Akbayan Vs Comelec: Facts: On January 25, 2001, Akbayan-youth,

AKBAYAN VS COMELEC Political Law – Election Laws – Right of Suffrage – Extension of Voters Registration 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 2-day registration. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied the petition. AKBAYAN-Youth the sued COMELEC for alleged grave abuse of discretion for denying the petition. AKBAYAN-Youth alleged that there are about 4 million youth who were not able to register and are now disenfranchised. COMELEC invoked Section 8 of Republic Act 8189 which provides that no registration shall be conducted 120 days before the regular election. AKBAYAN-Youth however counters that under Section 28 of Republic Act 8436, the COMELEC in the exercise of its residual and stand-by powers, can reset the periods of pre-election acts including voters registration if the original period is not observed. 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. The State, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of voter’s registration for the ultimate purpose of

conducting honest, orderly and peaceful election, to the incidental yet generally important end, that even pre-election activities could be performed by the duly constituted authorities in a realistic and orderly manner – one which is not indifferent and so far removed from the pressing order of the day and the prevalent circumstances of the times. RA 8189 prevails over RA 8436 in that 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. Further, even if what is asked is a mere two-day special registration, COMELEC has shown in its pleadings that if it is allowed, it will substantially create a setback in the other pre-election matters because the additional voters from the special two day registration will have to be screened, entered into the book of voters, have to be inspected again, verified, sealed, then 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 been overshot because of the lengthy processes after the special registration. In short, it will cost more inconvenience than good. Further still, the allegation that youth voters are disenfranchised is not sufficient. Nowhere in AKBAYAN-Youth’s pleading was attached any actual complaint from an individual youth voter about any inconvenience arising from the fact that the voters registration has ended on December 27, 2001. Also, AKBAYAN-Youth et al admitted in their pleading that they are asking an extension because they failed to register on time for some reasons, which is not appealing to the court. The law aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.

Issue: Whether petitioner is qualified to be a registered voter in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte despite his sudden departure to the U.S? Romualdez v. RTC etal, Sept. 14, 1993 Facts: Ruling: Petitioner Romualdez is a antural-born citizen; the son of Kokoy Romualdez and a niece of Imelda

The Court held that YES, Petitioner is qualified as a

Marcos. In 1980, he established his residence in

registered voter because he is still considered a

Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte. However, in 1986, during

resident of Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte.

the days of People Power, relatives of the deposed President (Marcos), fearing for their personal

Stating that, the political situation brought about by

safety, fled the country. One of them are the

people’s Power Revolution must have caused great

Romuladezes – they left the country and sought

fear to the Romualdezes, and as having concern

asylum in the United States.

over the safety of their families, their self-exile is understandable. Moreover, their sudden departure

However, in 1991, the U.S. Immigration informed

cannot be described as ‘voluntary’ or ‘abandonment

them to depart from the U.S. or else they’ll be

of residence’.

deported. Upon receipt of the information, Romuladez went back to the Philippines and did

It must be emphasized that the right to vote is a

not delay his return to his residence in Leyte and

most precious political right; a bounden duty of

immediately registered himself as a voter.

every citizen enabling them to participate in the government process to ensure the will of the

In 1992, herein private respondent Advincula filed a petition to exclude petitioner from the list of the voters alleging that the latter is a U.S. resident, and residency is a qualification for a registered voter. However, the MTC denied the petition but when 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.

MACALINTAL VS COMELEC

people.

Political Law – Election Laws – Absentee Voters Act – Proclamation ofWinners in a National Elections

HELD: No. 1.

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. Hence, one is a resident of his domicile (insofar as election laws is concerned). 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.

2.

The said provision should be harmonized. It could not be the intention of Congress to allow COMELEC to include the proclamationof the winners in the vice-presidential and presidential race. To interpret it that way would mean that Congress allowed COMELEC to usurp its power. The canvassing and proclamation of the presidential and vice presidential elections is still lodged in Congress and was in no way transferred to the COMELEC by virtue of RA 9189.

Romulo Macalintal, as a lawyer and a taxpayer, questions the validity of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189). He questions the validity of the said act on the following grounds, among others: 1.

2.

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 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; That the provision allowing the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to proclaim winning candidates insofar as it affects the canvass of votes and proclamation of winning candidates for president and vice-president, is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution for it is Congress which is empowered to do so. ISSUE: Whether or not Macalintal’s arguments are correct.

