Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
52Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Election Law Case Digest Matrix 1

Election Law Case Digest Matrix 1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,637|Likes:
Published by Stef Macapagal
digests for election law under articles V and VI of the constitution
digests for election law under articles V and VI of the constitution

More info:

Published by: Stef Macapagal on Jul 27, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, DOC, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

03/06/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Election Law Case Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal
Article V – Suffrage
Title Facts Issue/s Ruling Doctrine/s
Macalintal v. COMELECGR No. 15701310 July 2003
 Austria-Martinez, J.
Romulo Macalintal assails theconstitutionality of RA 9189, entitled“The Overseas Absentee Voting Actof 2003.”The provision assailed is Section 5,which allows the registration of voters who are immigrants or  permanent residents in other countries by their mere act of executing an affidavit expressingtheir intention to return to thePhilippines.W/N Section 5 of RA 9189 violatesthe residency requirement in Section1 of Article V of the Constitution.What does “qualified citizens of thePhilippines abroad” as it appears inRA 9189 mean? NO. Contrary to petitioner’s claimthat Section 5 circumvents theConstitution, Congress enacted thelaw prescribing a system of overseasabsentee voting in compliance withthe constitutional mandate. Suchmandate expressly requires thatCongress provide a system of absentee voting that necessarily presupposes that the “qualifiedcitizen of the Philippines abroad” isnot physically present in the country.The qualified Filipino abroad whoexecuted his affidavit is deemed tohave retained his domicile in thePhilippines. He is presumed to nothave lost his domicile by his physicalabsence from this country. As to theeventuality that the Filipino abroadwould renege on his undertaking toreturn to the Philippines, the penaltyof perpetual disenfranchisement provided for by Section 5(d) wouldsuffice to serve as deterrence to non-compliance with his/her undertakingunder the affidavit.It means Filipinos who are notdisqualified under Section 5 of thesaid law.
Obiter:Contrary to the claim of the petitioner, the execution of theaffidavit itself is not the enabling or enfranchising act. It is not only proof of the intention of the immigrant or  permanent resident to go back and resume residency in the Philippines,but more significantly, it serves as anexplicit expression that he had not in fact abandoned his domicile of origin. The affidavit is required of immigrants and permanent residentsabroad because by their status intheir host countries, they are presumed to have relinquished their 
Section 1, Article V of theConstitution specifically providesthat suffrage may be exercised by (1)all citizens of the Philippines; (2) nototherwise disqualified by law; (3) atleast eighteen years of age; and (4)who are residents in the Philippinesfor at least one year and in the placewhere they propose to vote for atleast six months immediately preceding the election.The right of absentee and disabledvoters to cast their ballots at anelection is purely statutory; absenteevoting was unknown to, and notrecognized at, the common law.Statutes on absentee voting areregarded as conferring a privilegeand not a right, or an absolute right.Domicile includes the twin elementsof “the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place” and
animus manendi
, or the intention of returning there permanently.Residence, in its ordinary conception,implies the factual relationship of anindividual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in agiven area, community, or country.The essential distinction betweenresidence and domicile in law is thatresidence involves the intent to leavewhen the purpose for which theresident has taken up his abode ends.If a person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent isto leave as soon as his purpose isestablished it is residence.A person can only have a singledomicile, unless, for various reasons,he successfully abandons hisdomicile in favor of another domicile
1
 
Election Law Case Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal
intent to return to this country; thus,without the affidavit, the presumption of abandonment of  Philippine domicile shall remain.The strategic location of Section 2indicates that the Constitutional Commission provided for anexception to the actual residencyrequirement of Section 1 with respect to qualified Filipinos abroad.
of choice.Ordinarily, an absentee is not aresident and vice versa; a personcannot be at the same time, both aresident and an absentee. However,under our election laws and thecountless pronouncements of theCourt pertaining to elections, anabsentee remains attached to hisresidence in the Philippines asresidence is considered synonymouswith domicile.Akbayan -Youth v. COMELECGR Nos. 147066 & 14717926 March 2001
 Buena, J.
Petitioners, representing the youthsector, seek to direct the COMELECto conduct a special registration before the 14 May 2001 GeneralElections of new voters ages 18 to21. According to them, around 4Myouth failed to register on or beforethe 27 December 2000 deadline set by COMELEC under RA 8189, or the “Voters’ Registration Act of 1996.”Sen. Raul Roco had previouslyrequested the COMELEC to hold a2-day special registration for theyouth, which the COMELECdeclined for lack of time toaccomplish all pre-election activities.Aggrived by the denial, the petitioners came to Court to compelCOMELEC to let them register andto invalidate RA 8189.W/N RA 8189 is unconstitutionalinsofar as it effectively causes thedisenfranchisement of those whowere not able to register. NO. The right of suffrage is not at allabsolute. The exercise of the right issubject to existing substantive and procedural requirements embodied inour Constitution, statute books, andother repositories of law. As to thesubstantive aspect, Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution provides for it. As to the procedurallimitation, the right of a citizen tovote is necessarily conditioned uponcertain procedural requirements hemust undergo: among others, the process of registration. Proceedingfrom the significance of registrationas a necessary requisite to the right tovote, the State undoubtedly, in theexercise of its inherent police power,may then enact laws to safeguard andregulate the act of voters’ registrationfor the ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly, and peaceful election.In a representative democracy suchas ours, the right of suffrage,although accorded a prime niche inthe hierarchy of rights embodied inthe fundamental law, ought to beexercised within the proper boundsand framework of the Constitutionand must properly yield to pertinentlaws skillfully enacted by theLegislature.The act of registration is anindispensable precondition to theright of suffrage. Registration cannotand should not be denigrated to thelowly stature of a mere statutoryrequirement.
Article VI – Legislative Department
Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELECGR No. 11997618 September 1995
 Kapunan, J.
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of theFirst District of Leyte. In her residence information, she wrotedown “seven months.”When Cirilo Montejo, the incumbentrepresentative, challenged her W/N Marcos can be considered as aresident, for election purposes, of theFirst District of Leyte for a period of one year at the time of the elections.YES. It stands to reason that Marcosmerely committed an honest mistakein jotting the word “seven” in thespace provided for the residencyqualification requirement. The juxtaposition of entries in Item 7 andItem 8—the first requiring actualresidence and the second requiringdomicile—coupled with theIn election cases, the term“residence” has always beenconsidered as synonymous with“domicile” which imports not onlythe intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conductindicative of such intention. Domiciledenotes a fixed permanent residence
2
 
