Nolasco v Comelec, 275 SCRA 763 (1997)

Facts:
In the mayoralty election Blanco received higher votes than Alarilla. Later on, Alarilla
petitioned to disqualify Blanco and moved to suspend formers proclamation for having
committed massive vote buying and cheating. The COMELEC granted the said petition.
Blanco moved for reconsideration for having been denied due process and equal
protection. Meanwhile, Nolasco as vice mayor-elect intervened and contended that he
should be declared mayor in the event Blanco was finally disqualified.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that Blanco was not denied due process neither equal protection of law.
The COMELEC action is safely anchored on its Rules of Procedure that petitions for
disqualification shall be heard summarily after due notice. Also, COMELEC assumed
direct jurisdiction over disqualification case is not to favor anybody but to discharge its
duty fair and fast. It further ruled that this case concerns the right of suffrage which is
the bedrock of republicanism. Suffrage is the means by which our people express their
sovereign judgment. Hence, its free exercise must be protected especially against the
purchasing power of the peso.

People v San Juan, 22 SCRA 505

Facts:
The San Juans were charged for violation of Section 133 of the Revised Election Code,
specifically, for willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously with the use of force, prevent Pilapil
from freely entering the polling place in order to vote. The information, however, was
quashed for being insufficient and therefore, do not constitute an offense. Hence, Pilapil
appealed to said quashal.
Ruling:
The Court ruled set aside the order of quashal. When the legislature provided in section
133 of the Revised Election Code an explicit and unequivocal guarantee of a voter's free
access to the polling place, it could have intended no purpose other than to maintain
inviolate the right to vote by safeguarding the voter against all manner of unauthorized
interference and travesty that surveyors of fear can devise. Every unlawful obstacle, by
whatever means or method, interposed to the free entry of a voter into the polling place
to cast his vote, strikes at the very heart of the right of suffrage. It emphasized that
suffrage is the bedrock of all republican institutions. That each time the enfranchised
citizen goes to the polls to assert this sovereign will, that abiding credo of republicanism
is translated into living reality. To allow that will remain undefiled at the starting level of
its expression and application, every assumption must be indulged in and every
guarantee adopted to assure the unmolested exercise of the citizen's free choice.

Macalintal v Comelec, G.R. No. 157013, July 3, 2003

Facts:
Macalintal questioned the validity of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A.
9189). Specifically, he contended 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. This is because, it
dispenses of the requirement that a voter must be a residency requirement both in the
Philippines and in the place where he intends to vote preceding the election.
Ruling:
The Court upheld the laws constitutionality. It reasoned that, 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. 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.

 Yra v Abano, 52 Phil. 380

Facts:
Abano is a native of Meycuayan, Bulacan but a registered to voter in Manila. He ran and
won as municipal president in Meycuayan. However, he remained a registered voter of
Manila because his application for cancellation was rejected. Hence, petitioner Yra
challenged the right of Abano to assume position as municipal president elect of
Meycuayan. Yra contended that Abano is eligible since he is not a registered voter of the
municipality.
Ruling:
The words qualified elector meant a person who had all the qualification and non of the
qualification provided by law and not a person registered in the electoral list. Also, it was
interpreted that to be qualified voters, ones eligibility is not affected by his failure to
register. Registration does not confer the right; it is but a condition precedent to the
exercise of the right. It is only one step towards voting and it is not one of the elements
that makes the citizen a qualified voter. The respected the will of the electorate for
choosing the respondent as their local chief executive. Hence, Abanos eligibility for
office is upheld.

Akbayan-Youth v Comelec, 355 SCRA 318, March 26, 2001

Facts:
Around four million youth failed to register on or before the deadline set by the
respondent COMELEC for the 2001 General Elections. Petitioners requested the
COMELEC to conduct a two-day special registration before the elections. However, the
COMELEC resolved to deny the request. Aggrieved, petitioners sought to set aside and
nullify respondent COMELEC's Resolution, declare Section 8 of R.A. 8189
unconstitutional and direct COMELEC to conduct the special registration. They contend
that the provision causes the disenfranchisement of their votes. They also invoked the so
called "standby" powers or "residual" powers of the COMELEC, under Section 28 of
Republic Act No. 8436.
Ruling:
The Court denied both petitions. It was held that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 applies in the
present case, considering that the aforesaid law explicitly provides that no registration
shall be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a
regular election. The provisions of Section 28, R.A. 8436 would apply in cases where the
pre-election acts are susceptible of performance within the available period prior to
election day. In its Comment, respondent COMELEC emphasized the "operational
impossibility" of conducting a special registration within the time left. This determination
of the COMELEC was accorded great weight considering that it is in the best position to
know what they can possibly do or not do, under prevailing circumstances. Hence, the
stand-by power of the COMELEC cannot be invoked in this case.
Kabataan Party List Rep. Palatino v Comelec
Facts:
COMELEC adjusted the deadline of voter registration to an earlier date than what was
previously fixed. Petitioners challenged the validity of COMELECs resolution and prayed
for extension. They contended that it is an unconstitutional encroachment on the
legislative power of Congress. However, COMELEC invoked its stand-by power.
Ruling:
The Court granted the extension prayed for. Sec. 28 of RA8436 grants the COMELEC the
power to fix other periods and dates for pre-election activities only if the same cannot be
reasonably held within the period provided by law. In the present case, 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 There is thus no
occasion for the COMELEC to exercise its power to fix other dates or deadlines therefor.
EHTCAa

