1.

Marcos Yra vs Maximo Abano | GR No. L-30187 none of the disqualifications prescribed in section 432. The fact
November 15, 1928 | Malcolm, J.: that a candidate failed to register as an elector in the municipality
does not deprive him of the right to become a candidate to be
FACTS: voted for. What is needed is to be a qualified elector and a
Maximo Abano is a native of the municipality of Meycauayan, qualified voter, which Abano complied with. Registration only
Bulacan. At the proper age, he transferred to Manila to complete regulates the exercise to vote.
his education. While temporarily residing in Manila, Abano
registered as a voter there. Shortly after qualifying as a member of
the bar and after the death of his father, Abano returned to
Meycauayan to live. From May 10, 1927, until the present, Abano 2. AKBAYAN-Youth vs COMELEC | GR No. 147066
has considered himself a resident of Meycauayan. When the 1928 March 26, 2011 | Buena, J.:
elections were approaching, he made an application for
cancellation of registration in Manila which was dated April 3, FACTS: On January 25, 2001, AKBAYAN-Youth, together with
1928, but this application was rejected by the city officials for the other youth movements sought the extension of the registration of
reason that it was not deposited in the mails on or before April 4, voters for the May 2001 elections. The voters registration has
1928. Nevertheless Abano presented himself as a candidate for already ended on December 27, 2000. AKBAYAN-Youth asks that
municipal president of Meycauayan in the 1928 elections and was persons aged 18-21 be allowed a special 2-day registration. The
elected by popular vote to that office. A proceeding in the nature of Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied the petition.
quo warranto instituted by virtue of the provisions of section 408 AKBAYAN-Youth the sued COMELEC for alleged grave abuse of
of the Election Law, as amended, in the Court of First Instance of discretion for denying the petition. AKBAYAN-Youth alleged that
Bulacan by the petitioner, Marcos Yra, the vice-president elect of there are about 4M youth who were not able to register and are
Meycauayan, Bulacan, who challenges the right of the respondent, now disenfranchised. COMELEC invoked Section 8 of Republic Act
Maximo Abano, the municipal president elect of Meycauayan, to 8189, which provides that no registration shall be conducted 120
the position to which elected on the ground that the respondent is days before the regular election. AKBAYAN-Youth however
ineligible. counters that under Section 28 of Republic Act 8436, the
COMELEC in the exercise of its residual and stand-by powers can
ISSUE: reset the periods of pre-election acts including voters registration
Whether or not registration is a qualification to run for a public if the original period is not observed.
office
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC exercised grave abuse of
HELD: discretion when it denied the extension of the voters registration.
NO, One of the qualifications required by law of a person who
announces his candidacy is that he must be a duly qualified HELD: No. The COMELEC was well within its right to do so
elector. The Executive Bureau has held that the term "qualified" pursuant to the clear provisions of Section 8, RA 8189 that
when applied to a voter does not necessarily mean that a person provides that no voters registration shall be conducted within 120
must be a registered voter. To become a qualified candidate a days before the regular election. The right of suffrage is not
person does not need to register as an elector. It is sufficient that absolute. It is regulated by measures like voters registration,
he possesses all the qualifications prescribed in section 431 and which is not a mere statutory requirement. The State, in the
exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact laws to FACTS: Romulo Macalintal, as a lawyer and a taxpayer, questions
safeguard and regulate the act of voters registration for the the validity of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A.
ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly and peaceful 9189). Claiming that he has actual and material legal interest in
election, to the incidental yet generally important end, that even the subject matter of this case in seeing to it that public funds are
pre-election activities could be performed by the duly constituted properly and lawfully used and appropriated. He questions the
authorities in a realistic and orderly manner one which is not validity of the said act on the ground that: the Section 5(d) of RA
indifferent and so far removed from the pressing order of the day 9189 which provides that a Filipino already considered an
and the prevalent circumstances of the times. RA 8189 prevails immigrant abroad can be allowed to participate in absentee voting
over RA 8436 in that RA 8189s provision is explicit as to the provided he executes an affidavit stating his intent to return to the
prohibition. Suffice it to say that it is a pre-election act that cannot Philippines is void because it dispenses of the requirement that a
be reset. 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
Further, even if what is asked is a mere two-day special immediately preceding the election.
registration, COMELEC has shown in its pleadings that if it is
allowed, it will substantially create a setback in the other pre- ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 5(d) of RA 9189 violates the residency
election matters because the additional voters from the special requirement under the 1987 Constitution.
