, may register as a voter.

Any person who temporarily resides in another city, municipality or country solely by
reason of his occupation, profession, employment in private or public service,
educational activities, work in the military or naval reservations within the Philippines,
service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the National Police Forces, or
confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law, shall not be
deemed to have lost his original residence.

Any person, who, on the day of registration may not have reached the required age or
period of residence but, who, on the day of the election shall possess such
qualifications, may register as a voter.

How to Register?

- A qualified voter shall be registered in the permanent list of voters in a precinct of the
city or municipality wherein he resides to be able to vote in any election. To register as a
voter, he shall personally accomplish an application form for registration as prescribed
by the Commission in three (3) copies before the Election Officer on any date during
office hours after having acquired the qualifications of a voter.

The application shall contain the following data:

a. Name, surname, middle name, and/or maternal surname;

b. Sex;

c. Date, and place of birth;

d. Citizenship;

e. Civil status, if married, name of spouse;

f. Profession, occupation or work

g. Periods of residence in the Philippines and in the place of registration;

h. Exact address with the name of the street and house number for location in the
precinct maps maintained by the local office of the Commission, or in case there
is none, a brief description of his residence, sitio, and barangay;

i. A statement that the applicant possesses all the qualifications of a voter;

j. A statement that the applicant is not a registered voter of any precinct; and

k. Such information or data as may be required by the Commission.

The application for registration shall contain three (3) specimen signatures of the
applicant, clear and legible rolled prints of his left and right thumbprints, with four (4)
identification size copies of his latest photograph, attached thereto, to be taken at the
expense of the Commission.

Before the applicant accomplishes his application for registration, the Election Officer
shall inform him of the qualifications and disqualifications prescribed by law for a voter,
and thereafter, see to it that the accomplished application contains all the data therein
required and that the applicant's specimen signatures, fingerprints, and photographs are
properly affixed in all copies of the voter's application.

The following shall be disqualified from registering:

a. Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment of
not less than one (1) year, such disability not having been removed by plenary
pardon or amnesty: Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote
under this paragraph shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon
expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence;

b. Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by a competent court or
tribunal of having committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted
government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the firearms laws or any
crime against national security, unless restored to his full civil and political rights
in accordance with law: Provided, That he shall automatically reacquire the right
to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; and

c. Insane or incompetent persons declared as such by competent authority unless

subsequently declared by proper authority that such person is no longer insane
or incompetent.
Some related cases:

BAGUMBAYAN - VNP MOVEMENT VS. COMELEC

G. R. No. 222731, March 08, 2016/ 787 SCRA 1

Facts : Bagumbayan-VNP, Inc. Is a non-stock corporation and operates through

Bagumbayan Vol unteers for a new Philippi nes, a national political party duly registered
with COMELEC. For mer Sen. Gordon in this case, is a registered voter and taxpayer
authored R. A. 9369, the law that amended R. A. 8436, other wi se known as the
Automated El ection System Law. Petitioners allege that under this Act, there are
several safeguards or Mi ni mum System Capabilities to ensure sanctity of the
ballot,and that i mpl ementation of the VVPAT or the Voter Verification Paper Audit Trail
security feature as found in section 6(e) (f) and (n). Petitioners clai med that VVPAT
consists of physical paper records of voter ballots as voters have cast them on an el
ectronic voting system and also seek to compel the COMELEC to have the vote-
counting machi ne issue recei pts once a person has voted.
Issue: Whet her or not the incl usi on of VVPAT which is a mandatory requirement
under the automated el ection laws has been vi ol ated by the COMELEC.
Ruling: Yes. Under section 28 of R. A. No. 9369, amendi ng section 35 of R.A. No.
8436, anyone interfering with and i mpedi ng the use of counting devices and the
processi ng, storage, generation and transmission of el ection results, data or infor
mation commits a fel oni ous act. However, the Court compelled with COMELEC to
compl y with the provisions of section 6 (e), (f), and (n )of R. A. No. 8436, as amended
that mandamus is proper to enforce the public right and compel the perfor mance of a
public duty. Under the Constitution, the Court has the original jurisdiction over petitions
for mandamus not the COMELEC because the functions of the COMELEC vested by
law to enforce and admi nister all laws rel ative to the conduct of elections in the
country.

