Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Romulo Macalintal VS Comelec

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.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi