Election Law – Chapter 2

Case 3: Marcos Yra VS Maximo Abano GR No. L-30187. November 15, 1928

Facts: Maximo Abano – transferred from Bulacan to Manila to finish his education and while in Manila,
he became a registered voter. He returned to Bulacan and considered himself as a resident therein. In
1928, he applied for the cancellation of registration in Manila, which was denied for reason that it was
not deposited in the mails. Abano participated as candidate for municipal president in Bulacan and won.

Marcos Yra – the vice president elect challenges the right of Abano to the position he was elected.

Issue: WON Abano is eligible to the position he was elected

Held: Yes.

Sec. 404, Election Law - No person shall be eligible for any elective municipal office unless, within the
time fixed by law, he shall file a duly sworn certificate of candidacy. Said certificate shall declare that he
is a resident of the municipality in which his candidacy is offered; that he is a duly qualified elector
therein, and that he is eligible to the office.

Sec. 2174, Administrative Code - An elective municipal officer must, at the time of the election, be a
qualified voter in his municipality and must have been resident therein for at least one year.

“Qualified” - the term "qualified" when applied to a voter does not necessarily mean that a person must
be a registered voter. Sufficient that a person had all of the qualifications provided by law.
Case 4: Abelardo Aportadera VS Manuel Sotto GR NO. L-16876. November 30, 1961

Facts: Abelardo Aportadera – instituted quo warrnto proceedings against Manuel Sotto, vice governor of
Davao, alleging that Sotto was not a qualified voter of Davao at the time of the election, as he was a
registered voter in Manila and no cancellation of registration was made.

Manuel Sotto – moved to dismiss for the reason that it does not state a cause of action.

Issue: WON Sotto is disqualified

Held: No.

Section 2071 of the Revised Administrative Code - No person shall be eligible to a provincial office unless
at the time of the election he is a qualified voter of the province, has been a bona fideresident therein
for at least one year prior to the election, and is not less than twenty-five years of age.

section 99 of the Revised Election Code - The following persons shall not be qualified to vote:

(a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer one year or more of imprisonment,
such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon.

(b) Any person who has been declared by final judgment guilty of any crime against property.

(c) Any person who has violated his allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

(d) Insane or feeble-minded persons.

(e) Persons who cannot prepare the ballots themselves.

Inapplicability of the Disqualification - even if he had not been registered at all in Davao, this could not
decisively affect the question whether or not he is a "qualified voter," if he meets the conditions
prescribed in said Article V of the Constitution, and, in addition thereto, has the age and residence
required in section 2071.
Case 5: Akbayan Youth VS COMELEC GR No. 147066. March 26,2001

Akabayan Youth – petitioners seek to direct the COMELEC to conduct a special registration before the
2001 elections as around four million youth failed to register on or before the December 27, 2000
deadline set by the respondent COMELEC.

COMELEC- denied the request.

Issue: WON a special registration may be conducted

Held: No.

Section 1, Article V of the Constitution - 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 Limitation - the right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural
requirements he must undergo

Section 8, of the R.A. 8189 - 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.

Purpose of period - the period serve a vital role in protecting the integrity of the registration
process. Without the prohibitive periods, the COMELEC would be deprived of any time to evaluate the
evidence on the application. We would be obliged to simply take them at face value. 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.
Case 6: Atty. Romulo Macalintal VS COMELEC GR No. 157013. July 10, 2003

Facts: Atty. Romulo Macalintal – raises three principal questions:

A. Does Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 9189 allowing 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?

B. Does Section 18.5 of the same law empowering the COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for
national offices and party list representatives including the President and the Vice-President violate the
constitutional mandate under Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution that the winning candidates for
President and the Vice-President shall be proclaimed as winners by Congress?

C. May Congress, through the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created in Section 25 of Rep. Act
No. 9189, exercise the power to review, revise, amend, and approve the Implementing Rules and
Regulations that the Commission on Elections shall promulgate without violating the independence of
the COMELEC under Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution?

R.A. No. 9189, entitled, An Act Providing for A System of Overseas Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens
of the Philippines Abroad, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes - appropriates funds
under Section 29 thereof which provides that a supplemental budget on the General Appropriations Act
of the year of its enactment into law shall provide for the necessary amount to carry out its
provisions. Taxpayers, such as herein petitioner, have the right to restrain officials from wasting public
funds through the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute.

