CONSTI-­‐I   the   U.S.A.;   that   he   had   just   recently   arrived   in   the   Philippines;   and  
SUFFRAGE   that   he   did   not   have   the   required   one-­‐year   residence   in   the  
Philippines  and  the  six-­‐month  residence  in  Tolosa  to  qualify  him  to  
FAYPON  VS  QUIRINO   1   register  as  a  voter  in  Barangay  Malbog,  Tolosa,  Leyte.  Romualdez  
contends   that   he   has   been   a   resident   of   Tolosa,   Leyte,   since   the  
Romualdez  vs  RTC   1   early  1980's,  and  that  he  has  not  abandoned  his  said  residence  by  
Velasco  vs  COMELEC   2   his  physical  absence  therefrom  during  the  period  from  1986  up  to  
the   third   week   of   December   1991.   After   due   hearing,   the  
CENIZA  vs  COMELEC   2  
Municipal   Court   of   Tolosa,   Leyte   held   in   favor   of   the   petitioner  
People  v  Corral   2   Advincula  then  appealed  the  case  to  the  respondent  court  then  it  
AKBAYAN  YOUTH  VS.  COMELEC   3   rendered  the  assailed  decision  that  the  petitioner  is  disqualified  to  
register  as  a  voter  for  the  1992  elections  and  hereby  reverses  the  
 
decision   of   the   lower   court   in   toto.   Hence,   this   recourse.  
 
FAYPON  VS  QUIRINO   Issue:  
G.R.   No.   L-­‐7068                                                           December   22,   1954    Whether   or   not   the   respondent   court   erred   in   finding   the  
  petitioner  to  have  voluntarily  left  the  country  and  abandoned  his  
FACTS:   residence   in   Malbog,   Tolosa,   Leyte.  
Respondent   was   born   in   Caoayan,   Ilocos   Sur;   came   to   Manila   to    
pursue   his   studies;   went   to   United   States   for   the   same   purpose;   Held:    
returned  to  the  Philippines;  and  engaged  in  the  newspaper  work  in   WHEREFORE   PREMISES   CONSIDERED,   the   court   finds   the  
Manila,   and   Iloilo.   When   he   ran   for   the   office   of   Provincial   respondent   to   be   a   resident   of   Brgy.   Malbog,   Tolosa,   Leyte   and  
Governor  of  Ilocos  Sur,  he  was  proclaimed  by  the  provincial  board   qualified  to  register  as  a  voter  thereat.  Hence,  the  instant  petition  
of   canvassers   as   the   governor.   A   petition   for   quo   warranto   was   for   exclusion   of   Philip   G.   Romualdez   from   the   list   of   voter   of  
filed   by   the   petitioner   on   the   ground   of   respondent's   ineligibility   Precinct   No.   9,   Malbog,   Tolosa,   Leyte   is   hereby   ordered   DENIED  
for   the   said   office   because   of   alleged   lack   of   residence.   The   and  petition  DISMISSED.  
petitioner   relies   on   the   fact   that   the   respondent   registered   as    
voter   in   Pasay   City   in   1946   and   1947.  
 
ISSUE:  
Romualdez  vs  RTC  
Sept.  14,  1993  
Whether   or   not   respondent's   acts,   activities,   and   utterances  
constitute   abandonment   or   loss   of   his   residence   of   origin.  
Facts:  
 
Petitioner   Romualdez   is   a   natural-­‐born   citizen;   the   son   of   Kokoy  
RULING:  
Romualdez  and  a  niece  of  Imelda  Marcos.  In  1980,  he  established  
NO.  The  Court  ruled  out  that  mere  absence  from  one's  residence  
his   residence   in   Malbog,   Tolosa,   Leyte.   However,   in   1986,   during  
or   origin   -­‐   domicile   -­‐   to   pursue   studies,   engage   in   business,   or  
the   days   of   People   Power,   relatives   of   the   deposed   President  
practice   his   avocation,   is   not   sufficient   to   constitute   abandonment  
(Marcos),  fearing  for  their  personal  safety,  fled  the  country.  One  of  
or   loss   of   such   residence.  
them   are   the   Romuladezes   –   they   left   the   country   and   sought  
 
