Nolasco v Comelec, 275 SCRA 763 (1997) Facts: In the mayoralty election Blanco received higher votes than Alarilla. Later on, Alarilla petitioned to disqualify Blanco and moved to suspend former’s proclamation for having committed massive vote buying and cheating. he !"#$L$! granted the said petition. Blanco moved for reconsideration for having been denied due process and equal protection. #ean%hile, &olasco as vice mayor'elect intervened and contended that he should be declared mayor in the event Blanco %as finally disqualified. (uling: he !ourt ruled that Blanco %as not denied due process neither equal protection of la%. he !"#$L$! action is safely anchored on its (ules of )rocedure that petitions for disqualification shall be heard summarily after due notice. Also, !"#$L$! assumed direct *urisdiction over disqualification case is not to favor anybody but to discharge its duty fair and fast. It further ruled that this case concerns the right of suffrage %hich is the bedroc+ of republicanism. uffrage is the means by %hich our people e-press their sovereign *udgment. ence, its free e-ercise must be protected especially against the purchasing po%er of the peso. People v San Juan, 22 SCRA 505 Facts: he an /uan’s %ere charged for violation of ection 011 of the (evised $lection !ode, specifically, for %illfully, unla%fully, and feloniously %ith the use of force, prevent )ilapil from freely entering the polling place in order to vote. he information, ho%ever, %as quashed for being insufficient and therefore, do not constitute an offense. ence, )ilapil appealed to said quashal. (uling: he !ourt ruled set aside the order of quashal. 2hen the legislature provided in section 011 of the (evised $lection !ode an e-plicit and unequivocal guarantee of a voter3s free access to the polling place, it could have intended no purpose other than to maintain inviolate the right to vote by safeguarding the voter against all manner of unauthori4ed interference and travesty that surveyors of fear can devise. $very unla%ful obstacle, by %hatever means or method, interposed to the free entry of a voter into the polling place to cast his vote, stri+es at the very heart of the right of suffrage. suffrage. It It emphasi4ed that suffrage is the bedroc+ of all republican institutions. hat each time the enfranchised citi4en goes to the polls to assert this sovereign %ill, that abiding credo of republicanism is translated into living reality. o allo% that %ill remain undefiled at the starting level of its e-pression and application, every assumption must be indulged in and every guarantee adopted to assure the unmolested e-ercise of the citi4en3s free choice. Macaln!al v Comelec, "#R# No# 157013, Jul$ 3, 2003 Facts: #acalintal questioned the validity of the "verseas Absentee 5oting Act of 6771 8(.A. 909;. pecifically, he contended contended that the provision that a Filipino already al ready considered an immigrant abroad can be allo%ed to participate in absentee voting provided he e-ecutes an affidavit stating his intent to return to the )hilippines is void. his is because, it dispenses of the requirement that a voter must be a residency requirement both in the )hilippines and in the place %here he intends to vote preceding the election. (uling: he !ourt upheld the la%’s constitutionality. It reasoned that, there can be no absentee voting if the absentee voters are required to physically reside in the )hilippines % ithin the period required for non'absentee voters. Further, as understood in election la%s, domicile and resident are interchangeably used. he domicile is the place plac e %here one has the intention to return to. hus, an immigrant %ho e-ecutes an affidavit stating his intent to return to the )hilippines is considered a resident of the )hilippines for purposes of being qualified as a voter 8absentee voter to be e-act;. If the immigrant does not e-ecute the affidavit then he is not qualified as an absentee voter. voter.
