Sunteți pe pagina 1din 29

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

ELECTION REVIEWER: A TTY. GALLANT D. SORI ANO


DEFINITION OF TERMS
WHAT IS ELECTION

Means by which the sovereign will of people is expressed in the choice or selection
of candidates to public office by popular vote or ballot for definite and fixed periods
and to whom they entrust, for the time being as their representatives, the exercise of
powers of the government.
Refers to the conduct of the polls including the listing of voter, holding of electoral
campaign and the casting and counting of votes. It involves every element
necessary to complete the ascertainment of the expression of the popular will from
the deposit of the ballot by the voter up to the final certification of the result
DIFFERENT KINDS OF ELECTION

General
o One provided for by law for the election to offices through out the State or
certain subdivisions thereof, after the expiration of the full term of former
officers
Regular
o Election, national or local, held at regular intervals on such dates provided by
law
Special
o One provided for by law under special circumstances
o May refer to an election
not regularly held to fill vacancy in office before the expiration of the
full term for which the incumbent was elected
at which some issue or proposition is submitted to the vote of qualified
electors
held when there is failure of election
ELECTION VS. SUFFRAGE

Suffrage
The right and the obligation of qualified citizens to vote in the election of certain
national and local officers of the government and in the decision of public questions
submitted to the people.

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

The main object of suffrage is the continuity of government and the preservation
and perpetuation of its benefits.
This object is two-fold:
o to enable the people to choose their representatives to discharge sovereign
functions (election)
o to determine their will upon such questions submitted to them (plebiscite,
referendum, initiative, and recall)

Election
Means by which the people choose, through the use of the ballot, their officials for
definite and fixed periods and to whom they entrust, for the time being as their
representatives, the exercise of powers of the government.
Expression of the sovereign will of the people, involving the choice or selection of
candidates to public office by popular vote
conduct of the polls
Election laws regulate how the right of suffrage is to be exercised.
intended as a means for assuring a free, honest, and orderly expression of the
people's views and choice of candidates uninfluenced by threats, intimidation and
corrupt motives.
Their purpose is to give effect to, rather than stifle or frustrate, the will of the voters.

LEGAL BASIS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE V


Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have
resided22 in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose
to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property,
or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage."
Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of
the ballots as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. The
Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterate to vote without
the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing
laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the
secrecy of the ballot."
DIFFERENT THEORIES ON RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

Suffrage is not a natural right of the citizens but merely a privilege to be given or
withheld by the lawmaking power subject to constitutional limitations. It is not a
necessary accompaniment of citizenship. It is granted to individuals only upon the
fulfillment of certain minimum conditions deemed essential for the welfare of
society.
The exercise of the right of suffrage, as in the enjoyment of all other rights, is not
absolute; it is subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements provided
in the Constitution, statutes, and valid rules and regulations. Only on the most
serious grounds and upon clear and convincing proof may a citizen be deemed to
have forfeited his right of suffrage.
Suffrage is a right because it is the expression of the sovereign will of the people.2 In
the sense of a right conferred by the Constitution, suffrage is classified as a political
right, as well as a bounden duty of every citizen, enabling him to participate in the
process of government to assure that it truly derives its powers solely from the
consent of the governed.
The right of suffrage is based upon the theory that the people who bear the burden
of government should share in the privilege of choosing the officials of the
government.4 The principle is that of one man, one vote
Suffrage as a duty is in the nature of a public trust and constitutes a voter a
representative of the whole people. This duty requires that the privilege bestowed
should be exercised not exclusively for the benefit of the citizen or citizens
proferring it but in good faith and with intelligent zeal for the general benefit and
welfare of the State.
SYSTEM OF ELECTION IN THE PHILIPPINES: MULTI PARTY

The Philippines has a multi-party system, with numerous parties1 in which no one
party often has a chance of gaining power alone, and parties must work with each
other to form a coalition government.
A multi-party system is a system in which multiple political parties have the
capacity to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition.
Unlike a single-party system (or a two-party system), a multi-party system
encourages the general constituency to form multiple distinct, officially recognized
groups, generally called political parties. Each party competes for votes from the
enfranchised constituents (those allowed to vote). A multi-party system prevents the
leadership of a single party from controlling a single legislative chamber without
challenge.

Liberal Party, LakasCMD, Nationalist People's Coalition, Nacionalista Party, National Unity
Party, United Nationalist Alliance

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

CODAL PROVISIONS
BP 881: OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE
Sec. 4. Obligation to register and vote. - It shall be the obligation of every citizen
qualified to vote to register and cast his vote.
Sec. 115. Necessity of Registration. - In order that a qualified elector may vote in any
election, plebiscite or referendum, he must be registered in the permanent list of voters
for the city or municipality in which he resides.
Sec. 117. Qualifications of a voter. - Every citizen of the Philippines, not otherwise
disqualified by law, eighteen years of age or over, who shall have resided in the
Philippines for one year and in the city or municipality wherein he proposes to vote for
at least six months immediately preceding the election, may be registered as a voter.
Any person who transfers residence to another city, municipality or country solely by
reason of his occupation; profession; employment in private or public service;
educational activities; work in military or naval reservations; service in the army, navy
or air force; the constabulary or national police force; or confinement or detention in
government institutions in accordance with law, shall be deemed not to have lost his
original residence.
Sec. 118. Disqualifications. - The following shall be disqualified from voting:
(a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for
not less than one year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or
granted amnesty: Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote under this
paragraph shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five years
after service of sentence.
(b) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by competent court or
tribunal of having committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted
government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and firearms
laws, or any crime against national security, unless restored to his full civil and political
rights in accordance with law: Provided, That he shall regain his right to vote
automatically upon expiration of five years after service of sentence.
(c) Insane or incompetent persons as declared by competent authority.

