Moya v. Del Fierro, 69 Phil.

199 (1930) What was thus objected to is the fact that illegal votes were cast by those not qualified to do
so, numbering 8,300 or more and that an approximately equal number, who were duly
FACTS: registered with the Commission on Elections, Iligan City, were unable to vote due to the above
circumstances. The proclamation then could not have reflected the true will of the electorate
In the general elections held on December 14, 1937, respondent Agripino Ga. Del Fierro and as to who was the mayor elected, as the majority of protestee Cabili over the protestant
petitioner Ireneo Moya were contending candidates for the office of the mayor of the consisted of only 2,344 votes.
Municipality of Paracale, Camarines Noret. After canvass of the returns, the Board of
canvassers proclaimed petitioner as the elected mayor with a majority of 102 votes. However, The election protests against the duly proclaimer Mayor (Cabili) were dismissed by the CFI of
respondent filed a motion of protest and judgment was rendered in favor of respondent, Lanao del Norte. In such order of dismissal, it was admitted that while irregularities as well as
declaring him as the candidate-elect with a majority of 3 votes over his rival. Petitioner now misconduct on the part of election officers were alleged in the election protests filed, there
seeks said judgment for review alleging the ff: was however an absence of an allegation that they would change the result of the election in
favor of the protestants and against the protestees, that such irregularities would destroy the
a. In admitting and counting in favor of the respondent, 8 ballots either inadvertently secrecy and integrity of the ballots cast, or that the protestees knew of or participated in the
or contrary to the controlling decisions of this Honorable Court commission thereof. For the lower court then, the lack of a cause of action was rather evident.
b. In admitting and counting in favor of the respondent, 3 ballots marked "R. del
Fierro." ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court in ordering the dismissal of the election protests
c. In admitting and counting in favor of the respondent, 7 ballots marked "Rufino del
Firro." HELD: YES
d. In admitting and counting in favor of the respondent, 72 ballots marked "P. del
Fierro." The seriousness and gravity of the imputed failure to have the elections conducted freely and
honestly, with such irregularities alleged, give rise to doubts, rational and honest, as to who
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s contentions are tenable were the duly elected officials. Such allegations, it is to be stressed, would have to be accepted
at their face value for the purpose of determining whether there is a cause of action, a motion
HELD: NO to dismiss amounting to a hypothetical admission of facts thus pleased. Without the lower
court having so intended, the dismissal would amount to judicial abnegation of a sworn duty
Republicanism, in so far as it implies the adoption of a representative type of government, to inquire into and pass upon in an appropriate proceeding allegations of misconduct and
necessarily points to the enfranchised citizen as a particle of popular sovereignty and as the misdeeds of such character.
ultimate source of the established authority. He has a voice in his Government and whenever
called upon to act in justifiable cases, to give it efficacy and not to stifle it. This, fundamentally, NOTE:
is the reason for the rule that ballots should be read and appreciated, if not with utmost, with
reasonable, liberality. That if the grievance relied upon is the widespread irregularities and the flagrant violations of
the election law, the proper remedy is the one availed of here, the protest.
It is sufficient to observe, however, in this connection that whatever might have been said in
cases heretofore decided, no technical rule or rules should be permitted to defeat the
intention of the voter, if that intention is discoverable from the ballot itself, not from evidence
aliunde. This rule of interpretation goes to the very root of the system. Rationally, also, this
must be the justification for the suggested liberalization of the rules on appreciation of ballots
which are now incorporated in section 144 of the Election Code (Commonwealth Act No. 357).

Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 148334, 21 January 2004

Badelles v. Cabili, G.R. No.L-29333, 27 February 1969
FACTS:
FACTS:
Following the appointment of Sen. Teofisto Guingona as VP of the Phils., the Senate passed
Protestant Badelles and protestee Cabili were the duly registered candidates for the Office of Resolution No. 84 calling on COMELEC to fill the vacancy through a special election to be held
the City Mayor of Iligan City. Badelles impugns the election of Cabili on the ground that there simultaneously with the regular elections on May 14, 2001. The resolution further provides
were “flagrant violatiOn of mandatory provisions of law relating to or governing elections…”. that the “Senatorial candidate garnering the 13th highest number of votes shall serve only for
the unexpired term of former Sen. Guingona.
 NOTES:
Petitioners now seek the nullification of the special election and the declaration of the 13 th
elected senator (Honasan) for (1) having failed to notify the electorate of the position to be The Senate Electoral Tribunal is the sole judge of all contests relating to the qualifications of
filled in as required under Sec. 2 of RA 6645; (2) having failed to require senatorial candidates the members of the Senate. (Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution)
to indicate in their certificates of candidacy whether they seek election under the special or
regular elections as allegedly required under Section 73 of BP 881; and, consequently, (3) Section 2 of R.A. 6645 provides for the procedure in calling a special election.—In case a
having failed to specify in the Voters Information Sheet the candidates seeking election under vacancy arises in Congress at least one year before the expiration of the term, Section 2 of R.A.
the special or regular senatorial elections as purportedly required under Section 4, paragraph No. 6645, as amended, requires COMELEC: (1) to call a special election by fixing the date of the
4 of RA 6646. special election, which shall not be earlier than sixty (60) days nor later than ninety (90) after
the occurrence of the vacancy but in case of a vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall
ISSUE: Whether or not the Special Election should be nullified for failure to give notice by be held simultaneously with the next succeeding regular election; and (2) to give notice to the
the body empowered voters of, among other things, the office or offices to be voted for.

DISSENTING OPINION- JUSTICE PUNO

HELD: NO
An outstanding feature of the 1987 Constitution is the expansion of the democratic space
In a special election to fill a vacancy, the rule is that a statute that expressly provides that an giving the people greater power to exercise their sovereignty
election to fill a vacancy shall be held at the next general elections fixes the date at which the
special election is to be held and operates as the call for that election.—The calling of an Thus, under the 1987 Constitution, the people can directly exercise their sovereign authority
election, that is, the giving notice of the time and place of its occurrence, whether made by through the following modes, namely: (1) elections; (2) plebiscite; (3) initiative; (4) recall; and
the legislature directly or by the body with the duty to give such call, is indispensable to the (5) referendum.
election’s validity. In a general election, where the law fixes the date of the election, the
election is valid without any call by the body charged to administer the election. In a special The right to vote is not a natural right but it is a right created by law. Suffrage is a privilege
election to fill a vacancy, the rule is that a statute that expressly provides that an election to granted by the State to such persons as are most likely to exercise it for the public good.” The
fill a vacancy shall be held at the next general elections fixes the date at which the special existence of the right of suffrage is a threshold for the preservation and enjoyment of all other
election is to be held and operates as the call for that election. Consequently, an election held rights that it ought to be considered as one of the most sacred parts of the constitution
at the time thus prescribed is not invalidated by the fact that the body charged by law with the
duty of calling the election failed to do so. This is because the right and duty to hold the election The purpose of election laws is to safeguard the will of the people, the purity of elections being
emanate from the statute and not from any call for the election by some authority and the law one of the most important and fundamental requisites of popular government
thus charges voters with knowledge of the time and place of the election. Conversely, where
the law does not fix the time and place for holding a special election but empowers some As worded in the 1973 and 1987 Constitution, the right to information is self-executory
authority to fix the time and place after the happening of a condition precedent, the statutory
provision on the giving of notice is considered mandatory, and failure to do so will render the An informed citizenry with access to the diverse currents in political, moral and artistic thought
election a nullity. and data relative to them, and the free exchange of ideas and discussion of issues thereon is
vital to the democratic government envisioned under our Constitution.
The test in determining the validity of a special election in relation to the failure to give notice
of the special election is whether the want of notice has resulted in misleading a sufficient The cornerstone of this republican system of government is delegation of power by the people
number of voters as would change the result of the special election. If the lack of official notice to the State. In this system, governmental agencies and institutions operate within the limits
misled a substantial number of voters who wrongly believed that there was no special election of the authority conferred by the people. Denied access to information on the inner workings
to fill a vacancy, a choice by a small percentage of voters would be void. The required notice of government, the citizenry can become prey to the whims and caprices of those to whom
to the voters in the 14 May 2001 special senatorial election covers two matters. First, that the power had been delegated . . . x x x x x x x x x .
COMELEC will hold a special election to fill a vacant single three-year term Senate seat
simultaneously with the regular elections scheduled on the same date. Second, that COMELEC Notice to the electors that a vacancy exists and that an election is to be held to fill it for the
will proclaim as winner the senatorial candidate receiving the 13th highest number of votes in unexpired term, is essential to give validity to the meeting of an electoral body to discharge
the special election that particular duty, and is also an essential and characteristic element of a popular election.
Public policy requires that it should be given in such form as to reach the body of the
electorate. Here there had been no nominations to fill the vacancy, either by the holding of
a special primary election, or by nomination by county political conventions or party
committees. The designation of the office to be filled was not upon the official ballot. As
before noted, except for the vacancy, it would have no place there, as the term of office of consequently, proclaimed Cordero the winner. Purisima filed a petition for recount under Sec.
the incumbent, if living, would not expire until January 1, 1947. 163 of the Revised Election Code. The petition for recount was dismissed. In dismissing the
petition for recount, respondent Judge stated that some of the requisites were not present,
namely: first, that it appears to the provincial board of canvassers that a discrepancy exists;
second, that said discrepancy is between the copy submitted to the board and another
authentic copy thereof; third, that said authentic copy must also be submitted to the board

