AKBAYAN-Youth vs Commission on Election

Political Law Election Laws Right of Suffrage Extension of

Voters Registration
On January 25, 2001, AKBAYAN-Youth, together with other
youth movements sought the extension of the registration of
voters for the May 2001 elections. The voters registration has
already ended on December 27, 2000. AKBAYAN-Youth asks
that persons aged 18-21 be allowed a special 2-day
registration. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied
the petition. AKBAYAN-Youth the sued COMELEC for alleged
grave abuse of discretion for denying the petition. AKBAYANYouth alleged that there are about 4 million youth who were
not able to register and are now disenfranchised. COMELEC
invoked Section 8 of Republic Act 8189 which provides that no
registration shall be conducted 120 days before the regular
election. AKBAYAN-Youth however counters that under Section
28 of Republic Act 8436, the COMELEC in the exercise of its
residual and stand-by powers, can reset the periods of preelection acts including voters registration if the original period
is not observed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC exercised grave abuse
of discretion when it denied the extension of the voters
registration.
HELD: No. The COMELEC was well within its right to do so
pursuant to the clear provisions of Section 8, RA 8189 which
provides that no voters registration shall be conducted within
120 days before the regular election. The right of suffrage is
not absolute. It is regulated by measures like voters
registration which is not a mere statutory requirement. The
State, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may then
enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of voters
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. RA 8189 prevails over RA 8436 in
that RA 8189s provision is explicit as to the prohibition.
Suffice it to say that it is a pre-election act that cannot be
reset.
Further, even if what is asked is a mere two-day special
registration, COMELEC has shown in its pleadings that if it is
allowed, it will substantially create a setback in the other preelection matters because the additional voters from the
special two day registration will have to be screened, entered
into the book of voters, have to be inspected again, verified,
sealed, then entered into the computerized voters list; and
then they will have to reprint the voters information sheet for
the update and distribute it by that time, the May 14, 2001
elections would have been overshot because of the lengthy
processes after the special registration. In short, it will cost
more inconvenience than good. Further still, the allegation
that youth voters are disenfranchised is not sufficient.
Nowhere in AKBAYAN-Youths pleading was attached any
actual complaint from an individual youth voter about any
inconvenience arising from the fact that the voters
registration has ended on December 27, 2001. Also, AKBAYANYouth et al admitted in their pleading that they are asking an

Elec Digests|Mimi

extension because they failed to register on time for some

reasons, which is not appealing to the court. The law aids the
vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.

KABATAAN PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND V.

PALATINO, et al. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 189868, 15 December 2009, EN BANC (Carpio
Morales, J.)
Preserving the sanctity of the right of suffrage ensures
that the State derives its power from the consent of
the governed.
FACTS: On February 12, 2009 the COMELEC issued Resolution
No. 8585 adjusting the deadline of voter registration for the
May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections to October 31,
2009, instead of December 15, 2009 as fixed by their prior
Resolution No. 8514 pursuant to R.A. 8189 or the Voters
Registration Act of 1996. The public clamored for an extension
but the COMELEC argued that they need more time to prepare
for the automated elections. It contends that the Omnibus
Election Code confer upon it the power to promulgate rules ad
regulations in order to ensure free, orderly and honest
elections. It also cited the case of Akbayan-Youth v.
Commission on Elections where the court denied a similar
prayer for an extension of the deadline of voter registration
for the May 14, 2001 elections.
Raymond V. Palatino, representative of Kabataan Party-list
assailed the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 and
seeks declaration of its nullity. Palatino contends that this
would be considered an encroachment of the legislative power
of Congress as it amends the system of continuing voter
registration under Section 8 of The Voters Registration Act of
1996. It was prayed that Resolution No. 8585 be declared null
and void and to extend the registration until January 9, 2010.
ISSUE: Whether or not R.A. 8585, adjusting the deadline of
voter registration to October 31, 2009 instead of December
15, 2009, is null and void
HELD: Preserving the sanctity of the right of suffrage ensures
that the State derives its power from the consent of the
governed. The paramount importance of this right is also a
function of the State policy of people empowerment
articulated in the constitutional declaration that sovereignty
resides in the people and all government authority emanates
from them, bolstered by the recognition of the vital role of the
youth in nation-building and directive to the State to
encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.
The clear text of the law thus decrees that voters be allowed
to register daily during regular offices hours, except during
the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90
days before a special election.
In the present case, the Court finds no ground to hold that the
mandate of continuing voter registration cannot be
reasonably held within the period provided by R.A. 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.
COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 is declared null and void
insofar as it set the deadline of voter registration for the May
10, 2010 elections on October 31, 2009. The COMELEC is
directed to proceed with dispatch in reopening the registration
of voters and holding the same until January 9, 2010.