AKBAYAN-YOUTH vs. COMELEC

March 26, 2001
Facts: Senator Raul Roco, Chairman of the Committee on Electoral Reforms, Suffrage,
and People's Participation,invited the COMELEC to a public hearing for the purpose of
discussing the extension of the registration of voters to accommodate those who were
not able to register before the COMELEC deadline.Immediately after the hearing,
Commissioner Borra called a consultation meeting among regional heads and
representatives that resulted to the denial of the request.

Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners AKBAYAN-Youth filed before the Court the instant
Petition which seeks to set aside and nullify respondent COMELEC's Resolution.
Likewise, petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent
COMELEC to conduct a special registration of new voters and to admit for registration
petitioners and other similarly situated young Filipinos to qualify them to vote in the May
14, 2001 General Elections.

Issues:

1. Whether or not respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in

issuing COMELEC Resolution dated February 8, 2001.
2. Whether or not the Court can compel respondent COMELEC to conduct a
special registration of new voters during the period between the COMELEC's
imposed December 27, 2000 deadline and the May 14, 2001 general elections.

Ruling:

1.No. The act of registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage. For
registration is part and parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable element in the
election process. Section 8 of R.A. 8189, provides that no registration shall be
conducted 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election.  In
the light of the foregoing the assailed resolution must be upheld. The so-called “stand-
by powers” or “residual” powers of the Comelec, as raised by the petitioners is provided
under the relevant provisions of Section 29 of R.A. No. 6646 and adopted verbatim in
Section 28 of R.A. No. 8436, wherein the commission shall fix other periods and dates
for the accomplishment of pre-election acts if it is no longer possible to observe the
dates and periods prescribed by law, cannot be applied in this case. The Supreme
Court held that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 applies for the purpose of upholding the
resolution. Section 28 of R.A. 8436, presupposes the possibility of its being exercised or
availed of and not otherwise. In the case at bar the Comelec stated the “operational
impossibility” of holding the additional two-day registration, and therefore Section 8 of
R.A. 8436 may not apply. Comelec acted within the confines of the applicable law in
denying the petitioners’ request.

2.No.The Supreme Court cannot control the exercise of discretion of a public officer
where the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any
manner in which he is required to act, because it is his judgment that is to be exercised
and not that of the court. The remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an officer to
perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one.

C. RULES GOVERNING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF

INCLUSION, EXCLUSION AND CORRECTION OF NAMES OF VOTERS

a) Petition for inclusion, exclusion or correction of names of voters shall be filed

during office hours;
b) Notice of the place, date and time of the hearing of the petition shall be served
upon the members of the Board and the challenged voter upon filing of the
petition. Service of such notice may be made by sending a copy thereof by
personal delivery, by leaving it in the possession of a person of sufficient
discretion in the residence of the challenged voter, or by registered mail. Should
the foregoing procedures not be practicable, the notice shall be posted in the
bulletin board of the city or municipal hall and in two (2) other conspicuous places
within the city or municipality;
c) A petition shall refer only to one (1) precinct and implead the Board as
respondents;
d) No costs shall be assessed against any party in these proceedings. However, if
the court should find that the application has been filed solely to harass the
adverse party and cause him to incur expenses, it shall order the culpable party
to pay the costs and incidental expenses;
e) Any voter, candidate or political party who may be affected by the proceedings
may intervene and present his evidence;
f) The decision shall be based on the evidence presented and in no case rendered
upon a stipulation of facts. If the question is whether or not the voter is real or
fictitious, his non-appearance on the day set for hearing shall be prima facie
evidence that the challenged voter is fictitious; and
g) The petition shall be heard and decided within ten (10) days from the date of its
filing. Cases appealed to the Regional Trial Court shall be decided within ten (10)
days from receipt of the appeal. In all cases, the court shall decide these
petitions not later than fifteen (15) days before the election and the decision shall
become final and executory.