ISSUE: 1) Whether or not Purisima may file the petition for recount by himself
2) Whether or not the BOC has the duty to suspend canvass in light of the events

HELD: 1) YES

A candidate affected can file a petition for recount alone, without the concurrence of the
provincial board of canvassers (Cawa vs. Del Rosario, L-16837-40 May 30, 1960). From the fact,
therefore, that the provincial board of canvassers has not petitioned for a recount it cannot be
inferred that they were not convinced a discrepancy existed

Where a candidate was prevented from securing the Commission on Elections' copies of the
returns to establish a discrepancy between them and the Provincial Treasurer's copies, the
failure to submit the said copies to the board should not prejudice his right to petition for
recount before the court

2) YES

Where, as in the case at bar, there were patent erasures and superimpositions in words and
figures on the face of the election returns submitted to the board of canvassers, it was
imperative for said board to stop the canvass so as to allow time for verification of authentic
copies and recourse to the courts (Javier vs. Commission on Elections, L22248, January 30,
1965). A canvass or proclamation made notwithstanding such patent defects, without awaiting
proper remedies, is null and void (Ibid.).

Patent erasures and superimpositions in words and figures of the votes stated in the election
returns strike at the reliability of said returns as basis for canvass and proclamation. A
comparison with the other copies, and, in case of discrepancy, a recount, is the only way to
remove grave doubts as to the correctness of said returns as well as of ascertaining that they
reflect the will of the people.

Cauton v. COMELEC, 19 SCRA 911

Purisima v. Salanga, 15 SCRA 704 (1965)
FACTS:
FACTS:
Petitioner Lucas Cauton and respondent Pablo Sanidad were 2 of the candidates for the Office
In the election of November 12, 1963, Amante Purisima and Gregorio Cordero were among of Representative in the 2nd congressional district of Ilcos Sure. During the canvass by the
the candidates for any of the three offices of Provincial Board Member of Ilocos Sur. Purisima Provincial Board of Canvassers of Ilocos Sure, respondent Sanidad brought to the attention of
noted that during the canvass, the returns of 41 precincts showed on their faced that the words the Board the fact that the entries of votes for the candidates for Representative in those
and figures for Cordero’s votes had been “obviously and manifestly erased” and superimposed copies of the election returns that came from the envelopes presented by the provincial
with other words and figures. Purisima requested for suspension of the canvass however, the treasurer differed from the entries appearing in the copies of the returns from the same
Board of Canvassers denied said request. The BOC continued and finished the canvass and election precincts that were in the possession of the Liberal Party. He then filed a petition with
the COMELEC praying for the opening of the ballot boxes in all the precincts of Candon, (2) Comelec has adopted a rigid technical evaluation mechanism to ensure compliance of the
Santiago, and Sta. Cruz. Respondent COMELEC then issued an order directing the opening of PCOS with the minimum capabilities standards prescribed by RA 8436, as amended, and its
the ballot boxes of said municipalities. Petitioner, however, contends that COMELEC is without determination in this regard must be respected absent grave abuse of discretion;
jurisdiction to issue the resolution in question and the same is null and void and should not be
given legal force and effect. (3) Comelec retains under the automation arrangement its supervision, oversight, and control
mandate to ensure a free, orderly, and honest electoral exercise; it did not, by entering into
ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC resolution is void. the assailed automation project contract, abdicate its duty to enforce and administer all laws
relative to the conduct of elections and decide, at the first instance, all questions affecting
HELD: NO elections; and

