Nolasco vs Comelec

Facts: A disqualification case was filed against Meycauayan, Bulacan Mayorelect Florentino Blanco for alleged performing acts which are grounds for
disqualification under the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC First
Division required both parties to submit their position papers. The case was
decided against Blanco.
Issue: WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
proclaiming Alarilla as the duly elected mayor
Held: Nolasco, not Alarilla, is adjudged as the Mayor of Meycauayan. It is
already a settled principle in the case of Reyes v COMELEC that the
candidate with the second highest number of votes cannot be proclaimed
winner in case the winning candidate be disqualified.
People vs San Juan
Facts: The abovenamed accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously with the use of force, prevent the complaining witness
GENEROSA PILAPIL from exercising her right to freely enter the polling place
of Precinct No. 1 in order to vote.
Issue: Whether the indictment sufficiently avers all the essential elements
of the prescribed act.
Held: The limitation when there are more than forty voters waiting inside
on the right of a voter to freely enter the polling place does not constitute
an essential part of the definition of the crime contemplated in section 133
of the Revised Election Code. Instead, it is but a matter which the accused
must assert and establish as a defense, and not for the prosecution to
anticipate, allege, and disprove.
Macalintal vs Comelec
Facts: Romulo Macalintal, as a lawyer and a taxpayer, questions the validity
of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189) 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
Issue: WON Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 is valid
Held: 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.

Yra vs Abano
Facts: Abano is a native of the municipality of Meycuayan, he transferred to
Manila then he returned. He made an application for cancellation of
registration in Manila, but the application was rejected in Manila. Apparently
he has been elected
Issue: WON or not his election is null and void because he is not a qualified
voter
Held: 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.
Akbayan Youth vs Comelec
Facts: 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 2day registration.
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.
Kabataan Party List Rep. Palatino v Comelec
Facts: COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8585 on February 12, 2009 adjusting
the deadline of voter registration for the May 10, 2010 national and local
elections to October 31, 2009, instead of December 15, 2009 as previously
fixed by Resolution No. 8514.
Issue: WON Comelec have discretion to fix other dates for continuing
registration
Held: This grant of power is for the purpose of enabling the people to
exercise
the
right
of
suffrage.
the Court finds 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.

Romualdez vs RTC
Facts: Advincula filed a petition questioning the registration of Romualdez to
the said Municipality in MTC. The former allege that Romualdez was not a
resident of the said municipality because he leave the country and resided in
U.S. Massachussets. He just recently arrive here and didnt acquired 1 year
residency here yet.
Issue: WON Advincula is correct
Held: He Is still a sovereign here in the Philippines and not to question his
right to suffrage. The self-exile of the respondent was for the purpose of
safety and security to his family from the rage of Marcos regime. The
respondent was a domicile in U.S. but it doesnt mean that there would an
estopped to exercise his privilege as a Filipino citizen in registering his name
from the said precinct in Leyte: questioning right to suffrage.
Pungutan vs Abubakar
Facts: Commission to reject the returns from Karomatan and to consider
said returns as no returns at all or spurious or manufactured returns not one
notch above returns prepared at gunpoint (again paraphrasing in the reverse
the second Pacis case) compel us with much greater justification to find that
the returns from Siasi, Tapul, Parang and Luuk are spurious returns or
manufactured returns and no returns at all and that the elections in said
municipalities are sham.
Issue: Whether the act of Comelec is valid
Held: Where no such election was in fact held as was found by respondent
Commission with respect to the four towns, it is not only justified but it is its
clear duty to stigmatize the alleged returns as clearly spurious and
manufactured and therefore bereft of any value.
Domino vs Comelec
Facts: Private respondents filed a petition seeking to cancel the certificate
of candidacy of Domino, alleging that Domino, contrary to his declaration in
the certificate of candidacy, is not aresident, much less a registered voter, of
the province of Sarangani where he seeks election.
Issue: Whether Domino is qualified
Held: Records show that petitioners domicile of origin was Candon, Ilocos
Sur and that sometime in 1991, he acquired a new domicile of choice in
Quezon City, as shown by his certificate of candidacy for the position of
representative of the Third District of Quezon City in the May 1995
election. The mere absence of individual from his permanent residence, no
matter how long, without the intention to abandon it does not result in loss
or change of domicile.

Ututalum v Comelec
Facts: Petitioner Untalum obtained 482 votes while respondent Anni
received 35,581 votes out of the 39,801 voters. If the returns of Siasi were
excluded, petitioner would have lead of 5,301 votes. Petitioner filed written
objections to the returns from Siasi on the ground that they appear to be
tampered with or falsified owing to the great excess of votes appearing in
the said returns.
Issue: Whether or not the election returns from Siasi should be excluded
from the canvass of the results since the original List of Voters had been
finally annulled.
Held: The Siasi returns, however, do not show prima facie that on the basis
of the old List of Voters, there is actually a great excess of votes over what
could have been legally cast considering that only 36,000 persons actually
voted out of the 39,801 voters. Petitioners cause of action is not a listed
ground for a pre-proclamation controversy. To allow the COMELEC to do so
retroactively would be to empower it to annul a previous election because of
the subsequent annulment of a questioned registry.
Sarangani v Comelec
Facts: On September 15, 1997, a petition for annulment of several precincts
and annulment of book of voters in Madalum, Lanao Del Sur was filed with
the COMELEC. On the basis of the foregoing, Election Officer Casan
Macadato submitted to the Provincial Election Supervisor of COMELEC in
Marawi City its 1st Indorsement dated June 19, 1998 reporting the results of
the ocular inspection that Padian Torogan and Rakutan were uninhabited.
Issue: whether or not the respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in declaring Padian-Torogan as ghost precinct.
Held: Upon review of the records, the Court finds that the COMELEC had
exerted efforts to investigate the facts and verified that there were no public
or private buildings in the said place, hence its conclusion that there were no
inhabitants. If there were no inhabitants, a fortiori, there can be no
registered voters, or the registered voters may have left the place. It is not
impossible for a certain barangay not to actually have inhabitants
considering that people migrate.