Who has the Jurisdiction over Inclusion and Exclusion cases?

The Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters in their respective cities or
municipalities. Decisions of the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts may be appealed
by the aggrieved party to the Regional Trial Court within five (5) days from receipt of
notice thereof. Otherwise, said decision shall become final and executory. The regional
trial court shall decide the appeal within ten (10) days from the time it is received and
the decision shall immediately become final and executory. No motion for
reconsideration shall be entertained.

Petition for Inclusion of Voters in the List. 

- Any person whose application for registration has been disapproved by the Board or
whose name has been stricken out from the list may file with the court a petition to
include his name in the permanent list of voters in his precinct at any time except one
hundred five (105) days prior to a regular election or seventy-five (75) days prior to a
special election. It shall be supported by a certificate of disapproval of his application
and proof of service of notice of his petition upon the Board. The petition shall be
decided within fifteen (15) days after its filing.
If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the permanent list of voters, the Board
shall place the application for registration previously disapproved in the corresponding
book of voters and indicate in the application for registration the date of the order of
inclusion and the court which issued the same.

Petition for Exclusion of Voters from the List. 

- Any registered voters, representative of a political party or the Election Officer, may file
with the court a sworn petition for the exclusion of a voter from the permanent list of
voters giving the name, address and the precinct of the challenged voter at any time
except one hundred (100) days prior to a regular election or sixty-five (65) days before a
special election. The petition shall be accompanied by proof of notice to the Board and
to the challenged voter and shall be decided within ten (10) days from its filing.
If the decision is for the exclusion of the voter from the list, the Board shall, upon receipt
of the final decision, remove the voter's registration record from the corresponding book
of voters, enter the order of exclusion therein, and thereafter place the record in the
inactive file.

Some related cases:

PANLAQUI VS. COMELEC

G.R. No. 18867 February 24, 2010

Facts: PANLAQUI and VELASCO were candidates for mayor in Sasmuan, Pampanga.
Velasco was born in Sasmuan on June 22, 1952 to Filipino parents. He married Evelyn
Castillo on June 29, 1975. In 1983, he moved to the United States where he
subsequently became a citizen. Upon Velasco’s application for dual citizenship under
Republic Act No. 9225 was approved on July 31, 2006, he took on even date his oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and returned to the Philippines on
September 14, 2006. He thus filed a petition for the inclusion of his name in the list of
voters before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sasmuan which, by Decision of
February 9, 2007, reversed the ERB’s decision and ordered his inclusion in the list of
voters of Sasmuan. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guagua, Pampanga,
by Decision of March 1, 2007, reversed the MTC Decision and dismissed the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.
In the meantime, Velasco filed on March 28, 2007 his Certificate of Candidacy (COC)
for mayor of Sasmuan, therein claiming his status as a registered voter. In the electoral
bout of May 2007, Velasco won over Panlaqui as mayor of Sasmuan. Panlaqui asserts
that the RTC March 1, 2007 Decision in the voter’s inclusion proceedings must be
considered as the final judgment of disqualification against Velasco, which decision was
issued more than two months prior to the elections. Panlaqui posits that when Velasco’s
petition for inclusion was denied, he was also declared as disqualified to run for public
office.
Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion when it denied
Panlaqui’s motion for proclamation?