The Commission has the power to decide all administrative questions affecting elections, (4) in accordance with contract documents, continuity and back-up plans are in place to be
except the question involving the right to vote. The Commission on Elections has the power to activated in case the PCOS machines falter during the actual election exercise.
investigate and act on the propriety or legality of the canvass of election returns made by the
board of canvassers. The power of the Commission in this respect is simply administrative and The bottom line is that the required 2007 automation, be it viewed in the concept of a pilot
supervisory. It is intended to secure the proclamation of the winning candidate based on the test or not, is not a mandatory requirement for the choice of system in, or a prerequisite for,
true count of the votes cast. the full automation of the May 2010 elections.

Once the Commission on Elections is convinced that the election returns in the hands of the PUNO (C.J.), Separate Concurring Opinion:
board of canvassers do not constitute the proper basis in ascertaining the true result of the
elections. it is duty bound to take the necessary steps in order that the proper basis for the A touchstone of our Constitution is that critical public policy judgments belong to the legislative
canvass is made available. It would be absurd to say the Commission has a legal duty to branch, and the Court must not unduly intrude into this exclusive domain. In enacting RA 8436
perform and at the same time it is denied the necessary means to perform that duty. (Election Modernization Act) on December 22, 1997, the legislature has clearly chosen the
policy that an AES shall be used by the COMELEC for the process of voting, counting of votes
Where the three copies of the election returns outside the ballot box do not constitute a and canvassing/consolidation of results of the national and local elections. It decided to put an
reliable basis for a canvass, then the Commission on Elections, in the exercise of its power to end to the manual conduct of our elections that has frustrated the honest casting of votes by
administer and enforce the laws relative to the conduct of elections, may order the opening of our sovereign people. In the pursuit of its objective, the legislature defined what it considered
the ballot boxes to ascertain whether the copy inside each ballot box, corresponding to each an AES and provided the standards for its implementation. It further determined the minimum
precinct, is also tampered like the three copies outside the ballot box. The Commission may functional capabilities of the system and delegated to the COMELEC the development and
do this on its own initiative, or upon petition by the proper party. That order does not affect adoption of a system of evaluation to ascertain that the minimum system capabilities would
the right to vote or the validity of the votes cast. be met.

