Marcos Yra vs. Maximo Abaño
AKBAYAN-Youth AKBAYAN-Youth vs Commission Commission on Election
FACTS: Maximo Abaño is a native of the municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan. At the proper age, he transferred to Manila to complete his education. While temporarily temporarily residing in Manila, Abaño registered as a voter there. Shortly after qualifying as a member of the bar and after the death of is father, Abaño returned to Meycauayan to live. From May 10, 1927, until the present, Abaño has considered himself a resident of Meycauayan. When t he 1928 elections were approaching, he made an application for cancellation of registration in Manila which was dated April 3, 1928, but the application was rejected by the city officials for the reason that it was not deposited in the mails on or before April 4, 1928. Nevertheless, Abaño presented himself as a candidate for municipal president of Meycauayan in the 1928 elections and was elected by popular vote to the office. Marcos Yra assigns and argues that Abaño is ineligible to hold the position to which he was elected for the reason that he had not been a resident of Meycauayan for at least one year before the election.
On January 25, 2001, AKBAYAN-Youth, together with other youth movements sought the extension of the registration of voters for the May 2001 elections. The voters registration has already ended on December 27, 2000. AKBAYAN-Youth asks that persons aged 18-21 be allowed a special 2-day registration. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied the petition. AKBAYAN-Youth the sued COMELEC for alleged grave abuse of discretion for denying the petition. AKBAYAN-Youth AKBAYAN-Youth alleged that there are about 4 million youth who were not able to register and are now disenfranchised. COMELEC invoked Section 8 of Republic Act 8189 which provides that no registration shall be conducted 120 days before the regular election. AKBAYAN-Youth AKBAYAN-Youth however counters that under Section 28 of Republic Act 8436, the COMELEC in the exercise of its residual and stand-by powers, can reset the periods of pre-election acts including voters registration if the original period is not observed.
ISSUE: Is the non-eligibility of the respondent to hold a municipal office for the reason that he was not a “qualified voter in his municipality”, municipality”, connoting that he was no nott a “qualified elector therein”, sufficient to nullify his election? RULING: One of the qualifications required by law of a person who announces his candidacy is that he must be a duly qualified elector. The words “qualified elector” meant a person who had had all of the qualifications provided by law to be a voter and not a person registered in the electoral list. The Executive Bureau has held that the term ‘qualified’ when applied to a voter does not necessarily mean that a person must be a registered voter. To become a qualified candidate, a person does not need to register as an elector. Registering does not confer the right; it is a condition precedent to exercise the right. The fact that a candidate failed to register as an elector in the municipality does not deprive him of the right to become a candidate and to be voted for.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC exercised grave abuse of discretion when it denied the extension of the voters registration. HELD: No. The COMELEC was well within its right to do so pursuant to the clear provisions of Section 8, RA 8189 which provides that no voters registration shall be conducted within 120 days before the regular election. The right of suffrage is not absolute. It is regulated by measures like voters registration which is not a mere statutory requirement. The State, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of voter’s registration for the ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly and peaceful election, to the incidental yet generally important end, that even pre-election activities could be performed by the duly constituted authorities in a realistic and orderly manner – – one which is not indifferent and so far removed from the pressing order of the day and the prevalent circumstances of the times. RA 8189 prevails over RA 8436 in that RA 8189’s provision is explicit as to the prohibition. Suffice it to say that it is a pre-election act that cannot be reset.
Further, even if what is asked is a mere two-day special registration, COMELEC has shown in its pleadings that if it is allowed, it will substantially create a setback in the other pre-election matters because the additional voters from the special two day registration will have to be screened, entered into the book of voters, have to be inspected again, verified, sealed, then entered into the computerized voter’s list; and then they will have to reprint the voters information sheet for the update and distribute it – by that time, the May 14, 2001 elections would have been overshot because of the lengthy processes after the special registration. In short, it will cost more inconvenience than good. Further still, the allegation that youth voters are disenfranchised is not sufficient. Nowhere in AKBAYAN-Youth’s pleading was attached any actual complaint from an individual youth voter about any inconvenience arising from the fact that the voters registration has ended on December 27, 2001. Also, AKBAYANYouth et al admitted in their pleading that they are asking an extension because they failed to register on time for some reasons, which is not appealing to the court. The law aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.
Romulo Macalintal vs Commission on Elections Romulo Macalintal, as a lawyer and a taxpayer, questions the validity of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189). He questions the validity of the said act on the following grounds, among others: That the provision that a Filipino already considered an immigrant abroad can be allowed to participate in absentee voting provided he executes an affidavit stating his intent to return to the Philippines is void because it dispenses of the requirement that a voter must be a resident of the Philippines for at least one year and in the place where he intends to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the election; That the provision allowing the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to proclaim winning candidates insofar as it affects the canvass of votes and proclamation of winning candidates for president and vice-president, is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution for it is Congress which is empowered to do so. ISSUE: Whether or not Macalintal’s arguments are correct. HELD: No. There can be no absentee voting if the absentee voters are required to physically reside in the Philippines within the period required for non-absentee voters. Further, as understood in election laws, domicile and resident are interchangeably used. Hence, one is a resident of his domicile (insofar as election laws is concerned). The domicile is the place where one has the intention to return to. Thus, an immigrant who executes an affidavit stating his intent to return to the Philippines is considered a resident of the Philippines for purposes of being qualified as a voter (absentee voter to be exact). If the immigrant does not execute the affidavit then he is not qualified as an absentee voter. The said provision should be harmonized. It could not be the intention of Congress to allow COMELEC to include the proclamation of the winners in the vice-presidential and presidential race. To interpret it that way would mean that Congress allowed COMELEC to usurp its power. The canvassing and proclamation of the presidential and vice presidential elections is still lodged in Congress and was in no way transferred to the COMELEC by virtue of RA 9189.
NICOLAS-LEWIS VS COMELEC FACTS: Petitions for certiorari and mandamus for exercising their rights to suffrage under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act or RA No. 9189. Petitioners 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. RULING: Yes. There is no provision in the RA 9225 requiring duals to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote. Congress enacted RA 9189 pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of Article V of the Constitution, identifying in its Section 4 of the said Act who can vote under it, among others, are Filipino immigrants and permanent residents in another country opens an exception and qualifies the disqualification rule under the Section 5(d) of the same Act. By applying the doctrine of necessary implication, 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.