two day registration will have to be screened, entered into the
book of voters, have to be inspected again, verified, sealed, then HELD: No. R.A. No. 9189 was enacted in obeisance to the
entered into the computerized voters list; and then they will have mandate of the first paragraph of Section 2, Article V of the
to reprint the voters information sheet for the update and Constitution that Congress shall provide a system for voting
distribute it by that time, the May 14, 2001 elections would have by qualified Filipinos abroad. It must be stressed that Section 2
been overshot because of the lengthy processes after the special does not provide for the parameters of the exercise of legislative
registration. In short, it will cost more inconvenience than good. authority in enacting said law. Hence, in the absence of
Further still, the allegation that youth voters are disenfranchised is restrictions, Congress is presumed to have duly exercised its
not sufficient. Nowhere in AKBAYAN-Youths pleading was function as defined in Article VI of the Constitution. There can be
attached any actual complaint from an individual youth voter no absentee voting if the absentee voters are required to
about any inconvenience arising from the fact that the voters physically reside in the Philippines within the period required for
registration has ended on December 27, 2001. Also, AKBAYAN- non-absentee voters. Further, as understood in election laws,
Youth et al admitted in their pleading that they are asking an domicile and resident are interchangeably used. Hence, one is a
extension because they failed to register on time for some reasons, resident of his domicile (insofar as election laws is concerned).
which is not appealing to the court. The law aids the vigilant and The domicile is the place where one has the intention to return to.
not those who slumber on their rights. 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. If the
3. Romeo Macalintal vs COMELEC | GR No. 157013 immigrant does not execute the affidavit then he is not qualified as
July 10, 2003 | Austria-Martinez, J.: an absentee voter.
Immigration or permanent residence in another country implies
renunciation of ones residence in his country of origin. However,
same Section allows an immigrant and permanent resident abroad hundred and one (39,801) registered voters.
to register as voter for as long as he/she executes an affidavit to If the returns of Siasi were excluded, Petitioner Ututalum would
show that he/she has not abandoned his domicile in pursuance of have a lead of 5,301 votes. Petitioner filed written objections to the
the constitutional intent expressed in Sections 1 and 2 of Article V returns from Siasi on the ground that they appear to be tampered
that all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by with or falsified owing to the great excess of votes appearing in
law must be entitled to exercise the right of suffrage and, that the said returns.
Congress must establish a system for absentee voting; for COMELEC issued annulling the Siasi List of Voters on the ground
otherwise, if actual, physical residence in the Philippines is of massive irregularities committed in the preparation and being
required, there is no sense for the framers of the Constitution to statistically improbable, and ordering a new registration of voters
mandate Congress to establish a system for absentee voting. for the local elections.
Contrary to the claim of petitioner, the execution of the affidavit Petitioner contends that the issue he raised referred to obvious
itself is not the enabling or enfranchising act. The affidavit manufactured returns, a proper subject matter for a pre-
required in Section 5(d) is not only proof of the intention of the proclamation controversy and therefore cognizable by the
immigrant or permanent resident to go back and resume COMELEC; that election returns from Siasi should be excluded
residency in the Philippines, but more significantly, it serves as an from the canvass of the results since its original List of Voters had
explicit expression that he had not in fact abandoned his domicile already been finally annulled.
of origin. Thus, it is not correct to say that the execution of the
affidavit under Section 5(d) violates the Constitution that ISSUE: Whether or not the election returns from Siasi should be
proscribes provisional registration or a promise by a voter to excluded from the canvass of the results since the original List of
perform a condition to be qualified to vote in a political exercise. Voters had been finally annulled.
To repeat, the affidavit is required of immigrants and permanent
residents abroad because by their status in their host countries, HELD: No. The Siasi returns, do not show prima facie that on the
they are presumed to have relinquished their intent to return to basis of the old List of Voters, there is actually a great excess of
this country; thus, without the affidavit, the presumption of votes over what could have been legally cast considering that only
abandonment of Philippine domicile shall remain. 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
4. Nurhussein Ututalum vs COMELEC | GR No. 84843-44 retroactively would be to empower it to annul a previous
January 22, 1990 | Melencio Herrera, J.: election because of the subsequent annulment of a questioned
registry. The list must then be considered conclusive evidence of
FACTS: Petitioner Ututalum and private respondent, Arden S. persons who could exercise the right of suffrage in a particular
Anni, were among the candidates in the last 30 May 1987 election. The preparation of a voters list is not a proceeding before
congressional elections for the Second District of Sulu. 30 May was the Board of Canvassers. A pre-proclamation controversy is
the date reset by the COMELEC from the 11 May 1987 elections limited to challenges directed against the Board of Canvassers, not
The election returns from Siasi showed that Petitioner Ututalum the Board of Election Inspectors and such challenge should relate
obtained four hundred and eighty-two (482) votes while to specified election returns against which the petitioner should
respondent Anni received thirty-five thousand five hundred and have made verbal elections.
eighty-one (35,581) votes out of the thirty-nine thousand eight