asylum  in  the  United  States.  
A   citizen   may   leave   the   place   of   his   birth   to   look   for   "greener  
However,  in  1991,  the  U.S.  Immigration  informed  them  to  depart  
pastures"   to   improve   his   lot.   When   election   is   to   be   held,   the  
from   the   U.S.   or   else   they’ll   be   deported.   Upon   receipt   of   the  
citizen   who   left   his   birthplace   to   improve   his   lot   may   desire   to  
information,  Romuladez  went  back  to  the  Philippines  and  did  not  
return  to  his  native  town  to  cast  his  ballot  but  for  professional  or  
delay   his   return   to   his   residence   in   Leyte   and   immediately  
business  reason,  he  may  not  be  absent  himself  from  the  place  of  
registered  himself  as  a  voter.  
his   activities;   so   there   he   registers   as   voter.   Despite   such  
In   1992,   herein   private   respondent   Advincula   filed   a   petition   to  
registration,  the  animus  revertendi  to  his  home,  to  his  domicile  or  
exclude   petitioner   from   the   list   of   the   voters   alleging   that   the  
residence  of  origin,  he  has  not  forsaken  him.  Thus,  registration  of  a  
latter   is   a   U.S.   resident,   and   residency   is   a   qualification   for   a  
voter   in   another   place   has   not   been   deemed   sufficient   to  
registered  voter.  However,  the  MTC  denied  the  petition  but  when  
constitute  abandonment  or  loss  of  such  residence.    
the   respondent   elevated   the   petition   to   the   RTC,   the   appellate  
 
court   reversed   MTC’s   ruling   and   disqualified   Romuldez   as   a  
 
registered  voter.  Hence,  this  case.  
Romualdez  vs  RTC      
226  SCRA  408   Issue:    
  Whether   petitioner   is   qualified   to   be   a   registered   voter   in   Malbog,  
Facts:   Tolosa,  Leyte  despite  his  sudden  departure  to  the  U.S?  
Philip   Romualdez,   the   petitioner,   is   a   natural   born   citizen   of   the    
Philippines,   the   son   of   the   former   Governor   of   Leyte,   Benjamin   Ruling:  
"Kokoy"   Romualdez,   and   nephew   of   the   then   First   Lady   Imelda   The   Court   held   that   YES,   Petitioner   is   qualified   as   a   registered  
Marcos.   Sometime   in   the   early   part   of   1980,   the   petitioner,   in   voter   because   he   is   still   considered   a   resident   of   Malbog,   Tolosa,  
consonance   with   his   decision   to   establish   his   legal   residence   at   Leyte.  
Barangay   Malbog,   Tolosa,   Leyte,   caused   the   construction   of   his   Stating   that,   the   political   situation   brought   about   by   people’s  
residential   house   therein.   He   soon   thereafter   also   served   as   Power   Revolution   must   have   caused   great   fear   to   the  
Barangay   Captain   of   the   place   where   he   voted.   After   the   people   Romualdezes,   and   as   having   concern   over   the   safety   of   their  
power,  petitioner  left  the  country  and  fled  to  America  for  asylum.   families,  their  self-­‐exile  is  understandable.  Moreover,  their  sudden  
When  Romualdez  arrived  in  the  Philippines  in  December  1991,  he   departure  cannot  be  described  as  ‘voluntary’  or  ‘abandonment  of  
did  not  delay  his  return  to  his  residence  at  Malbog,  Tolosa,  Leyte.   residence’.  
During   the   registration   of   voters   conducted   by   the   COMELEC   on   It   must   be   emphasized   that   the   right   to   vote   is   a   most   precious  
February  1,  1992  for  the  Synchronized  National  and  Local  Election   political   right;   a   bounden   duty   of   every   citizen   enabling   them   to  
scheduled   for   May   11,   1992,   petitioner   registered   himself   anew   as   participate   in   the   government   process   to   ensure   the   will   of   the  
a  voter  at  Precinct  No.  9  of  Malbog,  Tolosa,  Leyte.  On  February  21,   people.  
1992,  Donato  Advincula,  respondent,  filed  a  petition  with  the  MTC  
of   Tolosa,   Leyte,   praying   that   Romualdez   be   excluded   from   the   list    
of  voters  in  Precinct  No.  9  of  Malbog,  Tolosa,  Leyte,  under  BP  881  
and   RA   7166   alleging   that   Romualdez   was   a   resident   of    
Massachusetts,   U.S.A.;   that   his   profession   and   occupation   was   in  

