[Corrales 0:00-10:47]

ordered his inclusion in the list of voters of Sasmuan.

[Review]
Velasco filed on March 28, 2007 his Certificate of Candidacy (COC)
We were discussing Registration of Voters last time. We discussed
for mayor of Sasmuan, therein claiming his status as a registered
already some of the salient features, more specifically under
voter. Panlaqui, who vied for the same position, thereupon filed
Sections 27-29 with respect to reactivation, deactivation, and
before the Comelec a Petition to Deny Due Course To and/or To
cancellation. Take note, these provisions are salient amendments
Cancel Velasco’s COC based on gross material misrepresentation
under the Omnibus Election Code. Wala ito dati sa OEC. This process
as to his residency and, consequently, his qualification to vote.
is now an amendment under R.A. 8189.
Velasco won over Panlaqui as mayor of Sasmuan. As the Comelec
failed to resolve Panlaqui’s petition prior to the elections, Velasco
Petitions for Inclusions/Exclusions
took his oath of office and assumed the duties of the office.
Petitions for inclusions or petitions for exclusions are remedies
available to those persons whose application for activation and
COMELEC then ordered Velasco to vacate his mayoralty post for
inclusion in case of misspelled names or correction has been
the incumbent vice-mayor to assume office as mayor.
disapproved by the Election Registration Board. As well as, with
respect to exclusion, available to those who impelled to exclude a
ISSUES:
voter from the List of Voters whose application was approved by the
1. Whether or not the RTC Decision in the voter’s inclusion
Board but who suffer from certain disqualifications under the law.
proceedings must be considered as the final judgement of
disqualification against Velasco, which decision was issued
Q: In petitions, who has jurisdiction?
more than 2 months prior to the elections.
A: Under Section 33 [of R.A. 8189], the Municipal and Metropolitan
2. Whether or not it was proper for COMELEC to deny the
Trial Courts. By express provision, it is the courts that have
proclamation of Panlaqui as mayor.
jurisdiction because it involves the right to vote of a person and
therefore this question is a justiciable issue upon which finds redress
RULING:
with the courts in the judiciary.
1. No, it is not within the province of the RTC in a voter’s
inclusion/exclusion proceedings to take cognizance of and
Section 33. Jurisdiction in Inclusion and Exclusion Case. The determine the presence of a false representation of a
Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts shall have original and material fact. It has no jurisdiction to try the issues of
exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of whether the misrepresentation relates to material fact and
voters in their respective cities or municipalities. Decisions of the whether there was an intention to deceive the electorate in
Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts may be appealed by the terms of one’s qualifications for public office. The finding
aggrieved party to the Regional Trial Court within five (5) days that Velasco was not qualified to vote due to lack of
from receipt of notice thereof. Otherwise, said decision shall residency requirement does not translate into a finding of a
become final and executory. The regional trial court shall decide deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact
the appeal within ten (10) days from the time it is received and which would otherwise render him ineligible.
the decision shall immediately become final and executory. No
motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. The Comelec correctly observed that when the RTC issued its
March 1, 2007 Decision, there was yet no COC to cancel because
Velasco’s COC was filed only on March 28, 2007. Indeed, not only
Q: What is the nature of exclusion, inclusion proceedings?
would it be in excess of jurisdiction but also beyond the realm of
A: As held in the case of Panlaqui vs COMELEC (613 SCRA 573), the
possibility for the RTC to rule that there was deliberate
Supreme Court said that voters' inclusion/exclusion proceedings,
concealment on the part of Velasco when he stated under oath in
essentially involve the issue of whether a petitioner shall be included
his COC that he is a registered voter of Sasmuan despite his
in or excluded from the list of voters based on the qualifications
knowledge of the RTC decision which was yet forthcoming
required by law and the facts presented to show possession of these
qualifications.
2. Yes, it is proper for the COMELEC to deny Panlaqui’s
proclamation since Velasco’s disqualification as a candidate
MOZART P. PANLAQUI vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and had not become final before the elections, the COMELEC
NARDO M. VELASCO applied the rule on succession.
G.R. No. 188671 | February 24, 2010

