Election Law
Election Law
Election Law
__________________________________
In partial fulfilment
For the requirements in
Administrative and Elections Laws
___________________________________
Submitted by:
Mikko Gabriel L. Valendez
Submitted to:
Atty. Ferdinand Gujilde
9 January 2015
Part II
SUFFRAGE
Nolasco v Comelec, 275 SCRA 763 (1997)
The right of suffrage is the bedrock of republicanism. Suffrage is the means by which our people
express their sovereign judgment. Its free exercise must be protected especially against the
purchasing power of the peso
Facts: A criminal case was charged against the people who denied entry to a
voter in a polling precinct.
Issue: Whether or not the voters right of suffrage was violated.
Ruling: Sec. 133 of the Revised Election Code guarantees, among other
things, to every registered voter to freely enter the polling place as soon as
he arrives unless there were then forty voters waiting inside, in order to
sufficiently charge a violation of that right, the indictment need not explicitly
negate the exception.
Macalintal v Comelec, G.R. No. 157013, July 3, 2003
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
Facts:
COMELEC set a period of continuing voter registration using
biometrics process for the next regular election. Subsequently, it resolved to
adjust the deadline to a much earlier period than that it has already fixed in
order to prepare for the automated election. However, this decision was
opposed because it can potentially lead to the disenfranchisement of millions
of Filipino voters.
Issue: Whether or not the COMELECs decision to adjust the period of
continuing voter registration to much earlier date is proper
Ruling: No. There is no ground to hold that the mandate of continuing voter
registration cannot be reasonably held within the period provided by RA
8189, Sec.8 daily during office hours, except during the period starting
120 days before the May 10, 2010 regular elections. There is thus no
occasion for the COMELEC to exercise its power to fix other dates or
deadlines therefor.
Facts: During the EDSA Revolution, Mr. R fled to the US to seek asylum.
Thereafter, he went back to his home town and registered as voter thereat.
However, a petition was filed seeking his exclusion from the voters list on
the ground that he is a resident of the US.
Issue: Whether or not he has met the residency requirement
Ruling: Yes. In election cases, the Court treats domicile and residence as
synonymous terms. The term residence as used in the election law is
synonymous with domicile, which imports not only an intention to reside in
a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, couple with conduct
indicative of such intention. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence
to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one
intends to return.
Facts: A losing candidate sought the annulment and exclusion of the list of
voters and rejection of all election returns from being canvassed in a certain
municipality on the ground that the voters list was padded owing to the
great excess of votes during the election.
Issue: Whether or not the annulment of the voters list is a ground for a
pre-proclamation contest.
Ruling: No. Padded voters list, massive fraud and terrorism are clearly not
among the issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy.
They are proper grounds for an election protest. The subsequent annulment
of the voting list in a separate proceeding initiated motu proprio by the
Commission and in which the protagonists here were not parties, cannot
retroactively and without due process result in nullifying accepted election
returns in a previous election simply because such returns came from
municipalities where the precinct books of voters were ordered annulled due
to irregularities in their preparation.
Facts: A petition was filed for the annulment of some precincts and book of
voters in a certain province alleging that these precincts do not exist
because there were no inhabitants in the area. COMELEC investigated the
matter and found that these precincts are ghost precincts. The finding was
opposed by the local officials contending that this would disenfranchise some
voters.
Issue: Whether or not COMELEC has the power to annul some precincts and
book of voters is proper.
Ruling: Yes. The COMELEC has the broad powers to ascertain the true
nature of the results of an election by means available to it. Furthermore, no
voter is disenfranchised because no such voter exists. The sacred right of
suffrage guaranteed by the Constitution is not tampered when a list of
fictitious voters is excluded from an electoral exercise.