RA 8199 VOTERS REGISTRATION ACT

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

Sec. 4. Permanent List of Voters - There shall be a permanent list of voters per precinct
in each city or municipality consisting of all registered voters residing within the
territorial jurisdiction of every precinct indicated by the precinct maps.
Such precinct-level list of voters shall be accompanied by an addition/deletion list for
the purpose of updating the list.
For the purpose of the 1997 general registration, the Commission shall cause the
preparation and posting of all precinct maps in every barangay nationwide. Five days
before the 1997 general registration, individual precinct maps shall be posted at the
door of each polling place. Subsequently, the Election Officer shall be responsible for
the display, throughout the year, of precinct maps in his office and in the bulletin board
of the city or municipal hall.
The precinct assignment of a voter in the permanent list of voters shall not be changed
or altered or transferred to another precinct without the express written consent of the
voter: Provided, however, That the voter shall not unreasonably withhold such consent.
Any violation thereof shall constitute an election offense which shall be punished in
accordance with law.
Sec. 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. - The personal filing of application
of registration of voters shall be conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer
during regular office hours. No registration shall, however, be conducted during the
period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90)
days before a special election.
Sec. 7. General Registration of Voters. - Immediately after the barangay elections in
1997, the existing certified list of voters shall cease to be effective and operative. For
purposed of the May 1998 elections and all elections, plebiscites, referenda, initiatives,
and recalls subsequent thereto, the Commission shall undertake a general registration
of voters before the Board of Election Inspectors on June 14, 15, 21, and 22 and, subject
to the discretion of the Commission, on June 28 and 29, 1997 in accordance with this
Act.
Sec. 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. - The personal filing of application
of registration of voters shall be conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer
during regular office hours. No registration shall, however, be conducted during the
period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90)
days before a special election.
Sec. 9. Who may Register. - All citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by
law who are at least eighteen (18) years of age, and who shall have resided in the

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

Philippines for at least one (1) year, and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at
least six (6) months immediately preceding the election, may register as a voter.
Any person who temporarily resides in another city, municipality or country solely by
reason of his occupation, profession, employment in private or public service,
educational activities, work in the military or naval reservations within the Philippines,
service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the National Police Forces, or
confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law, shall not
be deemed to have lost his original residence.
Any person, who, on the day of registration may not have reached the required age or
period of residence but, who, on the day of the election shall possess such
qualifications, may register as a voter.
Sec. 11. Disqualification. - The following shall be disqualified from registering:
Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment of not
less than one (1) year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or
amnesty: Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph
shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after
service of sentence;
Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by a competent court or tribunal
of having committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government
such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the firearms laws or any crime against national
security, unless restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance with law:
Provided, That he shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five
(5) years after service of sentence; and
Insane or incompetent persons declared as such by competent authority unless
subsequently declared by proper authority that such person is no longer insane or
incompetent.
Sec. 18. Challenges to Right to Register. - Any voter, candidate or representative of a
registered political party may challenge in writing any application for registration,
stating the grounds therefor. The challenge shall be under oath and be attached to the
application, together with the proof of notice of hearing to the challenger and the
applicant.
Oppositions to contest a registrant's application for inclusion in the voter's list must, in
all cases, be filed not later than the second Monday of the month in which the same is
scheduled to be heard or processed by the Election Registration Board. Should the
second Monday of the month fall on a non-working holiday, oppositions may be filed
on the next following working day. The hearing on the challenge shall be heard on the

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

third Monday of the month and the decision shall be rendered before the end of the
month.
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction in Inclusion and Exclusion Case. The Municipal and Metropolitan
Trial Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and
exclusion of voters in their respective cities or municipalities. Decisions of the
Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts may be appealed by the aggrieved party to the
Regional Trial Court within five (5) days from receipt of notice thereof. Otherwise, said
decision shall become final and executory. The regional trial court shall decide the
appeal within ten (10) days from the time it is received and the decision shall
immediately become final and executory. No motion for reconsideration shall be
entertained.
Sec. 34. Petition for Inclusion of Voters in the List. - Any person whose application for
registration has been disapproved by the Board or whose name has been stricken out
from the list may file with the court a petition to include his name in the permanent list
of voters in his precinct at any time except one hundred five (105) days prior to a
regular election or seventy-five (75) days prior to a special election. It shall be supported
by a certificate of disapproval of his application and proof of service of notice of his
petition upon the Board. The petition shall be decided within fifteen (15) days after its
filing.
If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the permanent list of voters, the Board
shall place the application for registration previously disapproved in the corresponding
book of voters and indicate in the application for registration the date of the order of
inclusion and the court which issued the same.

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR VOTERS


QUALIFICATION/DISQUALIFICATION ARTICLE V SUFFRAGE
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided
in the Philippines for at least one year, and in the place wherein they propose to vote,
for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or
other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of
the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote
without the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under
existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect
the secrecy of the ballot.

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

CASES

ATTY ROMULO MACALINTAL V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 157013


10, 2003

JULY

KEYWORDS - Constitutionality of Overseas Absentee Voters Act regarding residency


requirement and execution of the affidavits
FACTS
Atty. Macalintal filed a case to declare the unconstitutionality of certain provisions
of RA 9189 Overseas Absentee Voting Act
He claims that Sec 5(d), which allows immigrants or permanent residents in other
countries to register as voters as long the execute an affidavit expressing their
intention to return to the Philippines violates the Constitutional requirement that the
voter must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place
where he proposes to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the election.
o RA 9189 Sec. 5. Disqualifications. The following shall be disqualified from
voting under this Act: d) An immigrant or a permanent resident who is
recognized as such in the host country, unless he/she executes, upon
registration, an affidavit prepared for the purpose by the Commission
declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical permanent residence in
the Philippines not later than three (3) years from approval of his/her
registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not
applied for citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be cause for
the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the
National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification
to vote in absentia.
o Constitution Art. V Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the
Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years
of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year, and
in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately
preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
He argues that legislature cannot circumvent the requirements of the Constitution
on the right of suffrage by providing a condition, which amends or alters resident
requirement to qualify a Filipino abroad to vote. He claims that the right of suffrage
should not be granted to anyone who, on the date of the election, does not possess
the qualifications

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

Additionally, he questions the rightness of the mere act of execution of an affidavit


to qualify the Filipinos abroad who are immigrants or permanent residents, to vote.