 Romualdez v RTC, 226 SCRA

Facts:
Romualdez is a natural born citizen of the Philippines and a resident of Barangay Tolosa,
Leyte. He, together with his immediate family, left the Philippines and sought "asylum"
in the United States. Later, he returned to his residence at Leyte and registered himself
anew as a voter. His registration was opposed because he did not have the required oneyear residence in the Philippines and the six-month residence in Tolosa. He, however,
insisted his fulfillment of the residence requirement, since he has not abandoned his said
residence, since 1980, by his physical absence therefrom during the period from 1986
up to the third week of December 1991.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that Romualdez satisfied the residency requirement and is qualified to
register. In order to acquire a new domicile by choice, the purpose to remain in or at the
domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must
be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be
actual. In this case, Romualdezes sudden departure from the country cannot be
described as "voluntary," or as "abandonment because it is brought about by the fear
from great apprehension cause by the EDSA revolution.
Pungutan v Abubakar, 43 SCRA 1, 12 (1972)
Facts:
In view of massive violence, terrorism and fraud that happened in the towns of Siasi,
Tapul, Parang and Luuk, it was alleged that no election were in effect. COMELEC
concluded that based on the findings, supported by credible evidence, irregularities did
attend the so-called elections and decided to reject the returns of the said municipalities.
Petitioner questioned the power of the COMELEC in rejecting such returns, since it
encroach the judicial power, the right to vote being involved.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the COMELEC is not devoid of power to disregard and annul the
alleged returns for being spurious or manufactured. The power of decision of the
Commission is limited to purely 'administrative questions. The right to vote or the
determination of whether or not a person is precluded from voting is excluded. As to
whether an elect on has been held is a question of a different type and is properly within
the administrative jurisdiction of COMELEC. Hence, rejection of election returns, as in
this case, is within the authority of the COMELEC.
Domino v Comelec, GR No. 134015, July 19, 1999
Facts:
DOMINOs certificate of candidacy was petitioned to be denied and cancelled alleging
that he is not a resident of the province of Sarangani. He, however, insisted his
compliance with the one-year residence requirement, and presented a copy of the
decision of MTC in an exclusion proceedings ruling that he were no longer resident of
Quezon City but of Sarangani. However, the COMELEC disqualified him. Hence, he
petitioned for certiorari contendeding that MTCs decision is conclusive upon the
COMELEC.
Ruling:
The decision of the MTC in the exclusion proceedings declaring DOMINO a resident of
Sarangani is not conclusive upon COMELEC. The proceedings for the exclusion or
inclusion of voters in the list of voters are summary in character. Thus, the factual
findings and its resultant conclusions on matters other than the right to vote in the
precinct within its territorial jurisdiction, even if final and unappealable, does not acquire
the nature of res judicata. It does not operate as a bar to any future action that a party
may take concerning the subject passed upon in the proceeding. Thus, a decision in an

exclusion proceeding would neither be conclusive on the voters political status nor bar
subsequent proceedings on his right to be registered as a voter in any other election.

Ututalum v Comelec, 181 SCRA 335

Facts:
Election returns from Siasi showed that Ututalum obtained materially lower votes than
his opponent, out of the 39,801 registered voters. Ututalum petitioned to declare a
failure of elections and conduct another election in the municipality because they appear
to be tampered with or falsified owing to the great excess of votes as shown by the
returns. While petition was pending, the COMELEC annulled the List of Voters of Siasi
due to massive irregularities in the preparation and being statistically improbable. The
new Registry List yielded only 12,555 names. Meanwhile, the COMELEC denied
Ututalum's petitions and advised him to file an election contest before the proper forum.
However, he contended that the issue he raised is a proper subject matter for a preproclamation controversy and that the election returns from Siasi should be excluded
from the canvass since its original List of Voters had already been finally annulled.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that subsequent annulment of the voting list in a separate proceeding
cannot result in nullifying accepted election returns in a previous election from
municipalities where the precinct books of voters were annulled. In this case, the List of
Voters used in the disputed elections is then a validly existing and still unquestioned
permanent Registry List which must then be considered conclusive evidence of persons
who could vote. That the padding of the List of Voters may constitute fraud, would not
be a valid basis for a pre-proclamation controversy. For whenever irregularities, such as
fraud, are asserted, the proper course of action is an election protest. Aside from the
fact that the indispensable requisites of res judicata are not all present, the ruling
desired would disenfranchise the good and valid votes.

Sarangani v Comelec, 334 SCRA 379

Facts:
A petition for annulment of precinct Padian Torogan and annulment of book of voters in
Madalum, Lanao Del Sur was filed. As a response, an ocular inspection was made. On
the basis of it, COMELEC resolved that Padian Torogan is a ghost precinct and should be
excluded from the special election to be conducted in Madalum. The former Municipal
Mayor, incumbent Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Madalum petitioned for certiorari and
mandamus to nullify the Order issued by the COMELEC.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that factual findings of the COMELEC whether a certain election precinct
actually exists or not and whether the voters registered in said precinct are real voters
are conclusive upon it. There absence of any finding of grave abuse on the part of the
COMELEC said order shall stand. Judicial interference is unnecessary and uncalled for. No
voter is disenfranchised because no such voter exists. Exclusion of non-existent voters
all the more protects the validity and credibility of the electoral process as well as the
right of suffrage because the "electoral will" would not be rendered nugatory by the
inclusion of some ghost votes.