Nolasco versus COMELEC

275 SCRA 763

FACTS:

Florentino P. Blanco and Eduado A. Alarilla both vied for the mayoral position of
Meycauayan, Bulacan during the election held 8 May 1995. Blanco garnered the highest
number of votes. Edgardo Nolasco was elected vice-mayor. On May 9, Alarilla filed with
the COMELEC a petition to disqualify Blanco on grounds that the latter committed acts
in violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, to wit: giving money to
influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing election functions;
for committing acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; and for spending in his
election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by the Election Code (P10
million against 97,000 registered voters). On 15 August, the COMELEC disqualified
Blanco on the ground of vote-buying and ordered the Board of Canvassers of
Meycauayan, Bulacan to reconvene and to determine the winner out of the remaining
qualified candidates who shall be immediately proclaimed. Blanco moved for
reconsideration while Nolasco, as vice mayor, intervened in the proceedings. Nolasco
urged that as vice-mayor he should be declared mayor in the event Blanco was finally
disqualified. Both motions were denied. Hence, the petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.

HELD: Yes.

The dispute at bar involves concerns on the right of suffrage which is the bedrock of
republicanism. Suffrage is the means by which people express their sovereign
judgment. As succinctly held in People v. San Juan, “each time the enfranchised citizen
goes to the polls to assert this sovereign will, that abiding credo of republicanism is
translated into living reality. If that will must remain undefiled at the starting level of its
expression and application, every assumption must be indulged in and every guarantee
adopted to assure the unmolested exercise of the citizen’s free choice. For to impede,
without authority valid in law, the free and orderly exercise o the right of suffrage, is to
inflict the ultimate indignity on the democratic process."

In a mayoralty election, the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes
cannot be proclaimed winner in the case the winning candidate is disqualified. In this
case Alarilla, cannot be proclaimed winner. To simplistically assume that the second
placer would have received the other votes would be to substitute judgment for the mind
of the voter. The second placer is just that, a second placer. He lost the elections. He
was repudiated by either a majority or plurality of voters. He could not be considered the
first among qualified candidates because in a field which excludes the disqualified
candidate, the conditions would have substantially changed.

Hence, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion insofar as it failed to follow
the above doctrine.
 Angel Naval versus COMELEC
729 SCRA 299

FACTS:

Angel G. Naval was elected three (3) times as a member of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan representing the Second District in Camarines Sur. In the 2013 local
elections, he again filed his certificate of candidacy for membership to represent the
Third District of the province. Nelson B. Julia, a candidate for the same position
questioned Naval’s eligibility considering that he was running for a fourth (4th) term
which violates the inflexible three-term limit rule enshrined in the Constitution and the
Local Government Code. The COMELEC ruled that Naval was not eligible. The
territorial jurisdiction which he sought to serve for the 2013-2016 is the same as the
territorial jurisdiction he previously served. The electorate who voted for him in 2004,
2007, 2010, is the same electorate in the 2013 elections. Naval contended that the First,
Second and Third Legislative Districts of Camarines Sur were not merely renamed but
are composed of new sets of Municipalities. With the separation of Gainza and Milaor
from the towns that comprised the Second District, the voters from the Third Legislative
District are no longer the same ones as those who elected him in 2004 and 2007. He
further invoked Article 94 of Administrative Order No. 270 prescribing the Implementing
Rules & Regulations of the Local Government Code that Sanggunian Members are
elected by districts, hence, the right to choose representatives of the Sanggunian
pertains to each of the districts. He was elected in 2004 and 2007 by the Second
District. In 2010 & 2013, it was the Third District which brought him to office, hence, his
election in 2013 was only his second term as SB member of the Third District. Finally,
he argued that he garnered majority of the votes from his constituents whose will and
mandate should be upheld.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contention of Naval that the will and mandate of majority
voters should be upheld is correct.

HELD:

No, for the exercise of the right of suffrage is not absolute.

True, election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. In the exercise of
suffrage, a free people expects to achieve the continuity of government and the
perpetuation of its benefits. However, in spite of its importance, the privileges and rights
arising from having been elected may be enlarged or restricted by law.