NOTE: The ballot boxes may be opened in case there is an election contest. They may also be
opened, even if there is no election contest, when their contents have to be used as evidence
in the prosecution of election frauds. Moreover, they may be opened when they are the
subject of any official investigation which may be ordered by a competent court or other
competent authority. The competent authority must include the Commission on Elections
which is charged with the administration and enforcement of the laws relative to the conduct
of elections.
Roque v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188456, 10 September 2009
10 February 2010 (Motion for Reconsideration)- DENIED
The Court, in its September 10, 2009 Decision, dismissed the petition and the petition-in-
intervention on the following main grounds: By Decision dated September 10, 2009, the Court denied the petition of H. Harry L. Roque, Jr.,
et al. for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to nullify the contract-award of the 2010
(1) RA 8436, as amended, does not require that the AES procured or, to be used for the 2010 Election Automation Project to the joint venture of Total Information Management
nationwide fully automated elections must, as a condition sine qua non, have been pilot-tested Corporation (TIM) and Smartmatic International Corporation (Smartmatic).
in the 2007 Philippine election, it being sufficient that the capability of the chosen AES has
been demonstrated in an electoral exercise in a foreign jurisdiction; Theories, issues, and arguments not raised in the original proceedings cannot be brought out
on review. Basic considerations of fair play impel this rule. The imperatives of orderly, if not
speedy, justice frown on a piecemeal presentation of evidence and on the practice of parties The Comelec and the DOJ issued Joint Order No. 001-2011 creating and constituting a Joint
of going to trial haphazardly Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud
and manipulation cases composed of officials from the DOJ and the Comelec. In its initial
report, the Fact-Finding Team concluded that manipulation of the results in the May 14, 2007
senatorial elections in the provinces of North and South Cotabato and Maguindanao were
indeed perpetrated. The Fact-Finding Team recommended that herein petitioners Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), et al. to be subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral
sabotage.

After the preliminary investigation, the COMELEC en banc adopted a resolution ordering that
information/s for the crime of electoral sabotage be filed against GMA, et al. while that the
charges against Jose Miguel Arroyo, among others, should be dismissed for insufficiency of
evidence.

Consequently, GMA, et al. assail the validity of the creation of COMELEC-DOJ Joint Panel and
of Joint Order No. 001-2011 before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC-DOJ Joint Panel is valid

HELD: YES

The Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have the exclusive power to
conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and to
prosecute the same. The Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of
the government: Provided, however, That in the event that the Commission fails to act on any
complaint within four months from his filing, the complainant may file the complaint with the
office of the fiscal [public prosecutor], or with the Ministry [Department] of Justice for proper
investigation and prosecution, if warranted. Under the above provision of law, the power to
conduct preliminary investigation is vested exclusively with the Comelec. The latter, however,
was given by the same provision of law the authority to avail itself of the assistance of other
prosecuting arms of the government. Thus, under Section 2, Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules of
Procedure, provincial and city prosecutors and their assistants are given continuing authority
as deputies to conduct preliminary investigation of complaints involving election offenses
under election laws and to prosecute the same. The complaints may be filed directly with them
or may be indorsed to them by the petitioner or its duly authorized representatives.

The grant of exclusive power to investigate and prosecute cases of election offenses to the
Comelec was not by virtue of the Constitution but by the Omnibus Election Code which was
eventually amended by Section 43 of R.A. 9369. Thus, the DOJ now conducts preliminary
investigation of election offenses concurrently with the Comelec and no longer as mere
Arroyo v. DOJ and Comelec, G.R. No. 199082, 18 September 2012 deputies. If the prosecutors had been allowed to conduct preliminary investigation and file the
necessary information by virtue only of a delegated authority, they now have better grounds
FACTS: to perform such function by virtue of the statutory grant of authority. If deputation was
justified because of lack of funds and legal officers to ensure prompt and fair investigation and
The Comelec issued Resolution No. 9266 approving the creation of a joint committee with the prosecution of election offenses, the same justification should be cited to justify the grant to
Department of Justice (DOJ), which shall conduct preliminary investigation on the alleged the other prosecuting arms of the government of such concurrent jurisdiction.
election offenses and anomalies committed during the 2004 and 2007 elections.
Arroyo v. DOJ and Comelec 23 July 2013
ISSUE: May 14, 2013 Resolution final and Executory. On the same day, petitioner took her oath of
1) Whether or not the DOJ should conduct preliminary investigation only when office before Feliciano Belmonte, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has yet to
deputized by the Comelec but not exercise concurrent jurisdiction assume office at that time, as her term officially starts at noon of June 30, 2013.According to
2) Whether or not the creation of the Joint Panel undermines the decisional petitioner, the COMELEC was ousted of its jurisdiction when she was duly proclaimed20Â
independence of the Comelec. because pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, the HRET has the exclusive
jurisdiction to be the “sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
HELD: qualifications of the Members of the House of Representatives.
1) NO
ISSUE: Whether or not COMELLEC has jurisdiction over petitioner
In Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) Party-List v.
Commission on Elections, 595 SCRA 477 (2009), the constitutionality of Section 43 of RA 9369 HELD: YES
had already been raised by petitioners therein and addressed by the Court. While recognizing
the Comelec’s exclusive power to investigate and prosecute cases under Batas Pambansa As held in Marcos v. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300 (1995), the HRET does not have jurisdiction over
Bilang 881 or the Omnibus Election Code, the Court pointed out that the framers of the 1987 a candidate who is not a member of the House of Representatives, to wit: As to the House of
Constitution did not have such intention. This exclusivity is thus a legislative enactment that Representatives Electoral Tribunal’s supposed assumption of jurisdiction over the issue of
can very well be amended by Section 43 of RA 9369. Therefore, under the present law, the petitioner’s qualifications after the May 8, 1995 elections, suffice it to say that HRET’s
Comelec and other prosecuting arms of the government, such as the DOJ, now exercise jurisdiction as the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications
concurrent jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of election offenses. of members of Congress begins only after a candidate has become a member of the House of
Representatives. Petitioner not being a member of the House of Representatives, it is obvious
2) NO that the HRET at this point has no jurisdiction over the question.