  1  
  
Velasco  vs  COMELEC   3. Thus,  the  petitioners  filed  for  prohibition  and  mandamus.      
 
 
HOLDING:  
FACTS:  
1.  NO.  The  constitution  confers  no  right  to  a  voter  in    city  to  vote  
This   petition   for   certiorari   seeks   to   set   aside   and   annul   the  
for  the  provincial  officials  of  the  province  where  the  city  is  located.  
resolutions   denying   the   COC   Velasco   had   filed   for   the   position   of  
Moreover,  provincial  governments  have  no  supervision  over  highly  
Mayor  of  the  Municipality  of  Sasmuan,  Pampanga.  The  distinctions  
urbanized  cities  thus  it  is  only  proper  to  exclude  aforementioned  
between   inclusion/exclusion   proceedings   and   COC  
voters  from  provincial  elections  since  their  interest  won’t  be  vitally  
denial/cancellation   proceedings,   refute   and   belie   Velasco's  
affected.    
position   that   the   COMELEC   improperly   ruled   on   his   right   to   vote  
 
when  it  cancelled  his  COC.  
2.  NO.  The  practice  of  allowing  voters  in  one  component  city  to  
 
vote  for  provincial  officials  whilst  denying  the  same  to  voters  of  
another  component  city  is  a  matter  of  legislative  discretion  which  
ISSUE:     violates  neither  the  Constitution  nor  the  right  to  suffrage.    
Is  decision  in  an  inclusion/exclusion  proceeding  operate  as  a  bar  to    
any   future   action   challenging   one’s   right   to   be   registered   as   a   3.  NO.  The  requirement  for  plebiscite  came  with  the  1973  
voter?   Constitution  while  the  City  of  Mandaue  came  into  existent  in  June  
  21,  1969.  It  is  a  general  rule  that  constitutional  provisions  should  
HELD:  Inclusion/exclusion  proceedings,  while  judicial  in  character,   apply  prospectively  only.    
are   summary   proceedings.   A   decision   in   an   inclusion/exclusion    
proceeding  does  not  operate  as  a  bar  to  any  future  action  in  any   RULING:    
other   election   that   a   party   may   take   concerning   his   right   to   be   WHEREFORE,  the  petition  should  be,  as  it  is  hereby  dismissed.  
registered  as  a  voter.  A  ruling  on  the  right  to  vote  by  the  trial  court   Costs  against  the  petitioners.    
for   a   specific   election   is   binding   on   the   COMELEC.   By   clear    
implication,  the  COMELEC  itself  does  not  rule  on  the  right  to  vote  
by  recognizing  in  a  Sec.  78  COC  denial/cancellation  proceeding  the   Related  Provisions:  
final   and   executory   ruling   by   a   court,   as   mandated   by   law,   in   an  
inclusion/exclusion  proceeding.   a.   Batas   Blg.   51,   Sec   3(2).   Until   cities   are   reclassified   into   highly  
  urbanized  and  component  cities  in  accordance  with  the  standards  
established   in   the   Local   Government   Code   as   provided   for   in  
62
In   Velasco   v.   Comelec,   this   Court   pronounced   that   election   Article  XI,  Sec.  4  (1)  of  the  Constitution,  any  city  now  existing  with  
victory   cannot   be   used   as   a   magic   formula   to   bypass   election   an  annual  regular  income  derived  from  infrastructure  and  general  
eligibility   requirements;   otherwise,   certain   provisions   of   laws   funds  of  not  less  than  forty  million  pesos  (P40,000,000.00)  at  the  
pertaining   to   elections   will   become   toothless.   One   of   which   is   time   of   the   approval   of   this   Act   shall   be   classified   as   a   highly  
urbanized  city.  All  other  cities  shall  be  considered  components  of  
Section  39  of  the  Local  Government  Code  of  1991,  which  specifies  