FACTS: Velasco was born in Sasmuan on June 22, 1952 to Filipino

parents. He married Evelyn Castillo on June 29, 1975. In 1983, he
moved to the United States where he subsequently became a
citizen. Upon Velasco’s application for dual citizenship under
Republic Act No. 92252 was approved on July 31, 2006, he took
on even date his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and returned to the Philippines
Velasco applied for registration as a voter of Sasmuan, which
application was denied by the Election Registration Board (ERB).
He thus filed a petition for the inclusion of his name in the list of
voters before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sasmuan which,
by Decision of February 9, 2007, reversed the ERB’s decision and
DISCUSSION
In this case, the Supreme Court made a distinction between a
petition for inclusion/exclusion vis-a-vis a petition for disqualification
for a particular candidate. In a petition for inclusion, the jurisdiction
is with the courts. With respect to disqualification of candidates, the
jurisdiction is with the COMELEC pursuant to its executive or
administrative power. The COMELEC has the power to resolve issues
involving all laws relating to election, initiative, referendum, and
recall. A disqualification of a candidate is within the jurisdiction of
the COMELEC, not with the Court.
Further, the Supreme Court in Panlaqui said that the court has no
jurisdiction to determine or resolve cancellation or disqualification
proceedings of a candidate, pertaining to the qualification of a
candidate.
We will be discussing that in Section 78 of the Omnibus Election
Code when we go to Eligibility of Candidates.
In the case of Canicosa vs. COMELEC (282 SCRA), the Supreme Court
said that the question of inclusion or exclusion in the list of voters
involves the right to vote which is not in the power or authority of
the COMELEC to rule upon by express provision of the Constitution.
The determination of whether one has the right to vote is a
justiciable issue properly cognizable by our regular courts.
Q: Nagfile ng petition for inclusion or exclusion, where do they
appeal? Because it is filed first with MTC or MTCC.
A: The decision of the MTC or MTCC is appealable by the aggrieved
party to the Regional Trial Court within 5 days from receipt of notice
thereof. Otherwise, the said decision shall be final and executory.
The RTC shall decide the appeal within 10 days from the time it is
received and the RTC shall immediately become executory. No
motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
Q: What should be determined in a petition for exclusion?
In Domino vs. COMELEC (310 SCRA 546), the Court said that except
for the right to remain in the list of voters or for being excluded
therefrom for the particular election in relation to which the
proceedings had been held, a decision in an exclusion or inclusion
proceeding, even if final and unappealable, does not acquire the
nature of res judicata. A decision in an exclusion proceeding would
neither be conclusive on the voter's political status, nor bar
subsequent proceedings on his right to be registered as a voter in
any other election.
Q: What do we mean by that?
A: Any decision in an exclusion.
ILLUSTRATION
The voter does not possess the residency requirement (within 1 year
in the Philippines and 6 months in the place where they intend to
vote). If the voter lacks the residency requirement but the Election
Registration Board approved the application for registration, the
remedy of a party intending to exclude that voter is to file a petition
for exclusion. Even if the decision of the Court is unappealable, it
would not constitute as res judicata since it is possible, that in the
next election, that person will already acquire the residency
requirement. The proceedings now cannot bar the application of the
voter at the time that the voter now possesses the residency
requirement.
The Supreme Court said it is not within the competence of the trial
court, in an exclusion proceedings, to declare the challenged voter a
resident of another municipality. The jurisdiction of the lower court
over exclusion cases is limited only to determining the right of voter
to remain in the list of voters or to declare that the challenged voter
is not qualified to vote in the precinct in which he is registered,
specifying the ground of the voter's disqualification. The trial court
has no power to order the change or transfer of registration from
one place of residence to another for it is the function of the
election Registration Board as provided under Section 12 of R.A. No.
8189.
What is yung nature niya? The Court will only determine in an
exclusion proceeding whether that voter has a right to remain. Once
the Court grants the petition for exclusion, the decision of the court
will now be served upon the Election Registration Board.
(10:40 end)
[Dacera 10:48 – 21:34]
[Continuation from previous discussion]
You put it where? In the inactive file, until such time that the
competency or disqualification already exists. Or he possess the
qualifications.
He must file a Petition for Activation – stating that his
disqualification no longer exists. Note: His record shall not be
cancelled (Voters registration record), it will only be transferred to
an inactive file, conformably with a resolution for exclusion of that
voter as ruled and decided by the court.
It is not res judicata, And it is not conclusive that he is not a resident
or does not require a resident, because in the next election, once he
obtains the 6 month residency, he may now apply for reactivation
for his voters registration records.
Effect of the Court’s decision on Exclusion proceedings
In the Domino v. COMELEC [GR# 134015, July 19, 1999], the only
effect of a decision of a lower court excluding the challenged voter
from the list of voters is for the Election Registration Board, upon
receipt of the final decision to remove the voter's registration record
from the corresponding book of voters, and enter the order of
exclusion therein, and thereafter place the record in an inactive file.
In Akbayan v. COMELEC [GR# 147066. March 26, 2001], it also deals
with the petition for exclusion. Remember that there is a limitation
within 100 days? A petition for exclusion must be filed within 100
days prior to a regular election, or 65 days prior to a special election.
In a Petition for INclusion, the limitation is that you have to file it
within 105 days before a regular election, and 75
In the case of Akbayan, as to the Limitation on Registration - that no
registration should take place within 120 days before the date of the
election. (Why?) because the ballots will be printed, etc. they will
stop the registration at the start of the 120 days. In the case of
Akbayan: Akbayan went to the COMELEC and prayed that the
COMELEC grant a “2-day special registration of voters” for the May
2001 Elections. of course, comelec denied the petition, on the count
of operational impossibility. When the comelec denied it, Akbayan
argued that it was contrary to the constitution, it undermines the