ISSUE - Whether or not Sec 5(d) of RA 9189, which allows the registration of voters who
are immigrants or permanent residents in other countries by their mere act of executing
an affidavit expressing their intention to return to the Philippines, violate the residency
requirement in Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution?
HELD - No. The constitutionality of Section 5(d) is UPHELD.
RATIO
RE: Absentee Voting
R.A. No. 9189 was enacted in obeisance to the mandate of the first paragraph of
Section 2, Article V of the Constitution that Congress shall provide a system for
voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. Section 2 does not provide for the parameters
of the exercise of legislative authority in enacting said law.
The method of absentee voting has been said to be completely separable and distinct
from the regular system of votingThe right of absentee and disabled voters to cast
their ballots at an election is purely statutory.
Absentee voting is an outgrowth of modern social and economic conditions devised
to accommodate those engaged in military or civil life whose duties make it
impracticable for them to attend their polling places on the day of election, and the
privilege of absentee voting may flow from constitutional provisions or be conferred
by statutes, existing in some jurisdictions, which provide in varying terms for the
casting and reception of ballots by soldiers and sailors or other qualified voters
absent on election day from the district or precinct of their residence.
Such statutes are regarded as conferring a privilege and not a right, or an absolute
right.
RE: Domicile and Residency
Under our election laws, an absentee remains attached to his residence in the
Philippines, as residence is considered synonymous with domicile.
DOMICILE
RESIDENCY
If a persons intent be to
Residence implies the factual relationship of an
remain, it becomes his
individual to a certain place. It is the physical
domicile;
presence of a person in a given area, community
or country.
A person can only have a
single domicile, unless, for
Residence involves the intent to leave when the
various reasons, he
purpose for which the resident has taken up his
successfully abandons his
abode ends. One may seek a place for purposes
domicile in favor of another
such as pleasure, business, or health.
domicile of choice.
if his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

denotes a fixed permanent


residence to which, when
absent, one has the intention
of returning
Residence is not domicile
A man can have but one
domicile for the same
purpose at any time

established it is residence
It is thus, quite perfectly normal for an individual
to have different residences in various places.
Used to indicate a place of abode, whether
permanent or temporary
domicile is residence coupled with the intention to
remain for an unlimited time.
he may have numerous places of residence
place of residence is generally his place of
domicile, but it is not by any means necessarily so
since no length of residence without intention of
remaining will constitute domicile

RE: Exception to the Constitutions Residency Requirement


Clearly therefrom, the intent of the Constitutional Commission is to entrust to
Congress the responsibility of devising a system of absentee voting. The
qualifications of voters as stated in Section 1 shall remain except for the residency
requirement. The strategic location of Section 2 indicates that the Constitutional
Commission provided for an exception to the actual residency requirement of
Section 1 with respect to qualified Filipinos abroad. The same Commission has in
effect declared that qualified Filipinos who are not in the Philippines may be
allowed to vote even though they do not satisfy the residency requirement in Section
1, Article V of the Constitution.
Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 specifically disqualifies an immigrant or permanent
resident who is "recognized as such in the host country" because immigration or
permanent residence in another country implies renunciation of ones residence in
his country of origin. However, same Section allows an immigrant and permanent
resident abroad to register as voter for as long as he/she executes an affidavit to
show that he/she has not abandoned his domicile in pursuance of the constitutional
intent expressed in Sections 1 and 2 of Article V that "all citizens of the Philippines
not otherwise disqualified by law" must be entitled to exercise the right of suffrage
and, that Congress must establish a system for absentee voting; for otherwise, if
actual, physical residence in the Philippines is required, there is no sense for the
framers of the Constitution to mandate Congress to establish a system for absentee
voting.
Contrary to petitioners claim that Section 5(d) circumvents the Constitution,
Congress enacted the law prescribing a system of overseas absentee voting in
compliance with the constitutional mandate. Such mandate expressly requires that
Congress provide a system of absentee voting that necessarily presupposes that the
"qualified citizen of the Philippines abroad" is not physically present in the country.
The qualified Filipino abroad who executed the affidavit is deemed to have retained
his domicile in the Philippines. He is presumed not to have lost his domicile by his
physical absence from this country. His having become an immigrant or permanent

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

resident of his host country does not necessarily imply an abandonment of his
intention to return to his domicile of origin, the Philippines.
RE: Execution of the affidavit
Contrary to the claim of petitioner, the execution of the affidavit itself is not the
enabling or enfranchising act. The affidavit is not an explicit expression that he had
not in fact abandoned his domicile of origin. The execution of the affidavit does not
proscribe a provisional registration or a promise by a voter to perform a condition to
be qualified to vote in a political exercise.
The affidavit is required of immigrants and permanent residents abroad because by
their status in their host countries, they are presumed to have relinquished their
intent to return to this country; thus, without the affidavit, the presumption of
abandonment of Philippine domicile shall remain.
It must be emphasized that Section 5(d) does not only require an affidavit or a
promise to "resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later
than three years from approval of his/her registration," the Filipinos abroad must
also declare that they have not applied for citizenship in another country. Thus, they
must return to the Philippines; otherwise, their failure to return "shall be cause for
the removal" of their names "from the National Registry of Absentee Voters and
his/her permanent disqualification to vote in absentia."
Thus, Congress crafted a process of registration by which a Filipino voter
permanently residing abroad who is at least eighteen years old, not otherwise
disqualified by law, who has not relinquished Philippine citizenship and who has
not actually abandoned his/her intentions to return to his/her domicile of origin,
the Philippines, is allowed to register and vote in the Philippine embassy, consulate
or other foreign service establishments of the place which has jurisdiction over the
country where he/she has indicated his/her address for purposes of the elections,
while providing for safeguards to a clean election. 2
As to the eventuality that the Filipino abroad would renege on his undertaking to
return to the Philippines, the penalty of perpetual disenfranchisement under
Section 5(d), which provides for a deterrence which is that the Filipino who fails to
return as promised stands to lose his right of suffrage. Under Section 9, should a
registered overseas absentee voter fail to vote for two consecutive national elections,
may be ordered removed from the National Registry of Overseas Absentee Voters.