Ruling: NO. In terms of purpose, voters’ inclusion/exclusion and COC

denial/cancellation are different proceedings; one refers to the application to be
registered as a voter to be eligible to vote, while the other refers to the application to be
a candidate. COC denial/cancellation proceedings involve the issue of whether there is
a false representation of a material fact. The false representation must necessarily
pertain not to a mere innocuous mistake but to a material fact or those that refer to a
candidate’s qualifications for elective office. Apart from the requirement of materiality,
the false representation must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or
hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible or, otherwise stated,
with the intention to deceive the electorate as to the would-be candidate’s qualifications
for public office. It is not within the province of the RTC in a voter’s inclusion/exclusion
proceedings to take cognizance of and determine the presence of a false representation
of a material fact. It has no jurisdiction to try the issues of whether the misrepresentation
relates to material fact and whether there was an intention to deceive the electorate in
terms of one’s qualifications for public office. The COMELEC correctly observed that
when the RTC issued its March 1, 2007 Decision, there was yet no COC to cancel
because Velasco’s COC was filed only on March 28, 2007. Indeed, not only would it be
in excess of jurisdiction but also beyond the realm of possibility for the RTC to rule that
there was deliberate concealment on the part of Velasco when he stated under oath in
his COC that he is a registered voter of Sasmuan despite his knowledge of the RTC
decision which was yet forthcoming.

CANICOSA VS. COMELEC

G.R. No. 120318 December 5, 1997

Facts: RICARDO CANICOSA and SEVERINO LAJARA were candidates for mayor in
Calamba, Laguna. Lajara was proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of
Canvassers. On 15 May 1995 Canicosa filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Declare
Failure of Election and to Declare Null and Void the Canvass and Proclamation because
of alleged widespread frauds and anomalies in casting and counting of votes,
preparation of election returns, violence, threats, intimidation, vote buying, unregistered
voters voting, and delay in the delivery of election documents and paraphernalia from
the precincts to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer. Canicosa particularly averred that:
(a) the names of the registered voters did not appear in the list of voters in their
precincts; (b) more than one-half of the legitimate registered voters were not able to
vote with strangers voting in their stead; (c) he was credited with less votes than he
actually received; (d) control data of the election returns was not filed up in some
precincts; (e) ballot boxes brought to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer were
unsecured, i.e., without padlocks nor self-locking metal seals; and, (f) there was delay in
the delivery of election returns. But the COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition on
the ground that the allegations therein did not justify a declaration of failure of election.

Issue: Whether or not the inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters is within the
power and authority of COMELEC to rule upon?

Ruling: NO. Canicosa could have filed a petition for inclusion of registered voters with
the regular courts. The question of inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters involves
the right to vote which is not within the power and authority of COMELEC to rule upon.
Section 138, Art. XII, of the Omnibus Election Code states, “The municipal and
metropolitan trial courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters of
inclusion and exclusion of voters from the list in their respective municipalities or cities.
Decisions of the municipal or metropolitan trial courts may be appealed directly by the
aggrieved party to the proper regional trial court within five days from receipts of notice
thereof, otherwise said decision of the municipal or metropolitan trial court shall decide
the appeal within ten days from the time the appeal was received and its decision shall
be immediately final and executory.” On the other hand, Canicosa could have also filed
with the COMELEC a verified complaint seeking the annulment of the book of voters
pursuant to Sec. 10 of R.A. No. 7166. Since Canicosa failed to resort to any of the
above options, the permanent list of voters as finally corrected before the election
remains conclusive on the question as to who had the right to vote in that election.
Finding no grave abuse of discretion committed by public respondent Commission on
Elections, the petition is DISMISSED.

Domingo vs. COMELEC

310 SCRA 546 (1999)
FACTS:
In May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Ernesto Domingo, Jr. and private respondent
Benjamin Abalos, Jr. were both mayoralty candidates of Mandaluyong City. After private
respondent's proclamation, petitioner filed the instant petition for disqualification, on the
ground that, during the campaign period, private respondent "prodded" his father, then
incumbent Mandaluyong City Mayor Benjamin Abalos, Sr., to give the "substantial
allowances" to public school teachers appointed as chairpersons and members of the
Boards of Election Inspector (BEIs) for Mandaluyong City as to influence them into
voting for him and ensuring his victory.Some evidences were submitted including
videotape ofMayorAbalos, Sr.'s speech in the aforesaid "Pasyal-Aral" outing of teachers
sponsored by Abalos, as well as affidavits of three public school teachers who
participated in the said activity.Petitioner alleges that private respondent's act of
"prodding" his father constitutes a violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Petitioner assails the Resolution of public respondent COMELEC for being violative of
his right to due process, and thus, issued with grave abuse of discretion. It is petitioner's
argument that the dismissal of his petition for disqualification on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence was unfounded.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC was proper in dismissing the petition of the petitioner?