the  provinces  where  they  are  geographically  located.  
the  basic  positive  qualifications  of  local  government  officials.  If  in  
Velasco   the   Court   ruled   that   popular   vote   cannot   override   the   b.  R.A.  5519  Sec.  96.  Participation  of  voters  in  provincial  election.  
63
required   qualifications   under   Section   39, a   fortiori,   there   is   no   The  qualified  voters  of  the  city  shall  not  be  entitled  to  vote  in  any  
reason   why   the   Court   should   not   follow   the   same   policy   when   it   election  for  the  offices  of  the  Provincial  Governor,  Vice-­‐Governor,  
64
comes   to   disqualifications   enumerated   under   Section   40   of   the   and  Members  of  the  Provincial  Board  of  the  Province   of   Cebu,  but  
any  of  such  qualified  voters  can  be  a  candidate  for  any  provincial  
same  law.  After  all,  "[t]he  qualifications  set  out  in  [Section  39]  are  
office.  
roughly  half  of  the  requirements  for  election  to  local  public  offices.  
The   other   half   is   contained   in   the   succeeding   section   which   lays   1973   Constitution,   Art.   XI,   SEC.   4.   (1).   Provinces   with   respect   to  
down   the   circumstances   that   disqualify   local   component  cities  and  municipalities,  and  cities  and  municipalities  
65
candidates." cralawrednad   with   respect   to   component   barrios,   shall   ensure   that   the   acts   of  
their   component   units   are   within   the   scope   of   their   assigned  
  powers   and   functions.   Highly   urbanized   cities,   as   determined   by  
standards   established   in   the   local   government   code,   shall   be  
independent  of  the  province.  
CENIZA  vs  COMELEC  
  (2)  Local  government  units  may  group  themselves,  or  consolidate  
FACTS:   or   coordinate   their   efforts,   services,   and   resources   for   purposes  
The  case  is  about  a  petition  for  prohibition  and  mandamus  against   commonly  beneficial  to  them.  
the  COMELEC  filed  by  the  petitioners  as  taxpayers  and  registered  
voters  of  Mandaue  City  after  the  voters  of  the  said  city  were    
prohibited  from  voting  provincial  officials  for  Cebu.  Their  petition  
was  denied  for  lack  of  merit.     People  v  Corral  
 
G.R.  No.  L-­‐42300  (Jan.  31,  1936)  
ISSUES:    
 
1. WON  the  right  to  suffrage  of  Mandaue  City    voters  have  been  
violated.      
Facts:  
2. WON  there  was  a  denial  of  equal  protection.      
3. WON  the  charter  is  unconstitutional  for  lack  of  a    plebiscite.        
1. On  December  22,  1979,  the  Interim  Batasang  Pambansa   Appellant   was   charged   having   voted   illegally   at   the   general  
a   elections  held  on  June  5,  1934.  After  due  trial,  he  was  convicted  on  
enacted  Batas  Blg.  51 providing  for  local  elections  on  
the   ground   that   he   had   voted   while   laboring   under   a   legal  
January  30,  1980.  To  implement  this  ACT,  the  COMELEC  
adopted  Resolution  No.  1421  which  included  a  list  of   disqualification.  The  judgment  of  conviction  was  based  on  section  
cities  whose  registered  voters  were  not  allowed  to  vote   2642,  in  connection  with  section  432  of  the  Revised  Administrative  
for  provincial  officials.       Code.  
2. In  the  said  COMELEC  Resolution,  voters  from  Mandaue  City,    
despite  the  City  not  qualifying  as  a  highly  urbanized  city,  
were  barred  from  provincial  elections  as  based  from  the   It   is   undisputed   that   appellant   was   sentenced   by   final   judgment   of  
c this   court   promulgated   on   March   3,   1910  to   suffer   eight   years   and  
City’s  Charter .      

