9/9/2019 G.R. No. L-16876 | Aportadera v. Sotto 9/9/2019 G.R. No. L-16876 | Aportadera v.

Sotto

province of Davao. Accordingly, on December 16, 1959, the corresponding

EN BANC In due time, petitioner instituted this quo warranto proceedings, upon
the ground that, at the time of said election, respondent was not a qualified
voter of the Province of Davao, for he was a voter duly registered in
[G.R. No. L-16876. November 30, 1961.]
Precinct No. 16-A of the fourth legislative district of Manila, in the election
years 1953, 1955, 1957 and 1959; that on October 3, 1959, respondent
ABELARDO APORTADERA, petitioner-appellant, vs. registered as a new voter in Precinct No. 9 of Davao City without first
MANUEL C. SOTTO, respondent-appellee. "securing the transfer to Davao Province or City or the cancellation of his
registration as a voter" in said Precinct No. 16-A of Manila; that he
Gregorio A. Palabrica for petitioner-appellant. belatedly filed, with the office of the City Treasurer of Manila, an application
for such cancellation on October 30, 1959, or 34 days beyond the period
Castillo Law Offices for respondent-appellee.
prescribed by law therefor, for which reason, said application should be
considered illegal and void; that in order to register as a new voter in
SYLLABUS Davao, respondent subscribed a voter's affidavit stating that he was "not at
present actually registered in any other precinct", thus committing a felony
1. ELECTIONS; REGISTRATION OF VOTERS: ESSENTIAL TO punishable under Article 172, in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal
EXERCISE OF RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE, NOT POSSESSION THEREOF. Code; and that by committing such crime, respondent disqualified himself
— Registration is essential to the exercise of the right of suffrage, not to as a voter, and, hence, became ineligible to the office of Vice-Governor of
the possession thereof. Indeed, only those who have such right may be Davao.
registered. In other words, the right must be possessed before the Respondent moved to dismiss the petition for the reason that it does
registration. The latter does not confer it. not state a cause of action. After due hearing, the Court of First Instance of
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 98 OF THE Davao granted the motion and, accordingly, dismissed the petition, with
REVISED ELECTION CODE. — Registration in a given precinct is costs against petitioner. Hence, the latter has interposed the present
mentioned in section 98 of the Revised Election Code in order that a appeal which is before this Court, only questions of law being raised by
person "may vote in said precinct." Said section 98 cannot be construed as him.
adding registration to the original requirements of a qualified voter, for, Section 2071 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by
otherwise, it would conflict with Article V of the Constitution, under which Republic Act No. 1095, provides:
"Suffrage may be exercised by male citizens of the Philippines not
"No person shall be eligible to a provincial office unless
otherwise disqualified by law, who are twenty-one years of age or over and
at the time of the election he is a qualified voter of the province,
are able to read and write, and who shall have resided in the Philippines
has been a bona fide resident therein for at least one year prior
for one year and the municipality wherein they propose to vote for at least
to the election, and is not less than twenty-five years of age."
six months preceding the election. . . ."
This case hinges on the question whether or not respondent is a
"qualified voter" of Davao province. Petitioner maintains the negative view
DECISION upon two (2) grounds, namely: (1) that respondent is not a duly registered
voter of Davao, because, before being registered as such, he had failed to
apply for the cancellation of his registration as a voter in the City of Manila;
CONCEPCION, J : p and (2) that, having committed the aforementioned felony in registering
himself as a voter in Davao, he had become disqualified to vote, and,
In the general elections held on November 10, 1959, petitioner consequently, to run for Vice-Governor.
Abelardo Aportadera and respondent Manuel C. Sotto obtained 66,209 The first ground is predicated upon the theory that registration as a
and 78,346 votes respectively for the office of Vice-Governor of the voter is a condition essential to be a "qualified voter". There is no merit in
this pretense, which has already been rejected in Yra vs Abaño (52 Phil.,
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/35100/print 1/5 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/35100/print 2/5
9/9/2019 G.R. No. L-16876 | Aportadera v. Sotto 9/9/2019 G.R. No. L-16876 | Aportadera v. Sotto