RULING:
Yes. On the issue of due process, the court finds no violation when COMELEC decided
to dismiss the petition for disqualification without hearing. Well-established is the rule
that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. The filing by
petitioner of a motion for reconsideration accorded him ample opportunity to dispute the
findings of the COMELEC First Division, so that he was as fully heard as he might have
been had oral arguments actually taken place. Deprivation of due process cannot be
successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard in his motion for
reconsideration.

Also, petitioner re-asserts the sufficiency of his evidence to prove that private
respondent influenced the Mandaluyong City public school teachers, through his father,
Abalos, Sr., in the performance of their functions as members of the BEIs. Petitioner's
evidence fails to persuade andwas seriously insufficient and vague to prove violation of
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. The burden of proving that private
respondent indirectly influenced the public school teachers of Mandaluyong City,
through his father, Abalos, Sr., was a burden that petitioner failed to meet.

The court finds no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC's finding that Abalos,
Sr.'s controversial statement, effectively reduced to this. In fine, the court finds no grave
abuse of discretion in the COMELEC's decision to dismiss the petition for
disqualification. The conclusion that petitioner's evidence is insufficient to support the
charge of violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code was arrived at only after
a careful scrutiny of the evidence at hand, especially of the videotapes of
petitioner.Clearly, there is no proof of grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, fraud or
error of law in the questioned resolutions.

Case Digest by: RHEZA A. GOMEZ

AKBAYAN-YOUTH vs. COMELEC

March 26, 2001
FACTS:

Senator Raul Roco, Chairman of the Committee on Electoral Reforms, Suffrage, and
People's Participation,invited the COMELEC to a public hearing for the purpose of
discussing the extension of the registration of voters to accommodate those who were
not able to register before the COMELEC deadline.Immediately after the hearing,
Commissioner Borra called a consultation meeting among regional heads and
representatives that resulted to the denial of the request.

Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners AKBAYAN-Youth filed before the Court the instant
Petition which seeks to set aside and nullify respondent COMELEC's Resolution.
Likewise, petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent
COMELEC to conduct a special registration of new voters and to admit for registration
petitioners and other similarly situated young Filipinos to qualify them to vote in the May
14, 2001 General Elections.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in

issuing COMELEC Resolution dated February 8, 2001.
2. Whether or not the Court can compel respondent COMELEC to conduct a
special registration of new voters during the period between the COMELEC's
imposed December 27, 2000 deadline and the May 14, 2001 general elections.

RULING:

1.No. The act of registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage. For
registration is part and parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable element in the
election process. Section 8 of R.A. 8189, provides that no registration shall be
conducted 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election.  In
the light of the foregoing the assailed resolution must be upheld. The so-called “stand-
by powers” or “residual” powers of the Comelec, as raised by the petitioners is provided
under the relevant provisions of Section 29 of R.A. No. 6646 and adopted verbatim in
Section 28 of R.A. No. 8436, wherein the commission shall fix other periods and dates
for the accomplishment of pre-election acts if it is no longer possible to observe the
dates and periods prescribed by law, cannot be applied in this case. The Supreme
Court held that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 applies for the purpose of upholding the
resolution. Section 28 of R.A. 8436, presupposes the possibility of its being exercised or
availed of and not otherwise. In the case at bar the Comelec stated the “operational
impossibility” of holding the additional two-day registration, and therefore Section 8 of
R.A. 8436 may not apply. Comelec acted within the confines of the applicable law in
denying the petitioners’ request.