%&a v A'ano, 52 Pl# 30 Facts: Abano is a native of #eycuayan, Bulacan but a registered to voter in #anila. e ran and %on as municipal president in #eycuayan. o%ever, he remained a registered voter of #anila because his application for cancellation %as re*ected. ence, petitioner meant a person %ho had all the qualification and non of the qualification provided by la% and not a person registered in the electoral list. Also, it %as interpreted that to be qualified voters, one’s eligibility is not affected by his failure to register. (egistration does not confer the right? it is but a condition precedent to the e-ercise of the right. It is only one step to%ards voting and it is not one of the elements that ma+es the citi4en a qualified voter. he respected the %ill of the electorate for choosing the respondent as their local chief e-ecutive. ence, Abano’s eligibility for office is upheld. A*'a$an+%ou! v Comelec, 355 SCRA 31, Ma&c 26, 2001 Facts: Around four million youth failed to register on or before the deadline set by the respondent !"#$L$! for the 6770 @eneral $lections. )etitioners requested the !"#$L$! to conduct a t%o'day special registration before the elections. o%ever, the !"#$L$! resolved to deny the request. Aggrieved, petitioners sought to set aside and nullify respondent !"#$L$!3s (esolution, declare ection of (.A. 09 unconstitutional and direct !"#$L$! to conduct the special registration. hey contend that the provision causes the disenfranchisement of their votes. hey also invo+ed the so called standby po%ers or residual po%ers of the !"#$L$!, under ection 6 of (epublic Act &o. 1C. (uling: he !ourt denied both petitions. It %as held that ection of (.A. 09 applies in the present case, considering that the aforesaid la% e-plicitly provides that no registration shall be conducted during the period starting one hundred t%enty 8067; days before a regular election. he provisions of ection 6, (.A. 1C %ould apply in cases %here the pre'election acts are susceptible of performance %ithin the available period prior to election day. In its !omment, respondent !"#$L$! emphasi4ed the operational impossibility of conducting a special registration %ithin the time left. his determination of the !"#$L$! %as accorded great %eight considering that it is in the best position to +no% %hat they can possibly do or not do, under prevailing circumstances. ence, the =stand'by> po%er of the !"#$L$! cannot be invo+ed in this case. a'a!aan Pa&!$ -s! Rep# Pala!no v Comelec Facts: !"#$L$! ad*usted the deadline of voter registration to an earlier date than %hat %as previously fi-ed. )etitioners challenged the validity of !"#$L$!’s resolution and prayed for e-tension. hey contended that it is an unconstitutional encroachment on the legislative po%er of !ongress. o%ever, !"#$L$! invo+ed its stand'by po%er. •
(uling: he !ourt granted the e-tension prayed for. ec. 6 of (A1C grants the !"#$L$! the po%er to fi- other periods and dates for pre'election activities only if the same cannot be reasonably held %ithin the period provided by la%. In the present case, the !ourt finds no ground to hold that the mandate of continuing voter registration cannot be reasonably held %ithin the period provided by (A 09, ec. D here is thus no occasion for the !"#$L$! to e-ercise its po%er to fi- other dates or deadlines therefor. $!Aa
Romual.e/ v RC, 226 SCRA Facts: (omualde4 is a natural born citi4en of the )hilippines and a resident of Barangay olosa, Leyte. e, together %ith his immediate family, left the )hilippines and sought asylum in the Enited tates. Later, he returned to his residence at Leyte and registered himself ane% as a voter. is registration %as opposed because he did not have the required one' year residence in the )hilippines and the si-'month residence in olosa. e, ho%ever, insisted his fulfillment of the residence requirement, since he has not abandoned his said residence, since 097, by his physical absence therefrom during the period from 09C up to the third %ee+ of ecember 0990. (uling: he !ourt ruled that (omualde4 satisfied the residency requirement and is qualified to register. In order to acquire a ne% domicile by choice, 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 ne% domicile must be actual. In this case, (omualde4es’ sudden departure from the country cannot be described as voluntary, or as abandonment> because it is brought about by the fear from great apprehension cause by the $A revolution. Punu!an v A'u'a*a&, 3 SCRA 1, 12 (1972) Facts: In vie% of massive violence, terrorism and fraud that happened in the to%ns of iasi, apul, )arang and Luu+, it %as alleged that no election %ere in effect. !"#$L$! concluded that based on the findings, supported by credible evidence, irregularities d id attend the so'called elections and decided to re*ect the returns of the said municipalities. )etitioner questioned the po%er of the !"