  2  
  
one   day   of  presidio   mayor.   No   evidence   was   presented   to   show   voters  registration  shall  be  conducted  within  120  days  before  the  
that  prior  to  June  5,  1934,  he  had  been  granted  a  plenary  pardon.   regular   election.   The   right   of   suffrage   is   not   absolute.   It   is  
It   is   likewise   undisputed   that   at   the   general   elections   held   on   June   regulated   by   measures   like   voters   registration   which   is   not   a   mere  
statutory   requirement.   The   State,   in   the   exercise   of   its   inherent  
5,  1934,  the  voted  in  election  precinct  No.  18  of  the  municipality  
police  power,  may  then  enact  laws  to  safeguard  and  regulate  the  
of  Davao,  Province  of  Davao.   act   of   voter’s   registration   for   the   ultimate   purpose   of   conducting  
honest,   orderly   and   peaceful   election,   to   the   incidental   yet  
Counsel   for   the   appellant   contend   that   inasmuch   as   the   latter   generally   important   end,   that   even   pre-­‐election   activities   could   be  
voted  in  1928  his  offense  had  already  prescribed,  and  he  could  no   performed   by   the   duly   constituted   authorities   in   a   realistic   and  
longer   be   prosecuted   for   illegal   voting   at   the   general   election   held   orderly  manner  –  one  which  is  not  indifferent  and  so  far  removed  
on  June  5,  1934.   from   the   pressing   order   of   the   day   and   the   prevalent  
circumstances  of  the  times.  RA  8189  prevails  over  RA  8436  in  that  
Issue:   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.  
1. W/N  the  state  has  the  right  to  deprive  a  person’s  right  to   Further,   even   if   what   is   asked   is   a   mere   two-­‐day   special  
suffrage   registration,   COMELEC   has   shown   in   its   pleadings   that   if   it   is  
2. W/N   the   appellant’s   contention   that   the   end   of   his   allowed,   it   will   substantially   create   a   setback   in   the   other   pre-­‐
election   matters   because   the   additional   voters   from   the   special  
punishment  thus  ends  of  his  disqualification  for  election  
two   day   registration   will   have   to   be   screened,   entered   into   the  
has  merit.  
book   of   voters,   have   to   be   inspected   again,   verified,   sealed,   then  
Held:   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  
Yes.   The   right   of   the   State   to   deprive   persons   to   the   right   of  
been  overshot  because  of  the  lengthy  processes  after  the  special  
suffrage   by   reason   of   their   having   been   convicted   of   crime,   is  
registration.   In   short,   it   will   cost   more   inconvenience   than   good.  
beyond  question.  "The  manifest  purpose  of  such  restrictions  upon   Further  still,  the  allegation  that  youth  voters  are  disenfranchised  is  
this   right   is   to   preserve   the   purity   of   elections.   The   presumption   is   not   sufficient.   Nowhere   in   AKBAYAN-­‐Youth’s   pleading   was  
that   one   rendered   infamous   by   conviction   of   felony,   or   other   base   attached   any   actual   complaint   from   an   individual   youth   voter  
offense   indicative   of   moral   turpitude,   is   unfit   to   exercise   the   about   any   inconvenience   arising   from   the   fact   that   the   voters  
privilege  of  suffrage  or  to  hold  office.  The  exclusion  must  for  this   registration   has   ended   on   December   27,   2001.   Also,   AKBAYAN-­‐
Youth   et   al   admitted   in   their   pleading   that   they   are   asking   an  
reason   be   adjudged   a   mere   disqualification,   imposed   for  
extension   because   they   failed   to   register   on   time   for   some  
protection  and  not  for  punishment,  the  withholding  of  a  privilege   reasons,   which   is   not   appealing   to   the   court.   The   law   aids   the  
and  not  the  denial  of  a  personal  right.   vigilant  and  not  those  who  slumber  on  their  rights.  