2.No.The Supreme Court cannot control the exercise of discretion of a public officer
where the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any
manner in which he is required to act, because it is his judgment that is to be exercised
and not that of the court. The remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an officer to
perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one.
Case Digest by: RHEZA A. GOMEZ

D. LOCAL AND OVERSEAS ABSENTEE VOTING

Definitions

Local Absentee Voting.Local absentee voting, as provided for under EO 157 and
Republic Act No. 7166, refers to a system of voting whereby government officials and
employees, including member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the
Philippine National Police (PNP), who are duly registered voters, are allowed to vote for
the positions of President, Vice-President, Senators and Party-list Representatives in
places where they are not registered voters but where they are temporarily assigned to
perform election duties on election day.

Overseas Absentee Voter. As provided in the Republic Act No. 9189 known as "The
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003”, refers to a citizen of the Philippines who is
qualified to register and vote under this Act, not otherwise disqualified by law, who is
abroad on the day of elections.

Concepts and Principles

Who are entitled to avail of local absentee voting?

Local absentee voting shall be exercised by: a) government officials and

employees; b) members of the AFP; and c) members of the PNP, who are duly
registered voters and who, on election day, may temporarily be assigned in connection
with the performance of election duties to places where they are not registered voters.

Government officials and employees posted abroad to perform election duties on

election day may also vote in absentia: Provided, That they are registered voters under
Republic Act No.8189, otherwise known as "The Voter's Registration Act of
1996", Provided further, That they are not registered overseas absentee voters under
Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
2003".

Positions to be voted for the Local Absentee Voting

Only the positions for President, Vice President, Senators and Party-list
Representatives shall be voted for under the local absentee voting.

Republic Act No. 10590known as 'The Overseas Voting Act of 2013′ provides:

It is the prime duty of the State to provide a system of honest and orderly
overseas absentee voting that upholds the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot. Towards
this end, the State ensures equal opportunity to all qualified citizens of the Philippines
abroad in the exercise of this fundamental right.

Section 3. Section 4 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 4. Coverage. - All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not otherwise
disqualified by law, at least eighteen (18) years of age on the day of elections,
may vote for President, Vice-President, Senators and Party-List Representatives,
as well as in all national referenda and plebiscites."

Section 4. Section 5 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 5. Disqualifications. - The following shall be disqualified from registering

and voting under this Act:

"(a) Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with
Philippine laws;

"(b) Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship and
who have pledged allegiance to a foreign country, except those who have
reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No.
9225, otherwise known as the 'Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition
Act of 2003′;

"(c) Those who have committed and are convicted in a final judgment by a
Philippine court or tribunal of an offense punishable by imprisonment of
not less than one (1) year, such disability not having been removed by
plenary pardon or amnesty: Provided, however, That any person
disqualified to vote under this subsection shall automatically acquire the
right to vote upon the expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence;
and
"(d) Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared insane or
incompetent by competent authority in the Philippines or abroad, as
verified by the Philippine embassies, consulates or foreign service
establishments concerned, unless such competent authority subsequently
certifies that such person is no longer insane or incompetent."

E. DETAINEE VOTING CANDIDACY

Definitions

Detainee Voting is the process by which a registered detainee voter, whose

registration record is not transferred, deactivated, cancelled or deleted, may still
exercise his right to vote.

COMELEC Resolution 9371, dated 06 March 2012, has defined a detainee to be any

person who is:

1. confined in jail, formally charged for any crime/s and awaiting/undergoing trial; or

2. serving a sentence of imprisonment for less than one (1) year; or

3. whose conviction of a crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted

government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the firearms laws or any
crime against national security or for any other crime is on appeal.