Domino vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999

Facts: Petitioner Domino filed his certificate of candidacy for
the position of Representative of the lone legislative district of
the Province of Sarangani indicating that he has resided in the
constituency where he seeks to be elected for 1 year and 2
months. Private respondents filed a petitionseeking to cancel
the certificate of candidacy of Domino, alleging thatDomino,
contrary to his declaration in the certificate of candidacy, is
not aresident, much less a registered voter, of the province of
Sarangani where he seeks election. Thereafter, the COMELEC
promulgated
a
resolution
declaring Domino disqualified
as candidate for the position of representative of the
lone district of Sarangani in the May 11, 1998 polls for lack of
the one-year residency requirement and likewise ordered the
cancellation of his certificate of candidacy based on his own
Voters Registration Record and his address indicated as 24
Bonifacio St., Ayala Hts., Old Balara, Quezon City.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner has resided in Sarangani
Province for at least 1 year immediately preceding the May
11,
1998
elections
Held: The term residence, as used in the law prescribing
the qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, means
the same thing as domicile, which imports not only an
intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence
in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such
intention. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence to
which, whenever absent for business, pleasure, or some other
reasons,
one
intends
to
return.
Records show that petitioners domicile of origin was Candon,
Ilocos Sur and that sometime in 1991, he acquired a new
domicile of choice in Quezon City, as shown by his certificate
of candidacy for the position of representative of the Third
District of Quezon City in the May 1995 election. Petitioner is
now
claiming
that
he
had
effectively
abandoned
his residence in Quezon City and has established a new
domicile of choice in the Province of Sarangani.
A persons domicile, once established, is considered to
continue and will not be deemed lost until a new one is
established. To successfully effect a change of domicile, one
must demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change of
domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place
ofresidence and establishing a new one and definite acts
which
correspond
with
the
purpose.
The contract of lease of a house and lot entered into
sometime in January 1997 does not adequately support a
change of domicile. The lease contract may be indicative of
Dominos intention to reside in Sarangani, but it does not
engender the kind of permanency required to prove
abandonment of ones original domicile. The mere absence
of individual from his permanentresidence, no matter how
long, without the intention to abandon it does not result in
loss or change of domicile. Thus, the date of the contract of
lease of a house and lot in Sarangani cannot be used, in
the absence of other circumstances, as the reckoning period
of the one-year residencerequirement. Further, Dominos lack
of intention to abandon his residencein Quezon City is
strengthened by his act of registering as voter in Quezon City.
While voting is not conclusive of residence, it does give rise to
a strong presumption of residence especially in this case
where Domino registered in his former barangay.

DATU INOCENCIO C. SIAWAN vs. JUDGE AQUILINO A.

INOPIQUEZ, JR.
A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056
May 21, 2001
FACTS:
This is a complaint filed by Datu Inocencio Siawan against
Judge Aquilino. A. Inopiquez, Jr. of the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, Kananga-Matag-ob, Leyte, for gross ignorance of the
law, gross abuse of power, and misconduct in connection with
the latter's handling of a criminal case (Crim. Case No. 584)
and two election cases for inclusion of voters (Election Case
Nos. 333 and 292.) .
In Crim. Case No. 584 entitled People of the Philippines vs.
Julia Enriqua Seco . . ., the accused then was charged of
Usurpation of Authority and Official Functions , involving, as
the complaint states, a "paquiao" contract in which the
accused Julia Seco allegedly signed as the Barangay Captain
of Brgy. Cansuso, Matag-ob, Leyte; In the course of the
proceedings after the prosecution had already presented its
witnesses, the complaint was dismissed on the basis of an
Affidavit of Desistance executed by complainant Restituto C.
Pedrano. This Affidavit of Desistance is opposite to the earlier
affidavit of the same complainant, which was made the basis
of the Complaint. Prior to the issuance of the Affidavit of
Desistance ,accused Seco had filed before the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court a Motion for Inhibition of the Presiding Judge
now respondent in this case .The meat of this motion for
inhibition is that the father-in-law of the Presiding Judge,
herein respondent, was conspicuously present in the
proceedings during which time he gave consultation to the
complainant. Without addressing the issues raised by accused
Seco, respondent denied her motion for inhibition in his order,
dated May 22, 1987. Apparently realizing that the motion for
disqualification was meritorious, respondent, after partially
hearing the case, dismissed it on the basis of an affidavit of
desistance of the complainant, Restituto Pedrano. But, as Seco
sued Pedrano for damages for filing the criminal case,
respondent judge ordered the withdrawal of Pedrano's
affidavit of desistance from the record and recalled his order
dismissing the criminal case. Respondent then revived
Criminal Case No. 584 only to dismiss it again, saying the
complainant in the criminal case could always refile it. He
then inhibited himself on the ground of delicadeza citing his
relationship to counsel for the private prosecutor. When
Criminal Case No. 1181 was filed against accused Seco, based
on the same facts as Criminal Case No. 584, respondent, to
whom the case was again assigned, issued an order, dated
April 28, 1994, inhibiting himself, reiterating that he is related
to the private prosecutor which was later denied by the RTC of
Ormoc city and soon thereafter, respondent judge in an Order
dated September 5, 1994 dismissed Criminal Case No. 1181.
A Motion For Reconsideration re the Order of dismissal was
filed by the private complainant. The respondent judge issued
the Order of November 14, 1994 denying the motion for
reconsideration complainant to which the respondent judge
directed accused's counsel, to file comment to the motion; a
second motion for reconsideration was again filed by the
private complainant and the respondent in an Order dated
December 23, 1994 directed anew the accused's counsel for
another comment; Atty. Custodio Caete complied and filed
his comment dated December 26, 1994 and later a
supplemental comment. Criminal Case No. 1181 was finally
laid to rest on February 17, 1995 as per admission of
complainant
(b)Election Case Nos. 333 was a petition for inclusion of a
voter in the voter's list. Respondent judge admits that the
petitioner, retired Judge Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr., is his
uncle. Nonetheless, he justifies his failure to recuse himself on
the ground that the petition of Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr. was
meritorious.
(c) In Election Case No. 292, on the other hand, the seven