constitutional right to vote, and that it would disenfranchise about
4,000,000 Filipinos who were not able to register.
SC: The right to vote, the right of suffrage: is NOT absolute. This is
what we discussed earlier as to the nature of suffrage. The right of
suffrage is not absolute, ask in the enjoyment of all other rights, it is
subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements,
embodied in our constitution, our statutes, and our other
repositories of the law. While Akbayan says it is a right, SC says that
it is NOT an absolute right.
In order to exercise your right to vote, you must undergo the
process of registration, in addition to the maximum requirements of
the constitution under Art. V, Sec. 1 (1987 Constitution).
Note: Registration is an indispensable precondition, and essential to
the right of suffrage and election process. Comelec said that “we can
no longer conduct an additional two days special registration, in
view of 2 limitations: 1) Limitations set forth under RA 8189
(Limitation: No registration shall however be conducted during the
period starting 120 days before a regular election, and 90 days
before a special election - Further, within this period, the comelec
already prepares its calendar of activities. If the calendar of activities
is moved, and the COMELEC conduct another two days of special
registration of voters, it will not only be violated of the particular
provision of RA 8189 (unless the provision is amended). However, 2)
it will also be _____ the election proceedings with respect to the
period within which to file a petition for exclusion, which is 100 days
before the election, and inclusion (105 days). so, it will be moved,
and eventually, what will happen is that there will be no longer a
time within which to file a petition for exclusion.
Also, under Sec. 35, it also speaks of prohibitive period, within which
to file a sworn petition for the exclusion of voters from the
permanent list of voters. Therefore, the SC ruled: if the special
registration of voters will be conducted, then the prohibitive period
for filing of petitions for exclusion and inclusion must also be
adjusted to a later date (since the calendar of activities will be
moved). otherwise, nobody can challenge the voter's list, which is
violative of the principles of due process, and of course it will open
the registration process to abuse and seriously compromise the
integrity of the voters list, in that of the entire election.
Note: Take note of Sec. 32, (Common Rules regarding Judicial
Proceedings in the matter of Inclusion, Exclusion, and Correction of
Names of Voters)
Section 32. RA 8189. Common Rules Governing Judicial,
Proceedings in the Matter of Inclusion, Exclusion, and
Correction of Names of Voters-
a) Petition for inclusion, exclusion or correction of names of
voters shall be filed during office hours;
b) Notice of the place, date and time of the hearing of the
petition shall be served upon the members of the Board
and the challenged voter upon filing of the petition. Service
of such notice may be made by sending a copy thereof by
personal delivery, by leaving it in the possession of a
person of sufficient discretion in the residence of the
challenged voter, or by registered mail. Should the
foregoing procedures not be practicable, the notice shall
be posted in the bulletin board of the city or municipal hall
and in two (2) other conspicuous places within the city or
municipality;
c) A petition shall refer only to one (1) precinct and implead
the Board as respondents;
d) No costs shall be assessed against any party in these
proceedings. However, if the court should find that the
application has been filed solely to harass the adverse
party and cause him to incur expenses, it shall order the
culpable party to pay the costs and incidental expenses
e) Any voter, candidate or political party who may be affected
by the proceedings may intervene and present his
evidence;
f) The decision shall be based on the evidence presented and
in no case rendered upon a stipulation of facts. If the
question is whether or not the voter is real or fictitious, his
non-appearance on the day set for hearing shall be prima
facie evidence that the challenged voter is fictitious; and
g) The petition shall be heard and decided within ten (10)
days from the date of its filing. Cases appealed to the
Regional Trial Court shall be decided within ten (10) days
from receipt of the appeal. In all cases, the court shall
decide these petitions not later than fifteen (15) days
before the election and the decision shall become final and
executory
Sec. 45, RA 8189 refers to Election Offenses.
Section 45. Election Offenses. - The following shall be
considered election offenses under this Act:
a) to deliver, hand over, entrust or give, directly or indirectly, his
voter’s identification card to another in consideration of money
or other benefit of promise; or take or accept such voter’s
identification card, directly or indirectly, by giving or causing the
giving or money or other benefit or making or causing the
making of a promise therefore;
b) to fail, without cause, to post or give any of the notices or to
make any of the reports re-acquired under this Act;
c) to issue or cause the issuance of a voter’s identification
number or to cancel or cause the cancellation thereof in
violation of the provisions of this Act; or to refuse the issuance
of registered voters their voter’s identification card;
d) to accept an appointment, to assume office and to actually
serve as a member of the Election Registration Board although
ineligible thereto, to appoint such ineligible person knowing him
to be ineligible;
e) to interfere with, impede, abscond for purpose of gain or to
prevent the installation or use of computers and devices and
the processing, storage, generation, and transmission of
registration data or information;
f) to gain, cause access to use, alter, destroy, or disclose any
computer data, program, system software, network, or any
computer-related devices, facilities, hardware or equipment,
whether classified or declassified;
g) failure to provide certified voters and deactivated voters list
to candidates and heads of representatives of political parties
upon written request as provided in Section 30 hereof;
h) failure to include the approved application form for
registration of a qualified voter in the book of voters of a
particular precinct or the omission of the name of a duly
registered voter in the certified list of voters of the precinct
where he is duly, registered resulting in his failure to cast his
vote during an election, plebiscite, referendum, initiative and/or
recall. The presence of the form or name in the book of voters
or certified list of voters in precincts other than where he is duly
registered shall not be an excuse hereof;
i) the posting of a list of voters outside or at the door of a
precinct on the day of an election, plebiscite, referendum,
initiative and/or recall, and which list is different in contents
from the certified list of voters being used by the Board of
Election Inspectors; and
j) Violation of the provisions of this Act.

ABSENTEE VOTING
LOCAL ABSENTEE VOTING
Q. What is Local Absentee Voting? In local absentee voting, to
whom should it apply? Who can avail in their respective place of
work?
A. Applies to:
1) Those public officials and government employees in the
performance of their election duties, who are stationed in
places other than the place where they are registered as voters
(members of the PNP, AFP, Deputies and Officers of the
COMELEC, School teachers, etc) Note on Teachers: Teachers are
Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs), thus they are allowed in
their respective place of work, PROVIDED, that they are
registered voters in that City/Municipality.
Example: You are from Davao city, but you are registered in the first
district, but you are assigned an Election Day in the 3rd district. You
can vote in the precinct in the third district where you are assigned.
BUT, if you are not a registered voter, or a registered voter of
another city or municipality - the requirement is that you still have
to be a registered voter before you can avail of absentee voting.
Local Absentee Voting for Media Act (RA 10380)
Also, take note of RA 10380 (Local Absentee Voting For Media Act):
it now allows for media practitioners to vote on specified days,
earlier than Election Day.
Distinction between who can Avail of local absentee voting
Local Absentee Voting This refers to the government employees
(PNP, AFP, COMELEC Deputies/Officers, Teachers), who will be
assigned in places other than where they are registered.
RA 10380: this applies to non-government (media people), who are
allowed to vote earlier than Election day, so that even if, on Election
Day, they are assigned to cover on election events away from their
place of registration as voters, they would nonetheless have the
opportunity to cast their votes.
Local Absentee Voting RA 10380
Who can avail
Those Public Officials and Allows Non-Gov’t (Media
Gov’t Employees in the Practitioners) to vote earlier
performance of their election
duties, who are stationed in
places other than the place
where they are registered as
voters (Members of PNP, AFP,
Deputies and Officers of
COMELEC, Teachers as BEI)
21:35 - 32:21 DEALA
…from their place of registration as voters, they would nonetheless
have the opportunity to cast their votes.
Q: What are the limitations under RA 10380?
A: They are only entitled to vote for President, Vice President and
Partylist Representatives because early yung voting nila.
The application can also be disapproved. Application for absentee
voting can also be disapproved.
Grounds for Disapproval of Absentee Voting:
1. The applicant is not a registered voter or his registration
records have been deactivated.
2. It was filed out of time.
3. It was not sworn to or otherwise or not under oath by any
person authorized to administer oaths.
4. Your application was merely a photocopy or fax copy.
5. The certification portion of the application form is not duly
accomplished.
So those are the grounds that may serve as a basis to disapprove an
application to avail of local absentee voting.
Overseas Absentee Voting Law
Subsequently, RA 9189 was enacted which is the “Overseas
Absentee Voting Law” Absentee Voters Act of 2003. Take note of the
case of Macalintal v. COMELEC, that will be one of the cases that we
will discuss later.
Q: What is the coverage of Republic Act 9189?
A: Applies to overseas voters.
Earlier we said, to whom should registration apply? Registration
applies to domestic voters pursuant to RA 8189 and to overseas
voters under RA 9189.
RA 9189 applies to Filipino citizens who are overseas workers or
immigrants or permanent residents in other countries who are
allowed to vote in Philippine National Elections when they are
away from the country on the day of election.
So pursuant to the amendment, the clause provides that in case of
immigrants or permanent residents they should file a sworn
statement that they will resume actual, physical, permanent
residence within 3 years from approval of the registration. (Sec. 5
of RA 9189)
This particular provision is now amended by the Overseas Absentee
Voting Law of 2013 which no longer provide and Republic Act 10590
which amended the Overseas Voting Act of 2003, and with the
passage of this law Filipino immigrants abroad will no longer need to
execute an affidavit stating that they will return to the Philippines
within 3 years before they are allowed in absencia/ absentia.
Take note of the case of Macalintal v. COMELEC. What was declared
by the court? What provision under RA 9189 was declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? I’ll hold you responsible for
that, and the provisions what do you consider as overseas absentee
voting, mga definition doon and what is a certified list of overseas
absentee voters, national registry of absentee voters, what is the
scope of overseas absentee voting, yung Section 5 disqualification,
take note. Ano ang distinction nyan from the disqualification under
RA 8189. With respect to the casting of ballots, I’ll just hold you
responsible ha to read the provisions of RA 9189, and to distinguish
and are convicted in a final after service of sentence;
it with RA 8189. judgment by a court or
tribunal of an offense b) Any person who has been
punishable by imprisonment adjudged by final judgment by
of not less than one (1) year, a competent court or tribunal
Sec. 3. of RA 8189 Definition of Terms. For purposes of this including those who have of having committed any
Act: committed and been found crime involving disloyalty to
guilty of Disloyalty as defined the duly constituted
a. “Absentee Voting” refers to the process by which qualified under Article 137 of the government such as rebellion,
citizens of the Philippines abroad exercise their right to vote; Revised Penal Code, such sedition, violation of the
disability not having been firearms laws or any crime
c. “Certified List of Overseas Absentee Voters” refers to the list removed by plenary pardon or against national security,
of registered overseas absentee voters whose applications to amnesty; Provided, however, unless restored to his full civil
vote in absentia have been approved by the Commission, said That any person disqualified and political rights in
list to be prepared by the Committee on Absentee Voting of the to vote under this subsection accordance with law:
Commission, on a country-by-country basis. This list shall be shall automatically acquire Provided, That he shall
approved by the Commission in an en banc resolution; the right to vote upon automatically reacquire the
expiration of five (5) years right to vote upon expiration
d. “Day of Election” refers to the actual date of elections in the after service of sentence; of five (5) years after service
Philippines; Provided, further, That the of sentence; and
Commission may take
e. “National Registry of Absentee Voters” refers to the cognizance of final judgments c) Insane or incompetent
consolidated list prepared, approved and maintained by the issued by foreign courts or persons declared as such by
Commission, of overseas absentee voters whose applications tribunals only on the basis of competent authority unless
for registration as absentee voters, including those registered reciprocity and subject to the subsequently declared by
voters who have applied to be certified as absentee voters, formalities and processes proper authority that such
have been approved by the Election Registered Board; prescribed by the Rules of person is no longer insane or
Court on execution of incompetent.
f. “Overseas Absentee Voter” refers to a citizen of the judgments;
Philippines who is qualified to register and vote under this Act,
not otherwise disqualified by law, who is abroad on the day of 4. An immigrant or a
elections. permanent resident who is
recognized as such in the host
country, unless he/she
Sec. 4. of RA 9189 Coverage. executes, upon registration,
an affidavit prepared for the
All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not otherwise purpose by the Commission
disqualified by law, at least eighteen (18) years of age on the declaring that he/she shall
day of elections, may vote for president, vice-president, resume actual physical
senators and party-list representatives. permanent residence in the
Philippines not later than
three (3) years from approval
of his/her registration under
this Act. Such affidavit shall
RA 9189 (Overseas Absentee RA 8189 (General Registration also state that he/she has not
Voting ) of Voters) applied for citizenship in
another country. Failure to
Sec. 5. Disqualifications. The Section 11. Disqualification. return shall be the cause for
following shall be disqualified The following shall be the removal of the name of
from voting under this Act: disqualified from registering: the immigrant or permanent
resident from the National
1. Those who have lost their a) Any person who has been Registry of Absentee Voters
Filipino citizenship in sentenced by final judgment and his/her permanent
accordance with Philippine to suffer imprisonment of not disqualification to vote in
laws; less than one (1) year, such absentia.
disability not having been
2. Those who have expressly removed by plenary pardon or 5. Any citizen of the
renounced their Philippine amnesty: Provided, however, Philippines abroad previously
citizenship and who have That any person disqualified declared insane or
pledged allegiance to a to vote under this paragraph incompetent by competent
foreign country; shall automatically reacquire authority in the Philippines or
the right to vote upon abroad, as verified by the
3. Those who have committed expiration of five (5) years Philippine embassies,
consulates or foreign service
establishments concerned,
unless such competent
authority subsequently
certifies that such person is no