R.A. No. 9189 SEC. 11. Procedure for Application to Vote in Absentia. 11.1. Every qualified citizen of the Philippines abroad whose
application for registration has been approved, including those previously registered under Republic Act No. 8189, shall, in every national
election, file with the officer of the embassy, consulate or other foreign service establishment authorized by the Commission, a sworn written
application to vote in a form prescribed by the Commission. The authorized officer of such embassy, consulate or other foreign service
establishment shall transmit to the Commission the said application to vote within five (5) days from receipt thereof. The application form shall
be accomplished in triplicate and submitted together with the photocopy of his/her overseas absentee voter certificate of registration.
11.2. Every application to vote in absentia may be done personally at, or by mail to, the embassy, consulate or foreign service establishment,
which has jurisdiction over the country where he/she has indicated his/her address for purposes of the elections.
11.3. Consular and diplomatic services rendered in connection with the overseas absentee voting processes shall be made available at no cost
to the overseas absentee voter.

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

YRA V. ABANO, 52 PHIL. 380 G.R. NO. 30187 NOV 15, 1928

Facts:

Quo Warranto proceedings institituted by, petitioner, Marcos Yra, the vice-president
elect of Meycauayan, Bulacan, who challenges the right of the respondent, Maximo
Abano, the municipal president elect of Meycauayan, to the position to which
elected on the ground that the respondent is ineligible. Lower court ruled in favor of
respondent.
Maximo Abano is a native of Meycauayan, Bulacan. At the proper age, he
transferred to Manila to complete his education. While temporarily residing in
Manila, Abano registered as a voter there. Shortly after qualifying as a member of
the bar and after the death of his father, he returned to Meycauayan.
From May 10, 1927, until the present, Abano has considered himself a resident of
Meycauayan. When the 1928 elections were approaching, he made an application for
cancellation of registration in Manila which was dated April 3, 1928, but this
application was rejected. Nevertheless Abano presented himself as a candidate for
municipal president of Meycauayan in the 1928 elections and was elected by
popular vote to that office.

Issue:
Whether or not Abanos failure to be a registered voter connotes that he is not a
qualified elector therein. -- NO
Held:

Section 404 of the election law states to run for public office, one must be a qualified
elector.
The Executive Bureau has held that the term "qualified" when applied to a voter
does not necessarily mean that a person must be a registered voter. To become a
qualified candidate a person does not need to register as an elector. It is sufficient
that he possesses all the qualifications prescribed in section 431 and none of the
disqualifications prescribed in section 432. The fact that a candidate failed to register
as an elector in the municipality does not deprive him of the right to become a
candidate to be voted for.
The distinction is between a qualified elector and the respondent is such, and a
registered qualified elector and the respondent is such although not in his home

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

municipality. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage. It is not a


qualification for such right.
It should not be forgotten that the people of Meycauayan have spoken and their
choice to be their local chief executive is the respondent. The will of the electorate
should be respected.
For all the foregoing, we conclude that the decision rendered in the lower court
should be sustained. Accordingly, it will be affirmed, with the costs of this instance
against the appellant.

AKBAYAN YOUTH, SCAP, UCSC, MASP, KOMPIL II YOUTH,


ALYANSA, KALIPI, PATRICIA O. PICAR, MYLA GAIL Z. TAMONDONG,
EMMANUEL E. OMBAO, JOHNNY ACOSTA, ARCHIE JOHN TALAUE,
RYAN DAPITAN, CHRISTOPHER OARDE, JOSE MARI MODESTO,
RICHARD M. VALENCIA, EDBEN TABUCOL, PETITIONERS, VS.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS.G.R. NO. 147179. MARCH
26, 2001]
MICHELLE D. BETITO, PETITIONER, VS. CHAIRMAN ALFREDO
BENIPAYO, COMMISSIONERS MEHOL SADAIN, RUFINO JAVIER,
LUZVIMINDA TANCANGCO, RALPH LANTION, FLORENTINO TUASON
AND RESURRECCION BORRA, ALL OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION
(COMELEC), RESPONDENTS. ALEX
KEY WORDS: Reps of youth sector - RA 8189 sec 8 no registration 120/90 days
before special elec - right of suffrage not absolute - registration indispensable to elec
- courts should harmonise statutes - COMELEC: operational impossibility - courts
aid vigilant not unclean hands - mandamus does not compel discretionary duty

FACTS:
Petitioners AKBAYAN-Youth, SCAP, UCSC, MASP, KOMPIL II (YOUTH) et al,
seek to direct COMELEC to allow special registration of voters before the May
14, 2001 general elections. Around 4 million youth (ages 18-21), failed to register
before the December 27, 2000 deadline set by COMELEC.
Commissioners Lantion and Tancangco, youth organisations, participating
students and representatives of COMELEC were initially in agreement that the
extension was legally feasible. The commissioners then submitted a

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

memorandum stating certain parameters and guidelines to protect against


fraudulent applicants (submission of valid IDs, school documents, contact
infoetc.)
Commissioner Borra in consultation with regional heads and senior
representatives cited sec 8 of RA 8189 and disapproved. The COMELEC followed
with resolution 3584 denying the request.
Petitioners seek to set aside and nullify respondent COMELECs Resolution
and/or to declare Section 8 of R. A. 8189 unconstitutional insofar as said
provision effectively causes the disenfranchisement of petitioners and others
similarly situated.
ISSUES:
Whether or not respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
issuing COMELEC Resolution dated February 8, 2001;
Whether or not this Court can compel respondent COMELEC, through the
extraordinary writ of mandamus, to conduct a special registration of new voters
during the period between the COMELECs imposed December 27, 2000
deadline and the May 14, 2001 general elections
DECISION: PETITIONS ARE BEREFT OF MERIT.
1. How the SC decided: Right of suffrage is not absolute. It ought to be exercised
within the proper bounds and framework of the Constitution and must properly
yield to pertinent laws skillfully enacted by the Legislature.
2. Constitutional Basis: Substantive and Procedural
Substantive: Section 1, Article 5 of the Constitution provides: SECTION 1.
SUFFRAGE MAY BE EXERCISED BY ALL CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES
NOT OTHERWISE DISQUALIFIED BY LAW, WHO ARE AT LEAST EIGHTEEN
YEARS OF AGE, AND WHO SHALL HAVE RESIDED IN THE PHILIPPINES
FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR AND IN THE PLACE WHEREIN THEY PROPOSE
TO VOTE FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE
ELECTIONS. NO LITERACY, PROPERTY, OR OTHER SUBSTANTIVE
REQUIREMENT SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THE EXERCISE OF SUFFRAGE.
Procedural: RA 8189 or the Voters Registration Act of 1996. A citizen in order to
be qualified to exercise his right to vote, in addition to the minimum
requirements set by the fundamental charter, is obliged by law to register.
Registration is part and parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable element
in the election process.

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

sec. 8 of RA 8189 provides: System of Continuing Registration of Voters. The


Personal filing of application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily in
the office of the Election Officer during regular office hours. No registration
shall, however, be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty
(120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election
3. Rationale: The State, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may enact laws to
safeguard and regulate the act of voters registration. Existing legal proscription
and pragmatic operational considerations bear great weight in the adjudication
of the issues raised
The court quotes the COMELECs comment: The petition for exclusion is a
necessary component to registration since it is a safety mechanism that gives a
measure of protection against flying voters, non-qualified registrants, and the
like. The prohibitive period, on the other hand serves the purpose of securing
the voters substantive right to be included in the list of voters. If we
compromise on these safety nets, we may very well end up with a voters list full
of flying voters, overflowing with unqualified registrants, populated with
shadows and ghosts
Registration as a pre-election act: As defined by RA 8189 Registration refers to the
act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a
qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he
resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by
the Election Registration Board
Section 28 of RA 8436 and Section 8 of RA 8189 should be construed to harmonize
and stand together. The former section allowing for extension comes into play
when pre-election acts are still capable of being reasonably performed vis-a-vis
the remaining period before the date of election and the conduct of other related
pre-election activities required under the law.
The case also illustrates the COMELECs process: (Might be relevant for recits)
o Complete project of precincts
o Board of Elections Inspectors must be constituted
o Book of voters must be inspected, verified and sealed
o Computerized Voters list must be finalised and printed out
o preparation, bidding, printing and distribution of Voters information
sheet
Failing to register on time, the court notes the doctrine on coming to court with
unclean hands. well-entrenched is the rule in our jurisdiction that the law aids
the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

Finally, the court cannot issue the writ of mandamus because the remedy of lies
only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one;
mandamus will not issue to control the exercise of discretion of a public officer
where the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference
to any manner in which he is required to act, because it is his judgment that is to
be exercised and not that of the court.

NURHUSSEIN UTUTALUM V. COMELEC AND ANNI 181 SCRA 335


Case facts:
Petitioner Ututalum and respondent, Arden S. Anni, were among the candidates in the
May 30, 1987 congressional elections for the Second District of Sulu. The election
returns from Siasi showed that Petitioner Ututalum obtained 482 votes while
respondent Anni received 35,581 votes out of the 39,801 registered voters. If the returns
of Siasi were excluded, Petitioner Ututalum would have a lead of 5,301 votes.
Ututalum, 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 said returns. Thus he sought for failure of elections and eventually failed.
On 14 June 1987, the Sulu Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed respondent Anni
as the winner. He subsequently took his oath of office and entered upon the discharge
of its functions in July 1987.
On 16 June 1987, petitioner filed a second Petition with the COMELEC praying for the
annulment of Respondent Anni's proclamation and for his own proclamation as
Congressman for the Second District of Sulu.
On 16 January 1988, the COMELEC issued a Resolution annulling the Siasi List of
Voters "on the ground of massive irregularities committed in the preparation thereof
and being statistically improbable", and ordering a new registration of voters for the
local elections of 15 February 1988. A new Registry List was subsequently prepared
yielding only 12,555 names.
Petitioner Ututalum filed a supplemental pleading with the COMELEC entreating that
such annulment be considered and applied by the Commission in resolving his two
Petitions against Respondent.
The COMELEC [First Division] denied Petitioner Ututalum's two Petitions "for lack of

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

merit, with the advise (sic) that he may file an election contest before the proper forum,
if so desired."
Issue:
1. Whether or not fraud is a proper ground for pre proclamation election
protest
2. Whether or not the COMELEC is a proper forum for the protest
Held: The petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed and the assailed Resolutions are
affirmed.
1.) No. Petitioner's cause of action is the padding of the Siasi List of Voters, which,
indeed, is not a listed ground for a pre-proclamation controversy.
2.) No, action shall be brought to House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
Ratio:
1.)
Espaldon vs. COMELEC, L-78987, 25 August 1987: 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.
In Bautista vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 78994, March 10, 1988: The scope of preproclamation controversy is limited to the issues enumerated under Section 243 of the
Omnibus Election Code. The enumeration therein of the issues that may be raised in a
pre-proclamation controversy is restrictive and exclusive.
In addition, if all votes are stricken out another election would disenfranchise the good
or valid votes.
Sec. 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy.- The following shall be
proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy:
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers; (b) The canvassed
election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or
falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies
thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code; (c) The election
returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are
obviously manufactured or not authentic; and (d) When substitute or fraudulent
returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the results of which materially
affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates.

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

Such irregularities as fraud, vote-buying and terrorism are proper grounds in an


election contest but may not as a rule be invoked to declare a failure of election and to
disenfranchise the greater number of the electorate through the misdeeds, precisely, of
only a relative few. Otherwise, elections will never be carried out with the resultant
disenfranchisement of the innocent voters, for the losers will always cry fraud and
terrorism
2.)
Padilla vs. COMELEC: Where the respondent had already been proclaimed as the
elected representative of the contested congressional district and has long assumed
office and has been exercising the powers, functions, and duties appurtenant to said
office, the remedy of the petitioner lies with the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal. The pre-proclamation controversy becomes moot and academic.

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

Sec. 18. Challenges to Right to Register. - Any voter, candidate or


representative of a registered political party may challenge in writing any
application for registration, stating the grounds therefor. The challenge shall
be under oath and be attached to the application, together with the proof of
notice of hearing to the challenger and the applicant.
Oppositions to contest a registrant's application for inclusion in the voter's
list must, in all cases, be filed not later than the second Monday of the
month in which the same is scheduled to be heard or processed by the
Election Registration Board. Should the second Monday of the month fall on
a non-working holiday, oppositions may be filed on the next following
working day. The hearing on the challenge shall be heard on the third
Monday of the month and the decision shall be rendered before the end of
the month.
Who may challenge application for registration?
Any voter
Candidate
Representative of registered political party
How?