Concepts and Principles

In the nine-paged TRO issued in the case of Aguinaldo v. New Bilibid Prison
(Bureau of Corrections) et. al., G.R. No. 221201, the Court prevented the Commission
from enforcing several provisions of COMELEC Resolution No. 9371, which regulates
detainee voting. In gist, it orders the poll body to limit elections for detainees to the
positions of president, vice president, senators, and parties and organizations under the
party-list system only.

III. ESSENCE OF ELECTIONS

 Elections keep a democratic country functioning, as they give people the right to

select their own government.

 Elections and other political processes are pivotal to the quality of a

country's governance and can either greatly advance or set back a
country's long-term democratic development of the country as well as regional,
and global foreign policy priorities.

 Elections are important in a democracy because they encourage,

o Participation: they provide a quick and simple form of participation by the

citizens of a country in its governance and are an important tool for this
purpose.

o Recruitment of Political Leaders: As a result of the electoral process,

the electorate is able to choose their political leaders.

o Making Government: The electoral process provides basis for selection

of government that is accountable to the electorate.

o Representation: The electoral process through the choice of members of

parliament and Councillors ensures the availability of representatives for
the people by the people.

o Responsibility and Legitimacy: The electoral process ensures that

people who are chosen have the responsibility to support the views of the
people they represent and have the legitimacy to represent them.

o Popular Policies: With the electoral process, the electorate have the
chance to choose the political party that has the policies that they feel will
be of their benefit.

Case Digests:
MARUHOM vs. COMELEC331 SCRA 473

FACTS:

Petitioner Maruhom was a Mayoralty of Marantao, Lanaodel Sur. Her opponent,

reelectionist MayorAbinal filed before the COMELEC a petition for disqualification
against Maruhom, which allegedthat she was a double registrant.

The COMELEC First Division found that Maruhom had two subsisting registrations, one
in Marawi, and another in Marantao, and subsequently ordered the deletion of the
Maruhom’ s name from the list of official candidates for mayoralty position of Marantao.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the question on Maruhom’ s registration is an issue on the right to vote
and thus, beyond the COMELEC’ s jurisdiction?
HELD:

No. The Court held that the present case is not about her being denied to register as a
voter, but rather, is all about her making false material representations in her COC,
which would warrant the cancellation of the same.

COMELEC has laid down the rules that while the first registration of any voter subsists,
any subsequent registration thereto is deemed void.

Case Digest by: MICHAEL JOHN B. ANDOHUYAN

SUNGA vs. COMELEC 288 SCRA 76

FACTS:
Petitioner was one of the candidates for the position of Mayor in the Municipality of
Iguig, Cagayan in the May 1995 Elections. Private respondent Trinidad was then the
incumbent Mayor, was a candidate for re-election in the same municipality.

Sunga filed a complaint accusing Trinidad of violation of the Omnibus Election Code for
using threats, intimidation, terrorism or other forms of coercion. Hearings were held
wherein Sunga adduced evidence while Trinidad opted not to submit any evidence.

The election results showed that Trinidad garnered the highest number of votes while
Sunga trailed second.

The complaint filed by Sunga was denied by COMELEC ruling that the petitions filed
shall be deemed to be the amended petition filed on May 11, 1995 which was clearly
filed after the election mandates the dismissal of the disqualification case.

ISSUE:Whether or not COMELEC can hear and decide disqualification cases against
winning candidates even after the election.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that COMELEC is left with no discretion but to
proceed with the disqualification case even after the election. The fact that Trinidad was
already proclaimed and has assumed the position of mayor did not divest the
COMELEC of authority and jurisdiction to continue the hearing and eventually decide
the disqualification case. The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number
of votes is later disqualified for the office to which he was elected does not entitle the
candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner
of the elective office. Hence, Sunga cannot claim the right to take the oath for the
mayoral office because the Local Government Code cl early provides that in case of
disqualification of the one proclaimed for the said office, the vice- mayor shall assume
office.

Case Digest by: JOVIE ALTERNADO

Submitted by Group 1 Members:

Barrios, Twinkle
Bonsucan, Elton John
Buñao, Ma. Abegail
Gomez, Rheza