longer insane or incompetent.
MACALINTAL V. COMELEC
Background: Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and
prohibition filed by Romulo Macalintal, a member of the
Philippine Bar, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of
RA 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) suffer
from constitutional infirmity. Claiming that he has actual and
material legal interest in the subject matter of this case in
seeing to it that public funds are properly and lawfully used and
appropriated, petitioner filed the instant petition as a taxpayer
and as a lawyer.
Facts: R.A. 9189 appropriates funds under Sec. 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.
Questions raised by petitioner
The petitioner raises three principal questions:
A. Does Sec. 5(d) of RA 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 Sec. 1 of Art. V of the Constitution?
B. Does Sec. 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 Sec. 4, Art.
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 Sec. 25 of RA 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 Sec.n 1, Art. IX-A of the Constitution?
Discussion:
A. Does Sec. 5(d) of RA 9189 violate Sec. 1, Art. V of the 1987
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines? NO
Sec. 5(d) of RA 9189 is constitutional — Sec. 2, Art V (absentee
voting) is an exception to the residency requirement for voters
under Sec. 1, Art V of the 1987 Constitution
Under Sec. 5(d) of RA 9189, one of those disqualified from
voting is an immigrant or permanent resident who is
recognized as such in the host country unless he/she executes
an affidavit declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical
permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three
years from approval of his/her registration under said Act.
Petitioner posit
Petitioner posits that Sec. 5(d) is unconstitutional because it
violates Sec. 1, Art. V of the 1987 Constitution which requires
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 six months immediately preceding an election. Petitioner
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.
However, while Sec. 5(d) of RA 9189 appears to violate Sec. 1 of
Art. V of the Constitution, petitioner has ignored Sec. 2, Art. V
which provides:
SEC. 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.
Court held contrary to petitioner’s claim that Sec. 5(d)
circumvents the Constitution, Congress enacted the law
prescribing a system of overseas absentee voting in compliance
with the constitutional mandate. Such a 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.
Providing system of Overseas Absentee Voting
The Constitutional Commission realized that under the laws
then existing and considering the novelty of the system of
absentee voting in this jurisdiction, vesting overseas Filipinos
with the right to vote would spawn constitutional problems
especially because the Constitution itself provides for the
residency requirement of voters. Thus, Sec. 2, Art. V of the
Constitution came into being to remove any doubt as to the
inapplicability of the residency requirement in Sec. 1. It is
precisely to avoid any problems that could impede the
implementation of its pursuit to enfranchise the largest number
of qualified Filipinos who are not in the Philippines that the
Constitutional Commission explicitly mandated Congress to
provide a system for overseas absentee voting.
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 Sec. 1 shall
remain except for the residency requirement. This is in fact the
reason why the Constitutional Commission opted for the term
qualified Filipinos abroad with respect to the system of
absentee voting that Congress should draw up. As stressed by
Commissioner Monsod, by the use of the adjective qualified
with respect to Filipinos abroad, the assumption is that they
have the "qualifications and none of the disqualifications to
vote."
It is in pursuance of that intention that the Commission
provided for Sec. 2 immediately after the residency
requirement of Sec. 1. By the doctrine of necessary implication
in statutory construction, which may be applied in construing
constitutional provisions, the strategic location of Sec. 2
indicates that the Constitutional Commission provided for an
exception to the actual residency requirement of Sec. 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 Sec. 1, Art. V of the
Constitution.
Accordingly, Sec. 4 of RA 9189, which provides for the coverage
of the absentee voting process, does not require physical
residency in the Philippines.
Affidavit requirement for Filipino abroad under Sec 5(d) of
RA 9189 is merely to overcome the presumption of
abandonment of their Philippine domicile
Sec. 5(d) of RA 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 one’s residence in
his country of origin. However, same Section allows an
immigrant and permanent resident abroad to register as a
voter for as long as he/she executes an affidavit to show that
he/she has not abandoned his domicile.
Contrary to the claim of petitioner, the execution of the
affidavit itself is not the enabling or enfranchising act. The
affidavit required in Sec. 5(d) 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
an explicit expression that he had not in fact abandoned his
domicile of origin. Thus, it is not correct to say that the
execution of the affidavit under Sec. 5(d) violates the
Constitution that proscribes "provisional registration or a
promise by a voter to perform a condition to be qualified to
vote in a political exercise."
To repeat, 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 Sec. 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."
Indeed, the probability that after an immigrant has exercised
the right to vote, he shall opt to remain in his host country
beyond the third year from the execution of the affidavit, is not
farfetched. However, it is not for this Court to determine the
wisdom of a legislative exercise. As expressed in Tañada vs.
Tuvera, the Court is not called upon to rule on the wisdom of
the law or to repeal it or modify it if we find it impractical.
The provisions of Sec. 5(d) and 11 are components of the
system of overseas absentee voting established by R.A. 9189.
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 resident of his host country does not necessarily
imply an abandonment of his intention to return to his domicile
of origin, the Philippines. Therefore, under the law, he must be
given the opportunity to express that he has not actually
abandoned his domicile in the Philippines by executing the
affidavit required by Sec. 5(d) and 8(c) of the law.
Absentee Voting, being an exception to the regular form of
voting, is purely a statutory privilege
The method of absentee voting has been said to be
completely separable and distinct from the regular system of
voting, and to be a new and different manner of voting from
that previously known, and an exception to the customary and
usual manner of voting. The right of absentee and disabled
voters to cast their ballots at an election is purely statutory;
absentee voting was unknown to, and not recognized at, the
common law. xxx Such statutes are regarded as conferring a
privilege and not a right, or an absolute right.
When the legislature chooses to grant the right by statute, it
must operate with equality among all the class to which it is
granted; but statutes of this nature may be limited in their
application to particular types of elections. xxx they should also
be construed in the light of the circumstances under which they
were enacted. Further,in passing on statutes regulating
absentee voting, the court should look to the whole and every
part of the election laws, the intent of the entire plan,and
reasons and spirit of their adoption, and try to give effect to
every portion thereof.
In election laws, residence is considered synonymous with
domicile Ordinarily, an absentee is not a resident and vice
versa; a person cannot be at the same time, both a resident
and an absentee. However, under our election laws and the
countless pronouncements of the Court pertaining to elections,
an absentee remains attached to his residence in the
Philippines as residence is considered synonymous with
domicile.
Art. 50 of the Civil Code decrees that "[f]or the exercise of civil
rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of
natural persons is their place of habitual residence." In Ong vs.
Republic, this court took the concept of domicile to mean an
individual’s "permanent home," "a place to which, whenever
absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and
depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they
disclose intent."
Based on the foregoing, domicile includes the twin elements:
(1) the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place and
(2) animus manendi, or the intention of returning there
permanently.
Residence, in its ordinary conception, implies the factual
relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical
presence of a person in a given area, community or country.
The essential distinction between residence and domicile in law
is that residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose
for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. One may
seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health.
If a person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his
intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is established it is
residence. It is thus, quite perfectly normal for an individual to
have different residences in various places. However, a person
can only have a single domicile, unless, for various reasons, he
successfully abandons his domicile in favor of another domicile
of choice.
RESIDENCE V. DOMICILE
There is a difference between domicile and residence.