In writing, stating the grounds


Under oath
Attached to application (for challenging application)
Proof of notice of hearing will be sent to the challenger and the
applicant

Deadline: No later than second Monday of the month in which the same is
scheduled to be heard or processed by the Election Registration Board
EXC: if that Monday is non-working holiday. In that case, may be
filed the next working day.
Who will process? Election Registration Board.
When will the hearing be? Third Monday of the month.
Decided: Before the end of the month (from third Monday to last day of the
month)
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction in Inclusion and Exclusion Case. The Municipal
and Metropolitan Trial Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters in their respective cities or
municipalities. Decisions of the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts may be
appealed by the aggrieved party to the Regional Trial Court within five (5)
days from receipt of notice thereof. Otherwise, said decision shall become

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

final and executory. The regional trial court shall decide the appeal within
ten (10) days from the time it is received and the decision shall immediately
become final and executory. No motion for reconsideration shall be
entertained.
Who has jurisdiction? Municipal Trial Court and Metropolitan Trial Court =
MTC and MeTC.
Original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion
and exclusion of voters
May be appealed to Regional Trial Court = RTC within 5 days from
receipt of notice. After, RTC will decide within 10 days from the
time it is received. Decision after this is final and executor.
Did not file within 5 days from receipt of notice of MTC or MeTC
decision: final and executory
No motion for reconsideration.
Sec. 34. Petition for Inclusion of Voters in the List. - Any person whose
application for registration has been disapproved by the Board or whose
name has been stricken out from the list may file with the court a petition to
include his name in the permanent list of voters in his precinct at any time
except one hundred five (105) days prior to a regular election or seventyfive (75) days prior to a special election. It shall be supported by a
certificate of disapproval of his application and proof of service of notice of
his petition upon the Board. The petition shall be decided within fifteen (15)
days after its filing.
If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the permanent list of voters,
the Board shall place the application for registration previously disapproved
in the corresponding book of voters and indicate in the application for
registration the date of the order of inclusion and the court which issued the
same.
Scenario: application for registration was disapproved by Election
Registration Board, or stricken out (removed) from the list
Remedy: petition COURT to include name in the permanent list of voters
Including certificate of disapproval of his application and proof of service of
notice of his petition upon the Board
Limitation: No filing petition within 105 days prior to regular
election
And within 75 days prior to special election
When decided: within 15 days after filing
If successfully included:

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

Board shall place the application for registration previously


disapproved in the corresponding book of voters
o Indicate in application: the date of the order of inclusion and
the court which issued the same

Sec. 35. Petition for Exclusion of Voters from the List. - Any registered
voters, representative of a political party or the Election Officer, may file
with the court a sworn petition for the exclusion of a voter from the
permanent list of voters giving the name, address and the precinct of the
challenged voter at any time except one hundred (100) days prior to a
regular election or sixty-five (65) days before a special election. The petition
shall be accompanied by proof of notice to the Board and to the challenged
voter and shall be decided within ten (10) days from its filing.
If the decision is for the exclusion of the voter from the list, the Board shall,
upon receipt of the final decision, remove the voter's registration record
from the corresponding book of voters, enter the order of exclusion therein,
and thereafter place the record in the inactive file.
Exclusion of voter (different from challenge of application for registration)
Who may petition in Court?
Registered voter (for challenge, just voter)
Representative of political party
Election officer (for challenge, candidate)
What to file: a sworn petition for the exclusion of a voter from the
permanent list of voters giving
the name
address and
the precinct of the challenged voter
shall include: proof of notice to the Board and to the challenged
voter
When? GR: Any time
Exc: (100) days prior to a regular election (105 for inclusion)
Or sixty-five (65) days before a special election (75 for inclusion)
When to be decided: within ten (10) days from its filing
If decision is to EXCLUDE and this becomes final:
remove the voter's registration record from the corresponding book
of voters
enter the order of exclusion therein
place the record in the inactive file

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

Sec. 39. Annulment at Book of Voters. - The Commission shall, upon


verified petition of any voter or election officer or duly registered political
party, and after notice and hearing, annul any book of voters that is not
prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act or was prepared
through fraud, bribery, forgery, impersonation, intimidation, force or any
similar irregularity, or which contains data that are statistically improbable.
No order, ruling or decision annulling a book of voters shall be executed
within ninety (90) days before an election.
Grounds for annulment of book of voters
o Not prepared in accordance to RA 8189
o Prepared through Fraud, bribery, forgery, impersonation,
intimidation, force or any similar irregularity, or which
contains data that are statistically improbable (FFFIBIDS)
o Limitation: No order, ruling or decision ANNULLING book of
voters shall be EXECUTED within 90 days before election
UTUTALUM V. COMELEC
Petitioner Nurhussein A. Ututalum prays for the reversal, on the ground of
grave abuse of discretion, of the 19 April and 31 August 1988 Resolutions of
public respondent Commission on Elections [COMELEC], in Cases Nos. SP
87-469 and 87-497 which declined to reject the election returns from all the
precincts of the Municipality of Siasi, Sulu, in the last 30 May 1987
congressional elections and to annul respondent Arden S. Anni's
proclamation.
The undisputed facts follow:
1. Petitioner Ututalum and private respondent, Arden S. Anni, were among
the candidates in the last 30 May 1987 congressional elections for the
Second District of Sulu. 30 May was the date reset by the COMELEC from the
11 May 1987 elections.cralaw
2. The election returns from Siasi showed that Petitioner Ututalum obtained
four hundred and eighty-two [482] votes while respondent Anni received
thirty-five thousand five hundred and eighty-one [35,581] votes out of the
thirty-nine thousand eight hundred and one [39,801] registered voters [pp.
13, 187, Rollo]. If the returns of Siasi were excluded, Petitioner Ututalum
would have a lead of 5,301 votes.cralaw
3. On 4 June 1987, during the canvass of votes, Petitioner Ututalum, without
availing of verbal objections, 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 said returns. He, then claimed
that multiplying the 42 precincts of Siasi by 300 voters per precinct, there
should have been only 12,600 registered voters and not 36,663 voters who
cast their votes, thereby exceeding the actual authorized voters by 23,947
"ghost voters." [In his Petition, however, he admits that an error was