Elec Digests|Mimi

petitioners, all surnamed Herbas, alleged that they were

refused registration on February 1, 1992 at Brgy. San
Sebastian, Matag-ob, Leyte by the Board of Election
Inspectors; and that they have not voted for two consecutive
elections.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr is
guilty of grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law for
his mishandling of the 3 cases mentioned above. .
HELD:
Respondent Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr. is hereby
ORDERED to pay a fine of P20,000.00 for violation of Rule 137
of the Rules of Court and is SUSPENDED without pay for a
period of three months for abuse of authority and ignorance of
the law
(a) Complainant's counsel in Criminal Case No. 584 was Atty.
Eusebio Otadoy, Jr. Respondent admits that he is related to
Atty. Otadoy. Although respondent is not related within the
fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to Atty Otadoy, the
evidence shows that because of his relationship not only to
Atty Otadoy but also to those helping the complainant,
Restituto Pedrano, one of whom, Guillermo Laurente, is
respondent's father-in-law, while the other one, Atty. Felix Sun,
is his brother-in-law, respondent judge acted with obvious
partiality for complainant in the criminal case.
It is obvious that respondent got entangled in his own
maneuverings in his desire to favor and protect the
complainant Restituto Pedrano and those helping the latter
.Respondent could have recused himself from the moment his
disqualification was sought by the accused Seco in Criminal
Case No. 594. Respondent hung on to the case as long as he
could until this case was filed against him. But then he
realized that it was untenable for him to continue hearing the
criminal case not only because of his relationship to Atty.
Otadoy but also to Atty. Felix Sun and Edgardo Laurente, both
of whom were his brothers-in-law, who were actively
participating in the prosecution of the criminal case.
Indeed, although the disqualification of judges is limited only
to cases where the judge is related to counsel within the
fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, the Rules
nonetheless provide that a judge may, in the exercise of his
discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case for other
just and valid reasons. (Rule 137, 1 of the Rules of Court.)
It may also be added that a well-meaning judge may not just
order the reopening of an already dismissed criminal case or
direct the removal of a vital evidence on record without first
going over the record of the case.
We are referring to the irregular actuations of respondent in
the same Crim. Case No. 584 wherein he granted the motion
of the private prosecutor to withdraw or detach the Affidavit
of Desistance executed by the private complainant 1) without
the approval of the private prosecutor; 2) despite the fact that
the dismissal of the case was already final; and 3) stating in
the order that the accused was not yet arraigned, when the
truth is the prosecution has already rested when the case was
dismissed on December 22, 1992
(b) Respondent judge's contention is without merit. Rule 137,
1 of the Rules of Court provides:
No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or
his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee,
creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party
within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to
counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the
rules of civil law, or in which he has been executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has
presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the
subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in

Elec Digests|Mimi

interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.