‘Residence’ is used to indicate a place of abode, whether
permanent or temporary; ‘domicile’ denotes a fixed permanent
residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of
returning. A man may have a residence in one place and a
domicile in another. Residence is not domicile, but domicile is
residence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited
time. The Registration of a voter in a place other than his
residence of origin has not been deemed sufficient to consider
abandonment or loss of such residence of origin.
B. Sec. 18.5 of RA 9189 is CONSTITUTIONAL with respect only
to the authority given to the COMELEC to proclaim the winning
candidates for the Senators and party-list representatives but
UNCONSTITUTIONAL with respect to the power to canvass the
votes and proclaim the winning candidates for President and
Vice-President which is lodged with Congress under Sec. 4, Art.
VII of the Constitution.
C. The following portions of RA 9189 are declared VOID and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being repugnant to Sec. 1, Art. IX-A
of the Constitution mandating the independence of
constitutional commission, such as COMELEC:
a) The phrase in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Sec.
17.1, to wit:"subject to the approval of the Joint Congressional
Oversight Committee;"
b) The portion of the last paragraph of Sec. 17.1, to wit: "only
upon review and approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee;"
c) The second sentence of the first paragraph of Sec. 19, to wit:
"The Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be submitted to
the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created by virtue
of this Act for prior approval;" and
d) The second sentence in the second paragraph of Sec. 25, to
wit: "It shall review, revise, amend and approve the
Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the
Commission" of the same law;
grabbed from Election Laws Digests 2018 -2019
Diba one of the requirements we discussed earlier was with respect
to the residency requirement for purposes of application for
registration, in the case of Romeo Jalosjos v. COMELEC 670 SCRA
572, the court discussed here the issue on residence and the
Supreme Court said that the local government requires a candidate
seeking the position of a provincial governor to be a resident of the
province for at least 1 year before the election.
Q: So ano yung purpose? What is the purpose of the 1 years
residency requirement?
A: The requirement of residence is synonymous with domicile,
meaning that a person must not only intend to reside in a particular
place but also must have a personal presence coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention.
The Court said, there is no hard and fast rule to determine a
candidate's compliance with the residency requirement since the
question of residency is a question of intention. Still, the
jurisprudence here laid down the following guidelines. Ano yung
guidelines with respect to establishing a residence. The court said
that every person has a domicile or residence somewhere and
where that residence is established the domicile remains until he
acquires a new one. Third, a person can have but one domicile at a
time. The COMELEC here concluded that Jalosjos has not come to
settle his domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga since he has been merely
staying at his brother ‘s house but the circumstance alone cannot
support that conclusion that Jalosjos does not possess the residency
requirement of one year. The Court has repeatedly held that a
candidate is not required to have a house in a community to
establish his residence or domicile in a particular place, it is sufficient
that he should live there even if it is a rented house or in the house
of a friend or a relative. To insist that the candidate own the house
where he lives, will make property a qualification for public office.
What matters here is that, Jalosjos has proved 2 things; his actual
presence in Ipil, Zamboanga and an intention of making Ipil,
Zamboanga as his domicile. That is the 2 things that must be proved.
So in the case of Mitra v. COMELEC 622 SCRA 744, following the
conversion of Puerto Princesa that Puerto Princesa is Mitra’s original
residence. It became now a component, from a component city to a
highly urbanized city and the residents now can no longer vote for
provincial officials, so dati ang Tagum is part ng Davao del Norte but
because Tagum has been converted into a city, so yung taga Tagum
hindi na mag vote for provincial officials, similar to the case of Mitra
here. So, Mitra therefore abandoned his domicile in Puerto Princesa
and he acquired a new one in Aborlan, is a local government unit
where he intended to run. What did Mitra do? Mitra bought the old
Ligaya feedmill and ginamit nya yung 2nd floor as his residence, pero
di nya inayos, di pinunturahan, as is lang doon sya tumira. What
happened here is, he filed a certificate of candidacy and a
disqualification case was filed against him for lack of residence and
that he does not possess the residency requirement of 1 year ( in the
Philippines) and within 6 months (in the place where he intends to
run) in order for him to register as a voter.
[Pasagui 32:22 – 43:08]
In order for him to register as a voter. According to COMELEC, Mitra
has no bona fide intention to make it his domicile because he did not
fix nor clean the place, etc. So more on the physical status of the
Maligaya Feedmill. So, of course COMELEC here, disqualified Mitra
on this ground and when it was raised, the Supreme Court said, “in
considering the residency issue the dwelling where a person
permanently intends to return to and to remain, or his or her
capacity or inclination to decorate the place or lack of it. These are
immaterial. Immaterial, why? Because the fitness of a dwelling as a
person’s residence based solely on very personal and subjective
assessment, the law is replete with the standards that can be used
and therefore, according to the Supreme Court, COMELEC gravely
abused its discretion in disqualifying Mitra on the grounds of fitness
of a dwelling as a person's residence based solely on personal and
subjective assessment. Supreme Court said that COMELEC used
wrong consideration in arriving at a conclusion that Mitra’s
personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative
residence is not the residence contemplated by law. of such intention inferable from a persons acts, activities, and
utterances. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence where,
But take note that Mitra’s case is with respect to his residency when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one
requirement as a candidate, not in his application for candidacy not intends to return. In the consideration of circumstances obtaining
application for registration but the residence issue is similar. in each particular case, three rules must be borne in mind,
namely: (1) that a person must have a residence or domicile
somewhere; (2) once established, it remains until a new one is
So in Asistio v Aguirre, the Supreme Court said that residents, as acquired; and (3) that a person can have but one residence or
used in the law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for domicile at a time.
elective office is doctrinally settled, which means domicile importing
not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal Domicile is not easily lost. To successfully effect a transfer
thereof, one must demonstrate: (1) an actual removal or change
presence in that place coupled with conduct indicative of such
of domicile; (2) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former
intention, which is inferable from the person’s action, utterances, place of residence and establishing a new one; and (3) acts which
and activities. correspond with that purpose. There must be animus manendi
coupled with animo non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or
at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time;
LUIS ASISTIO v. HON. AGUIRRE
the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at
G.R. No. 191124| April 27, 2010
the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.
Facts: On January 26, 2010, private respondent Enrico R. Echiverri
Asistio has always been a resident of Caloocan City since his birth
(Echiverri) filed against petitioner Luis A. Asistio (Asistio) a
or for more than 72 years. His family is known to be among the
Petition for Exclusion of Voter from the Permanent List of Voters
prominent political families in Caloocan City. In fact, Asistio
of Caloocan City (Petition for Exclusion) before the MeTC, Branch
served in public office as Caloocan City Second District
52,Caloocan City presided over by public respondent Judge Arthur
representative in the House of Representatives, having been
O. Malabaguio. Echiverri alleged that Asistio is not a resident of
elected as such in the 1992, 1995, 1998, and 2004 elections. In
Caloocan City, specifically not of123 Interior P. Zamora
2007, he also sought election as City Mayor. In all of these
St.,Barangay 15,Caloocan City, the address stated in his Certificate
occasions, Asistio cast his vote in the same city. Taking these
of Candidacy (COC) for Mayor in the 2010 Automated National
circumstances into consideration, gauged in the light of the
and Local Elections. Echiverri, also a candidate for Mayor of
doctrines above enunciated, it cannot be denied that Asistio has
Caloocan City, was the respondent in a Petition to Deny Due
qualified, and continues to qualify, as a voter of Caloocan City.
Course and/or Cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy filed by
There is no showing that he has established domicile elsewhere,
Asistio. According to Echiverri, when he was about to furnish
or that he had consciously and voluntarily abandoned his
Asistio a copy of his Answer to the latters petition, he found out