Notwithstanding the grant of concurrent jurisdiction, the Comelec and the DOJ nevertheless To be considered a Member of the House of Representatives, there must be a concurrence of
included a provision in the assailed Joint Order whereby the resolutions of the Joint Committee the following requisites:(1) a valid proclamation, (2) a proper oath, and (3) assumption of
finding probable cause for election offenses shall still be approved by the Comelec in office.
accordance with the Comelec Rules of Procedure. With more reason, therefore, that we
cannot consider the creation of the Joint Committee as an abdication of the Comelec’s The petitioner cannot be considered a Member of the House of Representatives because,
independence enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. primarily, she has not yet assumed office; The term of office of a Member of the House of
Representatives begins only “at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.”
Thus, until such time, the Commission on Elections retains jurisdiction.

Ongsioko Reyes v. Comelec, G.R. No. 207264, 22 October 2013

In Special Actions and Special Cases a decision or resolution of the Commission En Banc shall
become final and executory after five (5) days from its promulgation unless restrained by the
Supreme Court.

House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET); That the House of Representatives

Electoral Tribunal (HRET) is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
Ongsioko Reyes v. Comelec, G.R. No. 207264, 25 June 2013 qualifications of the Members of the House of Representatives is a written constitutional
provision.
FACTS:
The special action before the COMELEC which was a Petition to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy
On October 31. 2012, Joseph Socorro Tan filed with the Comelec an Amended Petition to Deny was a summary proceeding or one “heard summarily.”
Due Course or to Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Regina Ongsiako Reyes, the petitioner,
on the ground that it contained material representations. On March 27, 2013, the COMELEC The COMELEC covers the matter of petitioner’s certificate of candidacy, and its due course or
cancelled the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner. She filed an MR on April 8, 2013. On its cancellation, which are the pivotal conclusions that determines who can be legally
May 14, 2013, COMELEC en banc denied her MR. However, on May 18, 2013, she was proclaimed.
proclaimed winner of the May 13, 2013 Elections. On June 5, 2013, COMELEC declared the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET); The House of Representatives Electoral Section 5(d) does not only require an affidavit or a promise to “resume actual physical
Tribunal (HRET) jurisdiction over the qualification of the Member of the House of permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three years from approval of his/her
Representatives is original and exclusive, and as such, proceeds de novo unhampered by the registration,” the Filipinos abroad must also declare that they have not applied for citizenship
proceedings in the COMELEC which, as just stated has been terminated. The HRET proceedings in another country.
is a regular, not summary, proceeding
Section 5(d) itself provides for a deterrence which is that the Filipino who fails to return as
promised stands to lose his right of suffrage

Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003

FACTS: 2) YES

Petitioner Macalintal files a petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking a declaration that Congress could not have allowed the COMELEC to usurp a power that constitutionally belongs
certain provisions of R.A. No. 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) are to it or, as aptly stated by petitioner, to encroach “on the power of Congress to canvass the
unconstitutional. Petitioner raises three principal questions for contention: votes for president and vice-president and the power to proclaim the winners for the said
positions.” The provisions of the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land should be
(1) That Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 allowing the registration of voters who are immigrants read as part of The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 and hence, the canvassing of the
or permanent residents in other countries, by their mere act of executing an affidavit votes and the proclamation of the winning candidates for president and vice-president for the
expressing their intention to return to the Philippines, violates the residency requirement in entire nation must remain in the hands of Congress.
Art. V, Sec. 1 of the Constitution;
3) YES
(2) That Section 18.5 of the same law empowering the COMELEC to proclaim the winning
candidates for national offices and party list representatives, including the President and the By vesting itself with the powers to approve, review, amend, and revise the IRR for The
Vice-President, violates the constitutional mandate under Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, Congress went beyond the scope of its constitutional
that the winning candidates for President and Vice-President shall be proclaimed as winners authority. Congress trampled upon the constitutional mandate of independence of the
only by Congress; and COMELEC.

(3) That Section 25 of the same law, allowing Congress (through the Joint Congressional
Oversight Committee created in the same section) to exercise the power to review, revise,
amend, and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) that the COMELEC shall
promulgate, violates the independence of the COMELEC under Art. IX-A, Sec. 1 of the
Constitution.

ISSUE:
1) Whether or not Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 is unconstitutional
2) Whether or not Section 18.5 is unconstitutional
3) Whether or not Section 25 is unconstitutional

HELD:

1) NO

The execution of the affidavit itself is not the enabling or enfranchising act; The affidavit is not
only proof of the intention of the immigrant or permanent resident to go back and resume
residency in the Philippines, but more significantly, it serves as an explicit expression that he
had not in fact abandoned his domicile of origin.
 The right of the State to deprive persons of the right of suffrage by reason of their having been
convicted of crime, is beyond question. The manifest purpose of such restriction is to preserve
the purity of elections. (9 R. C. L., 1042.)

The presumption is that one rendered infamous by conviction of felony is unfit to exercise the
privilege of suffrage or to hold a public office. (9 R. C. L., 1042.)

The exclusion from the exercise of suffrage must be adjudged a mere disqualification imposed
for protection and not for punishment, the withholding of a privilege and not the denial of a
People v. Corral, 62 Phil. 945 (1936) personal right. (9 R. C. L., 1042.)

FACTS:

Appellant was charged having voted illegally at the general elections held on June 5, 1934. He
was convicted on the ground that he had voted while laboring under a legal disqualification
under Section 2462 in connection with Section 432 of the Revised Administrative Code, which
reads:

The following persons shall be disqualified from voting:

(a) Any person who, since the thirteenth day of August, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight,
has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer not less than eighteen months of
imprisonment, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon.
(b) Any person who has violated an oath of allegiance taken by him to the United States.
(c) Insane of feeble-minded persons.
(d) Deaf-mutes who cannot read and write.
(e) Electors registered under subsection (c) of the next proceeding section who, after failing to
make sworn statement to the satisfaction of the board of inspectors at any of its two meetings
for registration and revision, that they are incapacitated for preparing their ballots due to
permanent physical disability, present themselves at the hour of voting as incapacitated,
irrespective of whether such incapacity be real or feigned.

Appellant was sentenced by final judgment to suffer 8 years and 1 days of presidio mayor and
no evidence was presented to show that prior to said elections, he had been granted a plenary
pardon.

ISSUE: Whether or not the State has the right to deprive appellant the right of suffrage by
reason of conviction of a crime

HELD: YES

The modern conception of the suffrage is that voting is a function of government. It is a right
created by law, not a natural right.

Suffrage is a privilege granted by the State to such person or classes as are most likely to
exercise it for the public good. For reasons of public policy, certain classes of persons are
excluded from the franchise. Among the generally excluded classes are minors, idiots, paupers,
and convicts.