Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

University of San Carlos

School of Law and Governance

ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS

__________________________________
In partial fulfilment
For the requirements in
Administrative and Elections Laws
___________________________________

Submitted by:
Mikko Gabriel L. Valendez

Submitted to:
Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde

9 January 2015

Part II
SUFFRAGE
Nolasco v Comelec, 275 SCRA 763 (1997)
The right of suffrage is the bedrock of republicanism. Suffrage is the means by which our people
express their sovereign judgment. Its free exercise must be protected especially against the
purchasing power of the peso

Facts: An elected mayor was disqualified on the ground of vote-buying.


Thereafter, the COMELEC adjudged the elected vice-mayor to succeed the
position rather than the mayoralty candidate who garnered the secondhighest number of votes.
Issue: Whether or not the vice-mayor shall succeed the disqualified mayor.
Ruling: Yes. Sec. 44 of the LGC provides that if a permanent vacancy
occurs in the office of the governor or mayor, the vice governor or vice
mayor shall become the governor or mayor. It is settled in case law that in a
mayoralty election, the candidate who obtained the second highest number
of votes cannot be proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is
disqualified.
People v San Juan, 22 SCRA 505
Each time the enfranchised citizen goes to the polls to assert his sovereign will, that abiding credo of
republicanism is translated into living reality For to impede, without authority valid in law, the free
and orderly exercise of the right of suffrage, is to inflict the ultimate indignity on the democratic
process

Facts: A criminal case was charged against the people who denied entry to a
voter in a polling precinct.
Issue: Whether or not the voters right of suffrage was violated.
Ruling: Sec. 133 of the Revised Election Code guarantees, among other
things, to every registered voter to freely enter the polling place as soon as
he arrives unless there were then forty voters waiting inside, in order to
sufficiently charge a violation of that right, the indictment need not explicitly
negate the exception.
Macalintal v Comelec, G.R. No. 157013, July 3, 2003
An absentee is not a resident and vice versa; a person cannot be at the same time, both a resident and
an absentee. However, under our election laws and the countless pronouncements of the Court
pertaining to elections, an absentee remains attached to his residence in the Philippines as residence is
considered synonymous with domicile

Facts: A petition was filed questioning the constitutionality of Sec. 5(d) of


RA 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 200) because it was
inconsistent with the voters residency requirement under the Constitution.
Issue: Whether or not Sec. 5 (d) of RA 9189 is constitutional.
Ruling: No. RA 9189 was enacted in obeisance to the mandate of the first
paragraph of Section2, Article V of the Constitution that Congress shall
provide a system for voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. It must be stressed
that Section 2 does not provide the parameters of the exercise of legislative
authority in enacting said law. Hence, in the absence of restrictions,
Congress is presumed to have duly exercised its function as defined in
Article VI of the Constitution.
2

Yra v Abano, 52 Phil. 380


Registration regulates the exercise of the right to suffrage. It is not a qualification for such right.

Facts: The election of a municipal president was challenged on the ground


that he was not a qualified voter in his municipality and, thus, ineligible to
hold office.
Issue: Whether or not he is a qualified voter in his municipality.
Ruling: Yes. The act of registering is only one step towards voting, and it is
not one of the elements that make the citizen a qualified voter. One may be
a qualified voter without exercising the right to vote. Registering does not
confer the right; it is but a condition precedent to the exercise of the right.
Akbayan-Youth v Comelec, 355 SCRA 318, March 26, 2001
No voter registration may be conducted within 120-day prohibitive period preceding a regular election.

Facts: A petition was filed directing the COMELEC to conduct a special


registration for new voters ages 18 to 21 despite the lapse of the deadline
for regular registration. The COMELEC resolved to deny the petition because
no registration shall be conducted 120 days before the general elections.
Issue: Whether or not a special registration can be conducted within 120
days before the regular election.
Ruling: No. Sec. 8 of RA 8189 explicitly provides that no registration shall
be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days
before a regular election.