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

committed since "in the May 30,1987 elections, Siasi had 148 precincts"].
(p. 6, Rollo). He then prayed for the exclusion from the canvass of any
election returns from Siasi.cralaw
4. On the same day, 4 June, the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sulu
dismissed petitioner's objections because they had been "filed out of time or
only after the Certificate of Canvass had already been canvassed by the
Board and because the grounds for the objection were not one of those
enumerated in Section 243 of the Election Code" [See Order, p. 155, Rollo].
Also on the same day, 4 June 1987, petitioner filed with the Board of
Canvassers his Notice of Appeal from said Resolution to the COMELEC.cralaw
5. On 5 June 1987, petitioner filed his first petition with the COMELEC
seeking a declaration of failure of elections in the Municipality of Siasi and
other mentioned municipalities; that the COMELEC annul the elections in
Siasi and conduct another election thereat; and order the Provincial Board of
Canvassers to desist from proclaiming any candidate pending a final
determination of the Petition.cralaw
6. On 8 June 1987, the Provincial Board of Canvassers forwarded Petitioner's
appeal as well as its Order dismissing the written objections to the
COMELEC, with the request for authority to proclaim Respondent Anni as the
winning candidate.cralaw
7. On 11 June l987, in Case No. SPC 87-180, the COMELEC resolved that
there was no failure of elections in the 1st and 2nd Districts of Sulu except in
specified precincts in the 1st District.cralaw
8. On 14 June 1987, the Sulu Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed
respondent Anni as the winner. He subsequently took his oath of office and
entered upon the discharge of its functions in July 1987.cralaw
9. On 16 June 1987, petitioner filed a second Petition with the COMELEC
praying for the annulment of Respondent Anni's proclamation and for his
own proclamation as Congressman for the Second District of Sulu.cralaw
10. While those two petitions were pending, one Lupay Loong, a candidate
for Governor of Sulu, filed a verified Petition with the COMELEC to annul the
List of Voters of Siasi, for purposes of the election of local government
officials [docketed as SPC Case No. 87-624, p. 9, Rollo]. This Petition was
opposed by Respondent Anni. Petitioner Ututalum was not a party to this
proceeding.cralaw
On 16 January 1988, the COMELEC issued in said SPC 87-624, a Resolution
annulling the Siasi List of Voters "on the ground of massive irregularities
committed in the preparation thereof and being statistically improbable", and
ordering a new registration of voters for the local elections of 15 February
1988 [p. 41 Rollo].cralaw
Said Resolution was affirmed by this Court in Anni vs. COMELEC, G. R. No.
81398, 26 January 1988 [p. 43, Rollo]. A new Registry List was
subsequently prepared yielding only 12,555 names [p. 228, Rollo].cralaw

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

11. Immediately after having been notified of the annulment of the previous
Siasi List of Voters, Petitioner Ututalum filed a supplemental pleading with
the COMELEC entreating that such annulment be considered and applied by
the Commission in resolving his two Petitions against Respondent Anni [p.
319, Rollo].cralaw
12. On 19 April 1988, in a consolidated Per Curiam Resolution, the COMELEC
[First Division] denied Petitioner Ututalum's two Petitions "for lack of merit,
with the advise (sic) that he may file an election contest before the proper
forum, if so desired." Declared the COMELEC, inter alia:
While we believe that there was padding of the registry list of voters in Siasi,
yet to annul all the votes in this municipality for purposes of the May 30,
1987 elections would disenfranchise the good or valid votes. As held in
Espaldon vs. Comelec [G. R. No. L-78987, August 25, 1987], this
Commission is not the proper forum nor is it a proper ground in a preproclamation controversy, to wit:
Padded voter's list, massive fraud and terrorism is clearly not among the
issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy. They are
proper grounds for an election protest.
Petitioner Ututalum is now before Us assailing the foregoing Resolution.
Petitioner contends that the issue he raised before the COMELEC actually
referred to "obviously manufactured returns," a proper subject matter for a
pre-proclamation controversy and, therefore, cognizable by the COMELEC, in
accordance with Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code, which provides:
Sec 243. The following shall be the issues that may be raised in a preproclamation controversy:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion or
intimidation or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; [Emphasis
supplied]
xxx xxx xxx
Further, that the election returns from Siasi should be excluded from the
canvass of the results since its original List of Voters had already been finally
annulled; and, lastly, that there is no need to re-litigate in an election
protest the matter of annulment of the Registry List, this being already a
"fait accompli."
It is Our considered view, however, that given the factual setting, it can not
justifiably be contended that the Siasi returns, per se, were "obviously
manufactured" and, thereby, a legitimate issue in a pre-proclamation
controversy. It is true that in Lagumbay vs. COMELEC [L-2544, 31 January
1966, 16 SCRA 175], relied upon heavily by Petitioner Ututalum, this Court
ruled that the returns are obviously manufactured where they show a great

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

excess of votes over what could have been legally cast. 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. Moreover, the Lagumbay case dealt with the "manufacture" of
returns by those charged with their preparation as shown prima facie on the
questioned returns themselves. Not so in this case which deals with the
preparation of the registry list of voters, a matter that is not reflected on the
face of said returns.
Basically, therefore, Petitioner's cause of action is the padding of the Siasi
List of Voters, which, indeed, is not a listed ground for a pre-proclamation
controversy.
Sec. 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy.- The
following shall be proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation
controversy:
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;
(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects,
appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same
returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections 233,
234, 235 and 236 of this Code;
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or
intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were
canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the
aggrieved candidate or candidates.
As pointed out in Espaldon vs. COMELEC, L-78987, 25 August 1987:
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.
And as held in the case of Bautista vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 78994, March
10, 1988:
The scope of pre-proclamation controversy is limited to the issues
enumerated under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code. The
enumeration therein of the issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation
controversy is restrictive and exclusive. [See also Sanchez vs. COMELEC, G.
R. No. L-78461, 12 August 1987, 153 SCRA 67].
But Petitioner insists that the new Registry List should be considered and
applied by the COMELEC as the legal basis in determining the number of
votes which could be legally cast in Siasi. To allow the COMELEC to do so
retroactively, however, would be to empower it to annul a previous election
because of the subsequent annulment of a questioned registry in a
proceeding where petitioner himself was not a party. This cannot be done. In

