Political Law Election Laws Absentee Voters Act Proclamation of
Winners in a National Elections Romulo Macalintal, as a lawyer and a taxpayer, questions the validity of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189). He questions the validity of the said act on the following grounds, among others: 1. That the provision that a Filipino already considered an immigrant abroad can be allowed to participate in absentee voting provided he executes an affidavit stating his intent to return to the Philippines is void because it dispenses of the requirement that a voter must be a resident of the Philippines for at least one year and in the place where he intends to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the election; 2. That the provision allowing the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to proclaim winning candidates insofar as it affects the canvass of votes and proclamation of winning candidates for president and vice-president, is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution for it is Congress which is empowered to do so. ISSUE: Whether or not Macalintals arguments are correct. HELD: No. 1. There can be no absentee voting if the absentee voters are required to physically reside in the Philippines within the period required for non-absentee voters. Further, as understood in election laws, domicile and resident are interchangeably used. Hence, one is a resident of his domicile (insofar as election laws is concerned). The domicile is the place where one has the intention to return to. Thus, an immigrant who executes an affidavit stating his intent to return to the Philippines is considered a resident of the Philippines for purposes of being qualified as a voter (absentee voter to be exact). If the immigrant does not execute the affidavit then he is not qualified as an absentee voter. The said provision should be harmonized. It could not be the intention of Congress to allow COMELEC to include the proclamation of the winners in the vice-presidential and presidential race. To interpret it that way would mean that Congress allowed COMELEC to usurp its power. The canvassing and proclamation of the presidential and vice presidential elections is still lodged in Congress and was in no way transferred to the COMELEC by virtue of RA 9189.
YRA vs Abano YRA v ABANO FACTS Maximo Abano is a native of Meycauayan, Bulacan. He transferred to Manila to complete his studies there. While temporarily residing at Manila, he registered as a voter there. After becoming a member of the bar and death of his father, he returned to Bulacan from May 10, 1927 up to the present. When 1928 elections came, he tried to cancel his registration at Manila, but failed to do so. Nevertheless, he ran as a candidate for municipal president (Mayor?) of Meycauayan and won the elections. Petitioner now questions the qualifications of Abano through a quo warranto proceedings. ISSUE Whether registration is a qualification to run for a public office HELD NO, section 404 of the election law states that to run for public office, one must be a qualified elector. One of the requirement to be a qualified elector is to be a qualified voter. Section 431 states the requirements for a qualifications of a voter, while section 432 states the disqualification. All of these are needed in able to be register and vote. However, registration and voting is NOT a requirement in order to run for public office. What is needed is to be a qualified elector and a qualified voter, which Abano complied with. Registration only regulates the exercise to vote.
Akbayan youth Vs Comelec AKBAYAN YOUTH v COMELEC FACTS AkbayanYouth seek to direct the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to conduct a special registration before the May 14, 2001 General Elections, of new voters ages 18 to 21. According to petitioners, around four million youth failed to register on or before the December 27, 2000 deadline set by the respondent COMELEC under Republic Act No. 8189 (Voter's Registration Act of 1996). COMELEC issued a resolution denying the petition for a Special Registration of new voters. COMELEC claims that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 explicitly provides that no registration shall be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and that the Commission has no more time left to accomplish all pre-election activities. ISSUE Whether the COMELEC may be compelled by Mandamus to hold a Special Registration beyond the deadline. 1 An Act Providing for the Synchronized National and Local Elections and for Electoral Reforms 2 (a) COMELEC watermark; and (b) if blurred, presence of red and blue fibers in the ballots. 3 Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines HELD NO. The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo: among others, the process of registration. Specifically, a citizen in order to be qualified to exercise his right to vote, in addition to the minimum requirements set by fundamental charter, is obliged by law to register, at present, under the provisions of Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the "Voter's Registration Act of 1996. 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. Thus, contrary to petitioners' argument, registration cannot and should not be denigrated to the lowly stature of a mere statutory requirement. Proceeding from the significance of registration as a necessary requisite to the right to vote, the State undoubtedly, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of voter's registration for the ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly and peaceful election, to the incidental yet generally important end, that even pre-election activities could be performed by the duly constituted authorities in a realistic and orderly manner - one which is not indifferent and so far removed from the pressing order of the day and the prevalent circumstances of the times.
Ututalum Vs Comelec UTUTALUM vs. COMELEC Case Digest
UTUTALUM vs. COMELEC 181 SCRA 335
Facts: Petitioner Untalum obtained 482 votes while respondent Anni received 35,581 votes out of the 39,801 voters. If the returns of Siasi were excluded, petitioner would have lead of 5,301 votes. Petitioner filed written objections to the returns from Siasi on the ground that they appear to be tampered with or falsified owing to the great excess of votes appearing in the said returns.
COMELEC issued annulling the Siasi List of Voters on the ground of massive irregularities committed in the preparation and being statistically improbable, and ordering a new registration of voters for the local elections.
Petitioner contends that the issue he raised referred to obvious manufactured returns, a proper subject matter for a pre-proclamation controversy and therefore cognizable by the COMELEC; that election returns from Siasi should be excluded from the canvass of the results since its original List of Voters had already been finally annulled.
Issue: Whether or not the election returns from Siasi should be excluded from the canvass of the results since the original List of Voters had been finally annulled.
Held: The Siasi returns, however, do not show prima facie that on the basis of the old List of Voters, there is actually a great excess of votes over what could have been legally cast considering that only 36,000 persons actually voted out of the 39,801 voters.
Petitioners cause of action is not a listed ground for a pre-proclamation controversy. To allow the COMELEC to do so retroactively would be to empower it to annul a previous election because of the subsequent annulment of a questioned registry. The list must then be considered conclusive evidence of persons who could exercise the right of suffrage in a particular election. The preparation of a voters list is not a proceeding before the Board of Canvassers. A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to challenges directed against the Board of Canvassers, not the Board of Election Inspectors and such challenge should relate to specified election returns against which the petitioner should have made verbal elections.