residence in Caloocan City. He should, therefore, remain in the list
that Asistios address is non-existent. To support this, Echiverri
of permanent registered voters of Precinct No. 1811A,Barangay
attached to his petition a Certification issued by the Tanggapan ng
15,Caloocan City.
Punong Barangay of Barangay 15 Central, Zone 2, District II of
Caloocan City. He mentioned that, upon verification of the 2009
That Asistio allegedly indicated in his Certificate of Candidacy for
Computerized Voters List (CVL) for Barangay 15, Asistios name
Mayor, both for the 2007 and 2010 elections, a non-existent or
appeared under voter number 8, with address at 109 Libis
false address, or that he could not be physically found in the
Gochuico,Barangay 15,Caloocan City. Judge Malabaguio rendered
address he indicated when he registered as a voter, should not
a decision removing the name of Asistio from the list of
operate to exclude him as a voter of Caloocan City. These
permanent voters of Caloocan City.
purported misrepresentations in Asistios COC, if true, might serve
as basis for an election offense under the Omnibus Election Code
Meanwhile, Echiverri filed with the COMELEC a Petition for
(OEC),or an action to deny due course to the COC.But they do not
Disqualification,which was docketed as SPA No. 10-013 (DC). The
serve as proof that Asistio has abandoned his domicile in
Petition was anchored on the grounds that Asistio is not a
Caloocan City, or that he has established residence outside of
resident ofCaloocanCityand that he had been previously
Caloocan City. GRANTED.
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Asistio, in his
Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses (Com
Memorandum),raised the same arguments with respect to his And, of course, domicile is not easily lost. You have to prove and to
residency and also argued that the President of thePhilippines successfully effect a transfer, one must demonstrate:
granted him an absolute pardon. 1. An actual removal or change of domicile;
2. Bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of
Issue: Should Asistio’s name be removed from the permanent list
of voters in Precinct 1811A of Caloocan City? residence and establishing a new one; and
3. Acts which correspond to that purpose
Ruling: The residency requirement of a voter is at least one (1)
year residence in the Philippines and at least six (6) months in the This was the ruling in the case of Romualdez-Marcos v COMELEC.
place where the person proposes or intends to vote. Residence,
This case of Romualdez will be one of the cases for purposes of
as used in the law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and
for elective office, is doctrinally settled to mean domicile, recitation.
importing not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also
 IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 119976 | September 18, 1995
Facts: Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of
Candidacy (COC) for the position of Representative of the First
District of Leyte indicating only a period of seven months
residency in the constituency where she sought to be elected.
Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent Representative and a
candidate for the same position, filed a petition for
disqualification with the Comelec alleging that Marcos did not
meet the one year residency requirement for candidates for the
House of Representatives.
Thereafter, Marcos filed an amended COC and changed the
residency portion from “seven months” to “since childhood” and
claimed that her earlier entry was simply a result of an "honest
misinterpretation or honest mistake." Although she only became
a resident of the Municipality of Tolosa for seven months, she has
always been a resident of Tacloban City, a component of the First
District, before coming to Tolosa, and has always maintained
Tacloban City as her domicile or residence.
However, the provincial election supervisor stated that that the
deadline for filing certificates of candidacy has already lapsed.
The Comelec Division declared Marcos disqualified for failing to
meet and prove the one year residency requirement. It did not
give credence to her claim of honest error. Moreover, the division
found that, except for the time that she studied and worked for
some years after graduation in Tacloban City, she continuously
lived in Manila. She even registered as a voter in various places in
Manila and served as member of the Batasang Pambansa as the
representative of the City of Manila and later on served as the
Governor of Metro Manila. In effect, Marcos was deemed to have
abandoned her domicile in Tacloban City in favor of Manila.
The Comelec En Banc upheld the division and declared Marcos as
disqualified from running for the First District of Leyte for failing
to meet the residency requirement.
In the meantime, Marcos was the overwhelming winner of the
elections for the congressional seat in the First District of Leyte in
the May 8, 1995 elections. In view of the Comelec Resolution
suspending her proclamation, Marcos filed a petition with the
Supreme Court to obtain relief.
Issue: Whether or not Imelda Marcos was a resident of the First
District of Leyte to satisfy the one year residency requirement to
be eligible in running as representative.
Ruling: Yes. The court is in favor of a conclusion supporting
petitioner’s claim of legal residence or domicile in the First
District of Leyte.
Residence is synonymous with domicile which reveals a tendency
or mistake the concept of domicile for actual residence, a
conception not intended for the purpose of determining a
candidate’s qualifications for the election to the House of
Representatives as required by the 1987 Constitution.
An individual does not lose her domicile even if she has lived and
maintained residences in different places. In the case at bench,
the evidence adduced by Motejo lacks the degree of
persuasiveness as required to convince the court that an
abandonment of domicile of origin in favor of a domicile of choice
indeed incurred. It cannot be correctly argued that Marcos lost
her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her
marriage to the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
It can be concluded that the facts supporting its proposition that
petitioner was ineligible to run for the position of Representative
of the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC was obviously referring
to petitioner’s various places of (actual) residence, not her
domicile.
Having determined that Marcos possessed the necessary
residence qualifications to run for a seat in the House of
Representatives in the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC’s
questioned resolutions dated April 24, May 7, May11, and May 25
are set aside. Provincial Board of Canvassers is directed to
proclaim Marcos as the duly elected Representative of the First
District of Leyte
DETAINEE VOTING
Let’s proceed to Absentee Voting.
So under RA 8189, we have what we call the Precinct Polling Place
Voting Center
So aside from absentee voting, we have what we call DETAINEE
VOTING. We refer to them as persons deprived of liberty voting. This
is what we refer to as detainee voting.
Q: Who are considered detainees for this purpose?
A: Detainees refer to persons who are:
1. Confined in jail, formally charged for any crimes, and awaiting
or undergoing trial;
2. Serving a sentence of imprisonment for less than one year
3. Those convicted of a crime involving disloyalty to the duly
constituted government, or any crime against national security
is on appeal
Those are the thee circumstances referring to who are detainees
and who can avail of detainee voting.
Q: What are the rules on detainee registration and voting?
A: To implement the right of suffrage of persons deprived of their
liberty, the COMELEC laid down the rules and regulations on the
payment, registration and voting in connection with the May 2013
national and local elections through its COMELEC Resolution 9371.
Q: Who may register?
A: Age requirement of 18 years of age on the day of the election,
and or committed inside the detention Center for at least six months
immediately preceding Election Day may register as a voter.
Q: What about those who are already registered?
A: Detainees who are already registered may apply for the transfer
of their registration record. How do they do it? For this purpose,
satellite registration shall be conducted in detention centers or in
jails by the concerned Election Officer and the election officer should
first coordinate with the jail warden in the Provincial, City, or
Municipal jail. Or other correctional rehabilitation detention centers
to determine qualified applicant detainees. And of course, to ensure
maximum security of COMELEC personnel and the voters
registration machine to be used.
Q: Who may vote on Election Day?
A: Of course, on Election Day, detainees who can vote or those who
are registered and whose registration record is not transferred, or
deactivated, cancelled or deleted. The registration must be active.
Q: How do they vote?
A: They can vote either through
1. Special polling place inside the jail
2. Through escorted voting
A special voting place shall be established in detention centers with
at least 50 registered detainee voters. It will be manned by a special
board of election inspectors.
Q: With respect to escorted detainee voting, how can it be availed?
A: If there are no special polling place established in the detention
center or in the jail, or if the detainee is a registered voter of a city
or municipality other than the town city of detention, the detainee
voter may avail of escorted detainee voting. Since it is may, it is
under the discretion of the court.
Q: What is the requirement?
A: Provided they are able to obtain Court orders allowing them to
vote in the polling places where they are registered and that it is
logically feasible on the part of the jail personnel administration to