A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify
himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other
than those mentioned above.
Similarly, Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:
A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. These cases
include, among others, proceedings where:
....
(d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party
litigant within the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth
degree;
....
In every instance the judge shall indicate the legal reason for
inhibition.
Under these provisions, respondent judge was disqualified
from hearing the petition of his uncle and it was immaterial
that the petition was meritorious. The purpose of the
prohibition is to prevent not only a conflict of interest but also
the appearance of impropriety on the part of a judge.
(c) The records show that neither of the petition in Election
Case No. 333 and Election Case No. 292 named the board of
election inspectors a party to the proceedings. Nor is there
any showing that the board of election inspectors was ever
notified of hearings to be conducted on such inclusion
proceedings either by registered mail or by personal delivery,
or by notice posted in a conspicuous place in the city hall or
municipal building and in two other conspicuous places within
the city or municipality at least 10 days prior to the day set
for the hearing as required in paragraph (b) of the above
provision.
The Omnibus Election Code provides:
Section 143. Common rules governing judicial proceedings in
the matter of inclusion, exclusion, and correction of names of
voters. --- (a) Outside of regular office hours, no petition for
inclusion, exclusion, or correction of names of voters shall be
received.
(b) Notices to the members of the board of election inspectors
and to challenged voters shall state the place, day and hour in
which such petition shall be heard, and such notice may be
made by sending a copy thereof by registered mail or by
personal delivery
The failure of respondent to observe the requirements of the
Election Code is inexcusable. As a judge of the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court vested with the jurisdiction to hear and
decide petitions for inclusion or exclusion of voters, he is
expected to be familiar with these requirements because it
can be assumed that these election cases were not the first
cases he has decided.

Sarangani vs. COMELEC (334 SCRA 379[2000])

Facts:
On September 15, 1997, a petition for annulment of several
precincts and annulment of book of voters in Madalum, Lanao
Del Sur was filed with the COMELEC by, among others, Hadji
Oblais R. Omar thru counsel Atty. Nasib D. Yasin, herein
private respondents. Among the precincts sought to be
annulled was Padian Torogan, subject matter of the present
petition for certiorari.[1]
On September 18, 1997, the COMELEC, thru the Clerk of the
Commission sent telegrams to the respective Board of
Election Inspectors (BEI) of the questioned precincts in
Madalum, Lanao Del Sur, including Padian Torogan, to file their
answer to the petition for abolition of precincts and annulment
of book of voters.[2]
On October 31, 1997, the incumbent mayor of Madalum,
Lanao Del Sur, Usman T. Sarangani, herein petitioner,
together with other oppositors who were allegedly barangay

chairmen of the twenty- three (23) barangays the "Books of

Voters" and precincts of which were sought to be annulled and
abolished, respectively, filed an "Answer in Opposition"[3]
which included the affidavits of the barangay chairmen of the
affected precincts attesting to the fact that the move to annul
the book of voters and abolish the questioned election
precincts were for the purpose of diminishing the bailiwicks of
the incumbent mayor of Madalum, Lanao del Sur.[4]

Lanao del Sur, arrived in the area supposedly Barangay

Padian Torogan with these comments and observations:

After hearing and submission of formal offer of exhibits and

memoranda by the parties, the COMELEC issued an Order[5]
dated February 11, 1998, referring the case to its Law
Department for appropriate investigation. The COMELEC - Law
Department conformably issued a memorandum dated April
29, 1998 directing Atty. Muslemin Tahir, the Provincial Election
Supervisor of Marawi City, Lanao del Sur "to conduct a
rigorous incisive investigation on the alleged ghost precincts
and thereafter submit a report on the investigation
conducted."[6] Consequently, Atty. Tahir created a TASK
FORCE INVESTIGATION TEAM by virtue of a memorandum
dated June 13, 1998 directing Election Officers Casan
Macadato, Sacrain Guro and Anuar Datudacula "to conduct
ocular inspection on the alleged twelve (12) ghost barangays
in the Municipality of Madalum, Lanao Del Sur.
On June 18, 1998, an ocular inspection was conducted on the
alleged ghost precincts yielding the following results

"Also, it came out that the name Padian-Torogan means a

cemetery not a residential place. So this contradicts the
records being brought by the COMELEC Team from the Census
saying that the area has 45 households with a total population
of 285. (Ref. Municipal census Report as of September 1,
1995).

"At 12:10 pm, the Task Force Investigation Team from the
COMELEC accompanied by traditional leaders, political
leaders, many concerned residents of this town, a
representative from the Lanao del Sur Provincial Statistics
Office, Mr. Lacson Abdullah, and a Team from the DILG-ARMM,

Elec Digests|Mimi

"It appears that in this area there are only two structures: One
is a concrete house with no roof, and the other is a wooden
structure without walls and roof. This obviously mean that no
single human being could possibly reside in these two
structures.

"Besides, no less than the Chairman of the COMELEC

Investigating Team asked the people around who among them
is a resident or a registered voter in the so-called Barangay
Padian-Torogan, and no one answered affirmatively.
"Then at 12:50 PM, the COMELEC Investigating Team still with
the people mentioned above are in Barangay Lumbac to look
for the other supposed Barangay named Rakutan, and found
this observations.
Held:
It bears emphasis that the COMELEC has broad powers to
ascertain the true results of an election by means available to
it. Acting on a petition to annul the book of voters, the
COMELEC has the authority to exclude a precinct from an
election when there are no buildings and inhabitants in said
precinct and hence no registered voters.