#$L$! in re*ecting such returns, since it encroach the *udicial po%er, the right to vote being involved. (uling: he !ourt ruled that the !"#$L$! is not devoid of po%er to disregard and annul the alleged returns for being spurious or manufactured. he po%er of decision of the !ommission is limited to purely 3administrative questions.’ he right to vote or the determination of %hether or not a person is precluded from voting is e-cluded. As to %hether an elect on has been held is a question of a different type and is properly %ithin the administrative *urisdiction of !"#$L$!. ence, re*ection of election returns, as in this case, is %ithin the authority of the !"#$L$!. omno v Comelec, "R No# 13015, Jul$ 19, 1999 Facts: "#I&"’s certificate of candidacy %as petitioned to be denied and cancelled alleging that he is not a resident of the province of arangani. e, ho%ever, insisted his compliance %ith the one'year residence requirement, and presented a copy of the decision of #! in an e-clusion proceedings ruling that he %ere no longer resident of Gue4on !ity but of arangani. o%ever, the !"#$L$! disqualified him. ence, he petitioned for certiorari contendeding that #!’s decision is conclusive upon the !"#$L$!. (uling: he decision of the #! in the e-clusion proceedings declaring "#I&" a resident of arangani is not conclusive upon !"#$L$!. he proceedings for the e-clusion or inclusion of voters in the list of voters are summary in character. hus, the factual findings and its resultant conclusions on matters other than the right to vote in the precinct %ithin its territorial *urisdiction, even if final and unappealable, does not acquire the nature of res *udicata. It does not operate as a bar to any future action that a party may ta+e concerning the sub*ect passed upon in the proceeding. hus, a decision in an
e-clusion proceeding %ould neither be conclusive on the voter’s political status nor bar subsequent proceedings on his right to be registered as a voter in any other election. 4!u!alum v Comelec, 11 SCRA 335 Facts: $lection returns from iasi sho%ed that Etutalum obtained materially lo%er votes than his opponent, out of the 19,70 registered voters. Etutalum petitioned to declare a failure of elections and conduct another election in the municipality because they appear to be tampered %ith or falsified o%ing to the great e-cess of votes as sho%n by the returns. 2hile petition %as pending, the !"#$L$! annulled the List of 5oters of iasi due to massive irregularities in the preparation and being statistically improbable. he ne% (egistry List yielded only 06,HHH names. #ean%hile, the !"#$L$! denied Etutalum3s petitions and advised him to file an election contest before the proper forum. o%ever, he contended that the issue he raised is a proper sub*ect matter for a pre' proclamation controversy and that the election returns from iasi should be e-cluded from the canvass since its original List of 5oters had already been finally annulled. (uling: he !ourt ruled that subsequent annulment of the voting list in a separate proceeding cannot result in nullifying accepted election returns in a previous election from municipalities %here the precinct boo+s of voters %ere annulled. In this case, the List of 5oters used in the disputed elections is then a validly e-isting and still unquestioned permanent (egistry List %hich must then be considered conclusive evidence of persons %ho could vote. hat the padding of the List of 5oters may constitute fraud, %ould not be a valid basis for a pre'proclamation controversy. For %henever irregularities, such as fraud, are asserted, the proper course of action is an election protest. Aside from the fact that the indispensable requisites of res *udicata are not all present, the ruling desired %ould disenfranchise the good and valid votes. Sa&anan v Comelec, 33 SCRA 379 Facts: A petition for annulment of precinct )adian orogan and annulment of boo+ of voters in #adalum, Lanao el ur %as filed. As a response, an ocular inspection %as made. "n the basis of it, !"#$L$! resolved that )adian orogan is a ghost precinct and should be e-cluded from the special election to be conducted in #adalum. he former #unicipal #ayor, incumbent #ayor and 5ice'#ayor of #adalum petitioned for certiorari and mandamus to nullify the "rder issued by the !"#$L$!. (uling: he !ourt ruled that factual findings of the !"#$L$! %hether a certain election precinct actually e-ists or not and %hether the voters registered in said precinct are real voters are conclusive upon it. here absence of any finding of grave abuse on the part of the !"#$L$! said order shall stand. /udicial interference is unnecessary and uncalled for. &o voter is disenfranchised because no such voter e-ists. $-clusion of non'e-istent voters all the more protects the validity and credibility of the electoral process as %ell as the right of suffrage because the electoral %ill %ould not be rendered nugatory by the inclusion of some ghost votes.