escort the detainee voter. But of course, reasonable measures shall
be undertaken to secure safety on the detainee voter, prevent their
escape and ensure public safety.
Q: Can one campaign inside the detention center?
A: During the campaign period, candidates may be allowed to
campaign inside the detention centers. Of course, subject to existing
rules and regulations of the Bureau of Jail Management and
COMELEC.
[Pearson 43:09 - 53:59]
PRECINCTS, POLLING PLACE, AND VOTING CENTERS
Under RA 8189, we can find the distinction between a precinct from
a polling place and a voting center.
RA No. 8189, THE VOTER’S REGISTRATION ACT OF 1996
Section 3. Definition of Terms. As used in this Act:
Q: What is a precinct
a) 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;
b) Registration Record refers to an application for registration
duly approved by the Election Registration Board;
c) Book of Voters refers to the compilation of all registration
records in a precinct;
d) List of Voters refers to an enumeration of names of
registered voters in a precinct duly certified by the Election
Registration Board for use in the election;
e) Illiterate or Disabled person refers to one who cannot by
himself prepare an application for registration because of his
physical disability and/or inability to read and write;
f) Commission refers to the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC);
g) Election Registration Board refers to the body constituted
herein to act on all applications for registration;
h) Voter’s Identification Number (VIN) refers to the number
assigned by the Commission on Elections to a registered
voter that shall consist of three (3) parts: (1) The current
address (city/municipality and province); (2) the current
precinct assignment of the voter and (3) the permanent birth
and name code unique to every voter;
i) Political Parties refer to local, regional or national political
parties existing and duly registered and accredited by the
Commission;
j) Precinct refers to the basic unit of territory established by
the Commission for the purpose of voting;
k) Precinct Maps refers to a sketch or drawing of a
geographical area stated in terms of streets or street blocks
or sitios the residents of which would belong to a particular
precinct;
l) Polling place refers to the place where the Board of Election
Inspectors conducts its proceeding and where the voters cast
their votes;
m) Voting center refers to the building or place where the
polling place is located;
n) Election Officer refers to the highest official or authorized
representative of the Commission in a city or municipality;
and
o) Board of Election Inspectors refers to the body which
conducts the election in the polling place of the precinct
usually composed of three (3) public school teachers
appointed by the Commission.
A: Refers to a unit or territory established by the COMELEC for
purposes of voting.
If you can recall, when you vote, you usually have your neighbors or
people you know voting in the same place as you. "Territory" or
"unit," for example, Jacinto Extension to the corner of Juan Dela
Cruz, so the COMELEC will establish a territorial jurisdiction to assign
it to a particular precinct. You'll notice, you will meet your neighbors
because you are situated under the precinct map within the
territorial unit for purposes of voting as determined by the
COMELEC.
Q: What is a precinct map?
A: The precinct map defines the area that is assigned to a particular
precinct. It is the map of the precinct, for example, Jacinto St., to the
corner of Juan Dela Cruz, until where that is can be found in the
precinct map. It refers to a sketch or drawing of a geographical area,
stated in terms of streets, or street blocks, or sitios, the residence of
which would belong to a particular precinct.
Q: What is a polling place as distinguished from a precinct?
A: The polling place is where the Board of Election Inspectors
conducts its proceedings and where voters cast their votes.
Q: What is a voting center vis-a-vis a polling place?
A: It refers to the building or place where the polling place is
located.
For example, Ateneo could be the voting center, and each room
inside Ateneo is the polling place. Each one has an assigned precinct.
Like Room 1 to 3 is a polling place wherein Precinct 1 is assigned.
Room 4, for example, could be another polling place. The rooms are
the polling places, the Ateneo as the campus is the voting center.
The people in a particular precinct are assigned in these polling
places, these rooms.
Q: How are precincts arranged?
A: Every barangay shall have at least one precinct. Each precinct
must consist of a maximum of 200 voters. If it exceeds that number,
there will be a daughter precinct.
For example, if you notice, Precinct 1 exceeds 200 voters. There are
now more than 200, so there will be a daughter precinct named
Precinct 1-A, so if you notice merong Precinct 1-A, 1-B, -B, ganun.
Because anak-anak na yan nung Precinct 1 or Precinct 2, as the case
may be.
Q: Is it possible for a precinct to have less than 200 voters? When
are precincts allowed to have less than 200 voters?
A: If it is an island or group of islands with less than 200 voters, they
may comprise 1 original precinct.
As soon as the 200-limit for every precinct has been reached, a spin-
off or daughter precinct shall be created automatically to
accommodate voters residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the
original precinct. A separate list of new voters shall be prepared by
the Election Officer for the daughter precinct.
Q: Is there a limitation in the change of location of the precinct?
GR: Sections 153 and 154 of the Omnibus Election Code stands,
which provides that no location of a polling place within 44 days
before a regular election and 30 days before a special election,
referendum, or plebiscite.
XPN: In case it is destroyed, or it cannot be used.
BP 881, OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Section 153. Designation of polling places. - The location of
polling places designated in the preceding regular election shall
continue with such changes as the Commission may find
necessary, after notice to registered political parties and
candidates in the political unit affected, if any, and hearing:
Provided, That no location shall be changed within forty-five days
before a regular election and thirty days before a special election
or a referendum or plebiscite, except in case it is destroyed or it
cannot be used.
Section 154. Requirements for polling places. - Each polling place
shall be, as far as practicable, a ground floor and shall be of
sufficient size to admit and comfortably accommodate forty
voters at one time outside the guard rail for the board of election
inspectors. The polling place shall be located within the territory
of the precinct as centrally as possible with respect to the
residence of the voters therein and whenever possible, such
location shall be along a public road. No designation of polling
places shall be changed except upon written petition of the
majority of the voters of the precinct or agreement of all the
political parties or by resolution of the Commission upon prior
notice and hearing.
A public building having the requirements prescribed in the
preceding paragraph shall be preferred as polling place.
Designation of Polling Places
GR: No designation of polling places shall be changed
XPN: Except upon:
1. A written petition of the majority of the voters of the precinct, or
2. Agreement of all political parties, or
3. By resolution of the Commission, upon prior notice and hearing
BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS (BEI)
Those who man the precincts are the BEI during election day. Take
note of the powers of the BEI. Section 13 of RA 6646, the
disqualifications.
RA 6646, THE ELECTORAL REFORMS LAW OF 1987
Section 13. Board of Election Inspectors. - The board of election
inspectors to be constituted by the Commission under Section
164 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 shall be composed of a chairman
 and two (2) members, one of whom shall be designated as poll
clerk, all of whom shall be public school teachers, giving
preference to those with permanent appointments. In case there
are not enough public school teachers, teachers in private
schools, employees in the civil service, or other citizens of known
probity and competence who are registered voters of the city or
municipality may be appointed for election duty.

BP 881, OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Section 167. Disqualification. - No person shall serve as chairman

or member of the board of election inspectors if he is related
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to any
member of the board of election inspectors or to any candidate
to be voted for in the polling place or his spouse.

The powers of the BEI are under Section 168 and the procedural
requirements. Those were not amended. It remained under the OEC.

Section 168. Powers of the board of election inspectors. - The

board of election inspectors shall have the following powers and
functions:

a. Conduct the voting and counting of votes in their respective

polling places;

b. Act as deputies of the Commission in the supervision and

control of the election in the polling places wherein they are
assigned, to assure the holding of the same in a free, orderly
and honest manner; and

c. Perform such other functions prescribed by this Code or by

the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission.

Transcriber's Note for next meeting:

After this, we will go to the Eligibility of Candidates. Before that, we
will discuss the cases, we will do that on Monday.

Cases:
1. Macalintal v. COMELEC
2. Akbayan v. COMELEC
3. Domino v. COMELEC
4. Manlaki v. COMELEC
5. Sabili v. COMELEC and Labrea, 670 SCRA

Yun muna, discuss natin yung cases before we proceed with

Eligibility of Candidates, starting with party-list tayo.