No.   Neither   is   there   any   merit   in   the   contention   advanced   by    

counsel  for  the  appellant  that  the  disqualification  imposed  on  the  
latter   must   be   considered   as   having   been   removed   at   the   AKBAYAN  YOUTH  VS.  COMELEC  
expiration  of  his  sentence.  This  claim  is  based  upon  an  erroneous  
theory   of   the   nature   of   the   disqualification.   It   regards   it   as   a    
punishment  when,  as  already  indicated,  the  correct  view  is  that  it   G.R.  No.  147066,  March  26  2001  
is   imposed,   "for   protection   and   not   for   punishment,.   the    
withholding  of  a  privilege  and  not  the  denial  of  a  personal  right."   FACTS:  
Judicial  interpretation  and  long  established  administrative  practice   Petitioner   Akbayan   Youth   seek   to   direct   the   Commission   on  
are  against  such  a  view.   Elections  (COMELEC)  to  conduct  a  special  registration  before  May  
2001  General  Elections  for   new  voters  ages  18  to  21.  According  to  
  petitioners,   around   four   million   youth   failed   to   register   on   or  
  before   the   December   27,   2000   deadline   set   by   the   respondent  
COMELEC  under  Republic  Act  No.    8189.  
AKBAYAN  YOUTH  VS.  COMELEC    
  A   request   to   conduct   a   two-­‐day   additional   registration   of   new  
FACTS:   voters  on  February  17  and  18,  2001  was  passed  but  it  was  denied  
On  January  25,  2001,  AKBAYAN-­‐Youth,  together  with  other  youth   by   the   COMELEC.   Section   8   of   Republic   Act   No.     8189   explicitly  
movements  sought  the  extension  of  the  registration  of  voters  for   provides  that  no  registration  shall  be  conducted  during  the  period  
the   May   2001   elections.   The   voters   registration   has   already   ended   starting  one  hundred  twenty  (120)  days  before  a   regular  election  
on   December   27,   2000.   AKBAYAN-­‐Youth   asks   that   persons   aged   and  that  the  Commission  has  no  more  time  left  to  accomplish  all  
18-­‐21  be  allowed  a  special  2-­‐day  registration.  The  Commission  on   pre-­‐election  activities.  
Elections   (COMELEC)   denied   the   petition.   AKBAYAN-­‐Youth   the    
sued   COMELEC   for   alleged   grave   abuse   of   discretion   for   denying   ISSUE:  
the   petition.   AKBAYAN-­‐Youth   alleged   that   there   are   about   4   Whether   or   not   the   Court   can   compel   respondent   COMELEC,   to  
million   youth   who   were   not   able   to   register   and   are   now   conduct   a   special   registration   of   new   voters   during   the   period  
disenfranchised.  COMELEC  invoked  Section  8  of  Republic  Act  8189   between   the   COMELEC’s   imposed   December   27,   2000   deadline  
which   provides   that   no   registration   shall   be   conducted   120   days   and  the  May  14,  2001  general  elections.  
before   the   regular   election.   AKBAYAN-­‐Youth   however   counters    
that   under   Section   28   of   Republic   Act   8436,   the   COMELEC   in   the   HELD:  
exercise   of   its   residual   and   stand-­‐by   powers,   can   reset   the   periods   The   Supreme   Court   could   not   compel   Comelec   to   conduct   a  
of   pre-­‐election   acts   including   voters   registration   if   the   original   special   registration   of   new   voters.   The   right   to   suffrage   is   not  
period  is  not  observed.   absolute   and   must   be   exercised   within   the   proper   bounds   and  
ISSUE:     framework  of  the  Constitution.  Petitioners  failed  to  register,  thus  
Whether  or  not  the  COMELEC  exercised  grave  abuse  of  discretion   missed   their   chance.   However,   court   took   judicial   notice   of   the  
when  it  denied  the  extension  of  the  voters  registration.   fact  that  the  President  issued  a  proclamation  calling  Congress  to  a  
  Special  Session  to  allow  the  conduct  of  special  registration  for  new  
HELD:     voters   and   that   bills   had   been   filed   in   Congress   to   amend   Republic  
No.   The   COMELEC   was   well   within   its   right   to   do   so   pursuant   to   Act  No.    8189.  
the  clear  provisions  of  Section  8,  RA  8189  which  provides  that  no    
  3