380), Vivero vs. Murillo (52 Phil., 695), and Larena vs. Teves (61 Phil., 36). that purpose within two years after the adoption of this
Registration is essential to the exercise of the right of suffrage, not to the Constitution, not less than three hundred thousand women
possession thereof. Indeed, only those who have such right may be possessing the necessary qualifications shall vote affirmatively
registered. In other words, the right must be possessed before the on the question."
registration. The latter does not confer it. Inasmuch as registration is not essential, under this Article, for the
It is argued that the cases cited are no longer controlling because possession of the right of suffrage, defendant's contention cannot be
section 431 of the Old Election Code provided: sustained without holding that section 98 of the Revised Election Code
seeks to amend said provision of our fundamental law, and, hence, without
"Every male person who is not a citizen or subject of a
foreign power, twenty-one years of age or over, who shall have
becoming unconstitutional.
been a resident of the Philippines, for one year and of the It is unnecessary, therefore, to pass upon the validity of respondent's
municipality in which he shall offer to vote for six months next registration in Davao, owing to his failure to seasonably apply for the
preceding the day of voting, is entitled to vote in all elections if cancellation of his registration in Manila, for even if he had not been
comprised within either of the following three classes: registered at all in Davao, this could not decisively affect the question
"(a) Those who, under the laws in force in the whether or not he is a "qualified voter," if he meets the condition prescribed
Philippine Islands upon the twenty-eight day of August, nineteen in said Article V of the Constitution, and, in addition thereto, has the age
hundred and sixteen, were legal voters and had exercised the and residence required in section 2071 adverted to above, which are not
right of suffrage. impugned by petitioner herein.
"(b) Those who own real property to the value of five Upon the other hand, the disqualifications to vote are set forth in
hundred pesos, or who annually pay thirty pesos or more of the section 99 of the Revised Election Code, which is of the following tenor:
established taxes. "The following persons shall not be qualified to vote:
"(c) Those who are able to read and write either (a) Any person who has been sentenced by final
Spanish, English or a native language." judgment to suffer one year or more of imprisonment, such
whereas section 98 of the Revised Election Code reads: disability not having been removed by plenary pardon.

"Every citizen of the Philippines, whether male or female (b) Any person who has been declared by final
twenty- one years or over, able to read end write, who has been judgment guilty of any crime against property.
a resident the Philippines for one year and of the Municipality in (c) Any person who has violated his allegiance to the
which he has registered during the six months immediately Republic of the Philippines.
preceding, who is not otherwise disqualified, may vote in the
said precinct at any election." (d) Insane or feeble-minded persons.

Petitioner lays stress upon the clause "in which he had registered," (e) Persons who cannot prepare their ballots
in this section 98, to bolster up the claim that registration is one of the themselves."
qualifications to be a voter. He overlooks, however, the fact that Admittedly, subdivisions (c), (d), and (e) of this section are
registration in a given precinct is mentioned in said provision, in order that inapplicable to the case at bar. Neither does the offense allegedly
a person "may vote in said precinct." In any event, said section 98 cannot committed by respondent fall under subdivisions (a) and (b), inasmuch as
be construed as adding registration to the original requirements of a a "final judgment" of conviction is necessary for the application thereof,
qualified voter, for, otherwise, it would conflict with Article V of the and, admittedly, no such judgment has been rendered against him.
Constitution, pursuant to which:
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with
"Suffrage may be exercised by male citizens of the costs against petitioner-appellant, Abelardo Aportadera. It is so ordered.
Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are twenty-
one years of age or over and are able to read and write, and Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L.,
who shall have resided in the Philippines for one year and in the Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.
municipality wherein they propose to vote for at least six months
preceding the election. The National Assembly shall extend the
right of suffrage to women, if in plebiscite which shall be held for
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/35100/print 3/5 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/35100/print 4/5
9/9/2019 G.R. No. L-16876 | Aportadera v. Sotto

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/35100/print 5/5