01 Romualdez vs.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 167011 April 30, 2008

FACTS

COMELEC Law Department filed two separate informations before the RTC
Barauen, Leyte against spouses Carlos S. Romualdez and Erlinda R.
Romualdez for knowingly making false or untruthful statement in their
application for voter’s registration relative to their place of residence and non
– registration in other areas, which are violations of Sections 10(g) and (j), in
relation to Section 45(j) of RA 8189 or the Voter’s Registration Act, to wit:

SEC. 10 – Registration of Voters. – xxx The application shall contain the

following data: x x x (g) Periods of residence in the Philippines and in the
place of registration; x x x (j) A statement that the application is not a
registered voter of any precinct;

SEC. 45. Election Offense. – The following shall be considered election

offenses under this Act: x x x (j) Violation of any of the provisions of this Act.

Pending the above case, the spouses filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari
against COMELEC, on the ground, among others, of the unconstitutionality of
Section 45(j) for being contrary to the fair notice requirement Section 14(1)
and Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, as such penal provision
is vague on its face.

ISSUE

WON Section 45(j) of RA 8189 is unconstitutional for having uncertain election

prohibition.

RULING

No, the Supreme Court held. Using the void for vagueness doctrine, it the law
is said to be facially invalid only if men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.

As structured, Section 45 of RA 8189 makes a recital of election offenses

under the same Act. Section 45(j) clearly specifies that a violation of any of
the provisions of RA 8189 is an election offense. The language of Section
45(j) is precise. The challenged provision renders itself to no other
interpretation and involves no guesswork.