Nicolas-Lewis, et al. vs COMELEC Facts: Petitioners, who reacquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, sought registration and certification as “overseas absentee voters” however they were advised by the Philippine Embassy in the US that as per a COMELEC letter to DFA dated September 23, 2003, they have no right yet to vote in such elections owing to their lack of the one-year residence requirement prescribed by Sec. 1, Art. IV of the Constitution. When petitioner Nicolas-Lewis clarified on said requirement, the COMELEC replied its position that the OAVL was not enacted for the petitioners and that they are considered regular voters who have to

meet the requirements of residency under the Constitution. Faced with the prospect of not being able to vote in the May 2004 elections because of COMELEC's refusal to include them in the National Registry of Absentee Voters, petitioners filed on April 1, 2004 a petition for certiorari and mandamus. On April 30, 2004 (a little over a week before Election Day), COMELEC filed a Comment praying for the denial of the petition. Consequently, petitioners were not able to register let alone vote in said elections.

On May 20, 2004, the OSG filed a Manifestation (in Lieu of Comment) stating that“all qualified overseas Filipinos, including dual citizens who care to exercise the right of suffrage, may do so,” observing, however, that the conclusion of the 2004 elections had rendered the petition moot and academic. Issue: Must the Supreme Court still resolve said petition considering that under the circumstances the same has already been rendered moot and academic? Held: The holding of the 2004 elections had indeed rendered the petition moot and academic, but only insofar as petitioners’ participation in such political exercise is concerned. The broader and transcendental issue tendered in the petition is the propriety of allowing dual citizens to participate and vote as absentee voter in future elections, which however, remains unresolved.

The issues are thus reduced to the question of whether or not petitioners and others who might have meanwhile retained and/or reacquired Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. 9225 may vote as absentee voter under R.A. 9189. [Ruling on the main issue: Considering the unison intent of the Constitution and R.A. 9189 and the expansion of the scope of that law with the passage of R.A. 9225, the irresistible conclusion is that dual citizens may now exercise the right of suffrage thru the absentee voting scheme and as overseas absentee voters. The Court granted the instant petition and held that those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 may exercise the right to vote under the system of absentee voting in R.A. No. 9189, the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003.]

JAPZON VS COMELEC Dual Allegiance Facts: 





Petitioner Manuel Japzon and private respondent Jaime S. Ty ran for Mayor of the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar in the local elections of 14 May 2007. Japzon instituted before the COMELEC a Petition to disqualify and/or cancel Ty’s Certificate of Candidacy on the ground of material misrepresentation. He averred that o Ty is a US citizen and had been residing in the USA for the last 25 years. o When Ty filed his Certificate of Candidacy he falsely represented therein that he was a resident of Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar (“Barangay 6”), for one year before 14 May 2007 and was not a permanent resident or immigrant of any foreign country. o While Ty may have applied for the reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship, he never actually resided in Barangay 6 for a period of one year immediately preceding the date of election as required under Section 39 of LGC o Reacquisition of citizenship does not automatically establish his domicile at Barangay 6. o He had also failed to renounce his foreign citizenship as required by Republic Act No. 9225, otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 Ty admits that he had indeed lost his Philippine citizenship when he was naturalized as a US citizen. However, he alleges that prior to the election, he had successfully reacquired his Filipino citizenship as

  

shown by his act of executing an Oath of Allegiance to RP and a duly notazaried Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship. He had also complied with the 1-year residencey rule as shown by the following: o CTC from Barangay 6 (March 2006) o Passport indicating that his residence is in Barangay 6 (Oct 2005) o Registered voter at Brgy 6 (July 2006) Pending this case, Ty won the elections. COMELEC 1st Division ruled for Ty. COMELEC En Banc affirmed.

Issue: WON Ty complied with the one (1) year residency requirement under the Local Government Code.

Held: YES. The term "residence" is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to "dwelling" or "habitation," but rather to "domicile" or legal residence, that is, "the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi).

A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually the place where the child’s parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of new domicile (domicile of choice). In Coquilla, the Court already acknowledged that for an individual to acquire American citizenship, he must establish residence in the USA. Since Ty himself admitted that he became a naturalized American citizen,

then he must have necessarily abandoned Barangay 6 as his domicile of origin; and transferred to the USA, as his domicile of choice.

Ty’s reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 had no automatic impact or effect on his residence/domicile. He could still retain his domicile in the USA, and he did not necessarily regain his domicile in Barangay 6. Ty merely had the option to again establish his domicile in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, said place becoming his new domicile of choice. The length of his residence therein shall be determined from the time he made it his domicile of choice, and it shall not retroact to the time of his birth.

Ty’s intent to establish a new domicile of choice in Barangay 6 became apparent when, immediately after reacquiring his Philippine citizenship on 2 October 2005, he applied for a Philippine passport indicating in his application that his residence in the Philippines was Barangay 6. For the years 2006 and 2007, Ty voluntarily submitted himself to the local tax jurisdiction of the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, by paying community tax and securing CTCs from the said municipality stating therein his address as Barangay 6. Thereafter, Ty applied for and was registered as a voter on 17 July 2006 in Precinct 0013A, Barangay 6.