Election Law Case Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal
candidacy for not being able to meetthe one-year residency requirement,Marcos filed an Amended/CorrectedCertificate of Candidacy, changingthe entry “seven months” to “sincechildhood.” COMELEC did notaccept the Amended Certificate,which prompted her to file a casewith COMELEC.COMELEC then passed a Resolutiondenying Marcos’ petition, stating thatthe facts point to Marcos not beingable to satisfy the residencyrequirement. COMELEC stated thatwhen Marcos chose to stay in Ilocosand later on in Metro Manila,coupled with her intention to staythere by registering as a voter thereand expressly declaring that she is aresident of that place, she is deemedto have abandoned Tacloban City,where she spent her childhood andschool days, as her place of domicile.Marcos’ MR was also denied. On theday before the elections, theCOMELEC issued a Resolutiondeclaring her not qualified to run for the position of Member of the Houseof Representatives. Several daysafter, it issued another Resolutionallowing Marcos’ proclamationshould the results of the canvas showthat she obtained the highest number of votes in the constituency. On thesame day, the COMELEC reversedits own Resolution.W/N the COMELEC properlyexercised its jurisdiction indisqualifying Marcos outside the period mandated by the OmnibusElection Code for disqualificationcases under Article 78 of the saidCode.W/N the House of RepresentativesElectoral Tribunal assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the question of Marcos’ qualifications after theelections.circumstances surrounding Marcos’registration as a voter in Tolosaobviously led her to writing down anunintended entry for which she could be disqualified. This honest mistakeshould not, however, be allowed tonegate the fact of residence in theFirst District if such fact wereestablished by means moreconvincing than a mere entry on a piece of paper. Although Marcosheld various residences for different purposes during the last four decades,none of these purposes unequivocally point to an intention to abandon her domicile of origin in Tacloban,Leyte. When she married former President Marcos, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gaineda new home, not a
domiciliumnecessarium.
Her well-publicized tiesto her domicile of origin are part of the history and lore of the quarter century of Marcos power in our country. Either they were entirelyignored by the COMELEC’sResolutions, or the majority of theCOMELEC did not know what therest of the country always knew: thefact of Marcos’ domicile inTacloban, Leyte.YES. A statute requiring rendition of  judgment within a specified time isgenerally construed to be merelydirectory. In any event, with theenactment of Sections 6 and 7 of RA6646 in relation to Section 78 of BP881, it is evident that COMELECdoes not lose jurisdiction to hear anddecide a pending disqualificationcase even after the elections. NO. HRET’s jurisdiction as the sole judge of all contests relating to theelections, returns, and qualificationsof members of Congress begins onlyafter a candidate has become amember of the House of Representatives.to which when absent for business or  pleasure, or for like reasons, oneintends to return.How one acquires a new domicile bychoice: There must concur (1)residence or bodily presence in thenew locality; (2) intention to remainthere; and (3) intention to abandonthe old domicile.Domicile includes the twin elementsof “the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place” and
animus manendi
, or the intention of returning there permanently.Residence, in its ordinary conception,implies the factual relationship of anindividual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in agiven area, community, or country.The essential distinction betweenresidence and domicile in law is thatresidence involves the intent to leavewhen the purpose for which theresident has taken up his abode ends.If a person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent isto leave as soon as his purpose isestablished it is residence.It is the fact of residence, not astatement in a certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisivein determining whether or not anindividual has satisfied theconstitution’s residency qualificationrequirement.An individual does not lose hisdomicile even if he has lived andmaintained residences in different places.(1) A minor always follows thedomicile of his parents. Domicile,once acquired, is retained until a newone is gained. (2) Domicile of origin
3

Activity (52)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
jeesup9 liked this
jafernand liked this
dejeh ocba liked this
Don So Hiong liked this
Joreyna Mae liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->