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

the case of Bashier vs. COMELEC [L-33692, 24 February 1972, 43 SCRA


238], this Court categorically ruled:
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.
Besides, the List of Voters used in the 1987 Congressional elections was
then a validly existing and still unquestioned permanent Registry List. Then,
it was the only legitimate roster which could be used as basis for voting.
There was no prior petition to set it aside for having been effected with
fraud, intimidation, force, or any other similar irregularity in consonance with
Section 145 of the Omnibus Election Code. [1] That List must then be
considered conclusive evidence of persons who could exercise the right of
suffrage in a particular election [Abendante vs. Relato, 94 Phil. 8; Medenilla
vs. Kayanan, L-28448-49, 30 July 1971, 40 SCRA 154].
Moreover, the preparation of a voter's 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 [Sanchez vs. COMELEC, ante], and such challenges should relate
to specified election returns against which petitioner should have made
specific verbal objections. [Sec. 245, Omnibus Election Code; Pausing vs.
Yorac, et al., G. R. No. 82700, 4 August 1988, Endique vs. COMELEC, G.R.
Nos. 82020-21, 22 November 1988] but did not.cralaw
That the padding of the List of Voters may constitute fraud, or that the
Board of Election Inspectors may have fraudulently conspired in its
preparation, would not be a valid basis for a pre-proclamation controversy
either. For, whenever irregularities, such as fraud, are asserted, the proper
course of action is an election protest.cralaw
Such irregularities as fraud, vote-buying and terrorism are proper grounds in
an election contest but may not as a rule be invoked to declare a failure of
election and to disenfranchise the greater number of the electorate through
the misdeeds, precisely, of only a relative few. Otherwise, elections will
never be carried out with the resultant disenfranchisement of the innocent
voters, for the losers will always cry fraud and terrorism [GAD vs. COMELEC,
G. R. No. 78302, May 26, 1987, 150 SCRA 665].cralaw
Petitioner Ututalum's other submission is that the Siasi returns should be
excluded since the List of Voters on which it was based has been
conclusively annulled. He thus asks for the application of the rule on res
judicata. This is neither possible. Aside from the fact that the indispensable
requisites of res judicata, namely, identity of parties, of subject matter, and
of cause of action are not all present, the ruling desired would, as the

ELECTION HOME WORK 1

COMELEC had opined, disenfranchise the good and valid votes in the
congressional elections of 30 May 1987.cralaw
Finally, this Petition has to fail if only on the basis of the equally important
doctrine enunciated in Padilla vs. COMELEC [L-68351-52, 9 July 1985, 137
SCRA 424] reiterated in Baldo vs. COMELEC [G. R. No. 83205,14 July 1988]
that:
Where the respondent had already been proclaimed as the elected
representative of the contested congressional district and has long assumed
office and has been exercising the powers, functions, and duties appurtenant
to said office, the remedy of the petitioner lies with the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal. The pre-proclamation controversy
becomes moot and academic.
and in the more recent case of Antonino vs. COMELEC [G. R. No. 84678, 29
March 1989]:
Where the winning candidates have been proclaimed, the pre-proclamation
controversies cease. A pre-proclamation controversy is no longer viable at
this point in time and should be dismissed. The proper remedy thereafter is
an election protest before the proper forum. Recourse to such remedy would
settle the matter in controversy conclusively and once and for all.
Having arrived at the foregoing conclusions, a discussion of the other
peripheral issues raised has been rendered unnecessary.
WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed and the assailed
Resolutions are affirmed. No costs.cralaw
SO ORDERED.cralaw
ROMUALDEZ v. COMELEC
AQUINO v. COMELEC
Assignment for next meeting
-Sec 67 BP 881
Sec 67- PNOC Energy vs Nlrc (gr 100947 May 31, 1993)
Sec 73- Loreto Go vs COMELEC (gr 147741 May 10 2001)
sec 74- De Guzman vs Board of Canvassers (48 Phil 211) and Jurilla vs COMELEC (GR
105436 june 2 1994)
Sec 75 (Memorize)
Sec 76- Abcede vs Imperial ( 103 Phil 136) and
Cipriano vs COMELEC (GR 158830 Aug 10,2004)
Sec 77- Luna vs COMELEC (gr 165983 april 24,2007)
Ycain vs Caneja (81 phil 773)---Spanish to
Monsale vs Nico (83 phil 758)

ELECTION HOME WORK 1


Sec 78 Garvida vs Sales
Loong vs Comelec (216 SCRA 760)
Memorize the Disquaifications found in bp 881 (Sec 68)
Section 79- Lanot v COMELEC gr164858
Sec 82- Lawful election propaganda
Section 85 Prohibited election propaganda
-Badoy v COMELEC 35 SCRA 285
-Sanidad v Comelec
-Chavez v Comlec GR 162777 aug 31 2004
Prohibited COntribution
Sec 95-97; 100-102
Statement of Contribution
Pilar v comelec 245 scra 759

BEFORE ELECTION
1. Watchers
DURING ELECTION
1. Casting of votes
2. Challenge of illegal voter
3. Records of challenges and oaths
4. Minutes of voting and counting of votes.
5. List of unused ballots
AFTER ELECTION
1. Counting of votes
2. Board of Election Inspectors
3. Appreciation of Ballots
4. Election returns
5. Announcement of the results of the election and issuance of certificate of votes received.
6. Canvass and Proclamation
7. Pre-proclamation controversy
8. Election protest against a proclaimed candidate
9. Original and exclusive jurisdiction
10. Appellate jurisdiction
11. Requisites of election protest
12. Quo warranto, its requisites
13. Election offenses
14. Appeal

S-ar putea să vă placă și