Hence, while it is settled that in elections, the first consideration of every democratic
policy is to give effect to the expressed will of the majority, there are limitations to being
elected to a public office. The constitution and statutes are explicit anent the existence
of term limits, the nature of public office, and the guarantee from the State that citizens
shall have equal access to public service. Section 8, Article X of our Constitution, on
term limits, is significantly reiterated by Section 43(b) of the LGC. Moreover, the Court
has time and again declared that a public office is a public trust and not a vested
property right.

Kabataan Party List versus COMELEC

777 SCRA 574

FACTS:

RA 10367 mandates the COMELEC to implement a mandatory biometrics registration

system for new voters in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent, and updated
list of voters through the adoption of biometric technology. The said provision
likewise directs that “registered voters whose biometrics have not been captured shall
submit themselves for validation.” “Voters who fail to submit for validation on or before
the last day of filing of application for registration for purposes of the May 2016 elections
shall be deactivated. COMELEC issued then a Resolution No. 9721 as amended by
Resolutions No. 9863 and 10013. Among others, the said Resolution provides that: “the
registration records of voters without biometrics data who failed to submit for validation
on or before the last day of filing of applications for registration for the purpose of
the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections shall be deactivated. Kabataan Party List
filed the instant petition with application for temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ
of preliminary mandatory injunction (WPI) assailing the constitutionality of the biometrics
validation requirement imposed under RA 10367, as well as COMELEC Resolution Nos.
9721, 9863, and 10013, all related thereto.

ISSUE: Whether or not the statutory requirement of biometric validation absolutely

curtails the exercise of the right of suffrage.

HELD:

No.

Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Constitution delineates the current parameters for the
exercise of suffrage: 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.

Biometrics validation is not a “qualification” to the exercise of the right of suffrage, but a
mere aspect of the registration procedure, of which the State has the right to reasonably
regulate. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage. It is not a
qualification for such right. The process of registration is a procedural limitation on the
right to vote. Thus, although one is deemed to be a “qualified elector,” he must
nonetheless still comply with the registration procedure in order to vote. Thus, unless it
is shown that a registration requirement rises to the level of a literacy, property or other
substantive requirement as contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution, that is, one
which propagates a socio-economic standard which is bereft of any rational basis to a
person’s ability to intelligently cast his vote and to further the public good, the same
cannot be struck down as unconstitutional, as in this case.

Bagumbayan-VNP, Gordon versus COMELEC

787scra 1

FACTS:

Bagumbayan-VNP, Inc. Is a non-stock corporation and operates through Bagumbayan

Volunteers for a new Philippines, a national political party duly registered with
COMELEC. Former Sen. Gordon in this case, is a registered voter and taxpayer
authored R. A. 9369, the law that amended R. A. 8436, otherwise known as the
Automated Election System Law. Petitioners allege that under this Act, there are several
safeguards or Minimum System Capabilities to ensure sanctity of the ballot and that
implementation of the VVPAT or the Voter Verification Paper Audit Trail security feature
as found in section 6(e) (f) and (n). Petitioners claimed that VVPAT consists of physical
paper records of voter ballots as voters have cast them on an electronic voting system
and also seek to compel the COMELEC to have the vote- counting machine issue
receipts once a person has voted.

ISSUE: Whether or not the inclusion of VVPAT which is a mandatory requirement under
the automated election laws has been violated by the COMELEC.

HELD:

Yes.

Under section 28 of R. A. No. 9369, amending section 35 of R.A. No. 8436, anyone
interfering with and impeding the use of counting devices and the processing, storage,
generation and transmission of election results, data or information commits a felonious
act. However, the Court compelled with COMELEC to comply with the provisions of
section 6 (e), (f), and (n) of R. A. No. 8436, as amended that mandamus is proper to
enforce the public right and compel the performance of a public duty. Under the
Constitution, the Court has the original jurisdiction over petitions for mandamus not the
COMELEC because the functions of the COMELEC vested by law to enforce and
administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections in the country.