Held: 1) No. Section 5 of RA No. 9189 enumerates those who are disqualified voting under this Act. It
disqualifies an immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host country.
However, an exception is provided i.e. 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 3 years from approval of registration. 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.

Petitioner claims that this is violative of the residency requirement in Section 1 Article V of the
Constitution which requires the voter must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one yr, and a
resident in the place where he proposes to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding an
election.

However, OSG held that ruling in said case does not hold water at present, and that the Court may have
to discard that particular ruling. Panacea of the controversy: Affidavit for without it, the presumption of
abandonment of Phil domicile shall remain. The qualified Filipino abroad who executed an affidavit is
deemed to have retained his domicile in the Philippines and presumed not to have lost his domicile by
his physical absence from this country. Section 5 of RA No. 9189 does not only require the promise to
resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than 3 years after approval of
registration but it also requires the Filipino abroad, WON he is a green card holder, a temporary visitor
or even on business trip, must declare that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country.
Thus, he/she must return to the Philippines otherwise consequences will be met according to RA No.
9189.

Although there is a possibility that the Filipino will not return after he has exercised his right to vote, the
Court is not in a position to rule on the wisdom of the law or to repeal or modify it if such law is found to
be impractical. However, it can be said that the Congress itself was conscious of this probability and
provided for deterrence which is that the Filipino who fails to return as promised stands to lose his right
of suffrage. Accordingly, the votes he cast shall not be invalidated because he was qualified to vote on
the date of the elections.

Expressum facit cessare tacitum: where a law sets down plainly its whole meaning, the Court is
prevented from making it mean what the Court pleases. In fine, considering that underlying intent of the
Constitution, as is evident in its statutory construction and intent of the framers, which is to grant
Filipino immigrants and permanent residents abroad the unquestionable right to exercise the right of
suffrage (Section 1 Article V) the Court finds that Section 5 of RA No. 9189 is not constitutionally
defective.

(2) Yes. Congress should not have allowed COMELEC to usurp a power that constitutionally belongs to it.
The canvassing of the votes and the proclamation of the winning candidates for President and Vice
President for the entire nation must remain in the hands of Congress as its duty and power under
Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution. COMELEC has the authority to proclaim the winning
candidates only for Senators and Party-list Reps.

(3) No. By vesting itself with the powers to approve, review, amend and revise the Implementing Rules
& Regulations for RA No. 9189, Congress went beyond the scope of its constitutional authority. Congress
trampled upon the constitutional mandate of independence of the COMELEC. Under such a situation,
the Court is left with no option but to withdraw from its usual silence in declaring a provision of law
unconstitutional. 
Case 7: Loida Nicolas-Lewis VS COMELEC GR NO. 162759. August 4, 2006

Facts: Petitioners- sought registration as overseas absentee voters. They are dual citizens who retained
or reacquired Philippine Citizenship under RA No. 9225, or Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act
of 2003.

COMELEC – denied their petitions on the ground that they fail to meet the qualification of 1-year
residency required by the Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.

Issue: Whether or not dual citizens may exercise their right to suffrage as absentee voters even short of
1-year residency requirement.

Held: Yes. Sec 4 and 5 of RA 9189:

Section 4. Coverage. All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not otherwise disqualified by law, at
least eighteen (18) years of age on the day of elections, may vote for president, vice-president, senators
and party-list representatives.

Section 5. Disqualifications. The following shall be disqualified from voting under this Act:

(a) Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with Philippine laws;

(b) Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship and who have pledged allegiance to
a foreign country;

(c) Those who have [been] convicted in a final judgment by a court or tribunal of an offense punishable
by imprisonment of not less than one (1) year, including those who have been found guilty of Disloyalty
as defined under Article 137 of the Revised Penal Code, .;

(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 the 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.

(e)                Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared insane or incompetent by

competent authority .
Doctrine of Necessary Implication – by applying this, Constitutional Commission provided for an
exception to actual residency requirement of Section 1, Article 5 of 1987 Constitution, with respect to
qualified Filipinos abroad. Filipino immigrants and permanent residents in another country may be
allowed to vote even though they do not fulfill the residency requirement of  said Sec 1 Art V of the
Constitution.