Kabataan Party List Rep. Palatino v Comelec, GR No. 189868,


December 15, 2009
Voter registration cannot be denied unless conducted within the 120-day prohibitive period preceding a
regular election

Facts:
COMELEC set a period of continuing voter registration using
biometrics process for the next regular election. Subsequently, it resolved to
adjust the deadline to a much earlier period than that it has already fixed in
order to prepare for the automated election. However, this decision was
opposed because it can potentially lead to the disenfranchisement of millions
of Filipino voters.
Issue: Whether or not the COMELECs decision to adjust the period of
continuing voter registration to much earlier date is proper
Ruling: No. There is no ground to hold that the mandate of continuing voter
registration cannot be reasonably held within the period provided by RA
8189, Sec.8 daily during office hours, except during the period starting
120 days before the May 10, 2010 regular elections. There is thus no
occasion for the COMELEC to exercise its power to fix other dates or
deadlines therefor.

Romualdez v RTC, 226 SCRA 406


In election cases, domicile and residence are synonymous terms.

Facts: During the EDSA Revolution, Mr. R fled to the US to seek asylum.
Thereafter, he went back to his home town and registered as voter thereat.
However, a petition was filed seeking his exclusion from the voters list on
the ground that he is a resident of the US.
Issue: Whether or not he has met the residency requirement
Ruling: Yes. In election cases, the Court treats domicile and residence as
synonymous terms. The term residence as used in the election law is
synonymous with domicile, which imports not only an intention to reside in
a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, couple with conduct
indicative of such intention. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence
to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one
intends to return.

Pugutan v Abubakar, 43 SCRA 1, 12 (1972)


COMELEC has broad powers during elections which includes power to disregard spurious or
manufactured returns

Facts: A losing candidate challenged the result of the election of the


delegates in the Constitutional Convention due to massive violence,
terrorism and fraud in some towns and he requested that election returns in
these towns be excluded from canvass which the COMELEC granted.
Adversely affected by the decision, the winning candidate questioned the
power of the COMELEC to annul and exclude the said election returns.
Issue: Whether or not COMELEC has the power to exclude the election
returns from the canvassing of votes.
Ruling: Yes. The COMELEC has the constitutional function of the
enforcement of all laws relative to the conduct of the election which includes
the prerogative to disregard the spurious or manufactured returns and
therefore bereft of value.

Domino v Comelec, GR No. 134015, July 19, 1999


Exclusion and inclusion proceedings by inferior courts are not conclusive on the voters political status
and binding to the COMELEC.

Facts: A candidates certificate of candidacy was questioned because it was


alleged that he was neither a voter of the district nor has met the residency
requirement prior to the election. He contended that the inferior court has
already determined his political status in an exclusion proceeding.
Issue: Whether or not exclusion proceeding was conclusive and binding to
the COMELEC.
Ruling: No. The determination of the inferior court in the exclusion
proceedings as to the right of the voter to be included or excluded from the
list of voters in the precinct within its territorial jurisdiction, does not

preclude the COMELEC, in the determination of a his qualification as a


candidate.
Ututalum v Comelec, 181 SCRA 335
The annulment of voters list on the ground of padded voters list does not constitute a preproclamation controversy.

Facts: A losing candidate sought the annulment and exclusion of the list of
voters and rejection of all election returns from being canvassed in a certain
municipality on the ground that the voters list was padded owing to the
great excess of votes during the election.
Issue: Whether or not the annulment of the voters list is a ground for a
pre-proclamation contest.
Ruling: No. Padded voters list, massive fraud and terrorism are clearly not
among the issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy.
They are proper grounds for an election protest. The subsequent annulment
of the voting list in a separate proceeding initiated motu proprio by the
Commission and in which the protagonists here were not parties, cannot
retroactively and without due process result in nullifying accepted election
returns in a previous election simply because such returns came from
municipalities where the precinct books of voters were ordered annulled due
to irregularities in their preparation.

Sarangani v Comelec, 334 SCRA 379


The sacred right of suffrage guaranteed by the Constitution is not tampered when a list of fictitious
voters is excluded from an electoral exercise.

Facts: A petition was filed for the annulment of some precincts and book of
voters in a certain province alleging that these precincts do not exist
because there were no inhabitants in the area. COMELEC investigated the
matter and found that these precincts are ghost precincts. The finding was
opposed by the local officials contending that this would disenfranchise some
voters.
Issue: Whether or not COMELEC has the power to annul some precincts and
book of voters is proper.
Ruling: Yes. The COMELEC has the broad powers to ascertain the true
nature of the results of an election by means available to it. Furthermore, no
voter is disenfranchised because no such voter exists. The sacred right of
suffrage guaranteed by the Constitution is not tampered when a list of
fictitious voters is excluded from an electoral exercise.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi