Kabataan Party-List vs. Comelec
COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8585 on February 12, 2009 adjusting the deadline of voter registration for the May 10, 2010 national and local elections to October 31, 2009, instead of December 15, 2009 as previously fixed by Resolution No. 8514. The intense public clamor for an extension of the October 31, 2009 deadline notwithstanding, the COMELEC stood firm in its decision not to extend it, arguing mainly that it needs ample time to prepare for the automated elections. Via the present Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus filed on October 30, 2009, petitioners challenge the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 and seek a declaration of its nullity.
Issue: Does the Comelec have discretion to fix other dates for continuing registration?
Held: The clear text of the law thus decrees that voters be allowed to register daily during regular offices hours, except during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election. Both R.A. No. 6646, Section 29 and R.A. No. 8436, Section 28 grant 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. This grant of power, however, is for the purpose of enabling the people to exercise the right of suffrage – the common underlying policy of RA 8189, RA 6646 and RA 8436.
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 – daily during office hours, except during the period starting 120 days before the May 10, 2010 regular elections. There is thus no occasion for the COMELEC to exercise its power to fix other dates or deadlines therefor.
Nicolas Lewis vs. Comelec
In this petition for certiorari and mandamus, petitioners, referring to themselves as "duals" or dual citizens, pray that they and others who retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Re Acquisition Act of 2003, be allowed to avail themselves of the mechanism provided under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189) and that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) accordingly be ordered to allow them to vote and register as absentee voters under the aegis of R.A. 9189.
Issue: Does RA 9225 require “duals” to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote?
Held: No. There is no provision in the dual citizenship law - R.A. 9225 - requiring "duals" to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote. On the contrary, R.A. 9225, in implicit acknowledgment that “duals” are most likely non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1) the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under R.A. 9189. It cannot be overemphasized that R.A. 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos who, save for the residency requirements exacted of an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote. 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 "duals" may now exercise the right of suffrage thru the absentee voting scheme and as overseas absentee voters.
Velasco vs COMELEC
This petition for certiorari seeks to set aside and annul the resolutions denying the COC Velasco had filed for the position of Mayor of the Municipality of Sasmuan, Pampanga. The distinctions between inclusion/exclusion proceedings and COC denial/cancellation proceedings, refute and belie Velasco's position that the COMELEC improperly ruled on his right to vote when it cancelled his COC.
ISSUE: Is decision in an inclusion/exclusion proceeding operate as a bar to any future action challenging one’s right to be registered as a voter?
HELD: Inclusion/exclusion proceedings, while judicial in character, are summary proceedings. A decision in an inclusion/exclusion proceeding does not operate as a bar to any future action in any other election that a party may take concerning his right to be registered as a voter. A ruling on the right to vote by the trial court 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 final and executory ruling by a court, as mandated by law, in an inclusion/exclusion proceeding.
Maruhom vs COMELEC
Maruhom challenges in her Petition the jurisdiction of the COMELEC in declaring her registration in Marantao void. She asserts that Section 2, Article IX(c) of the Constitution prohibits the COMELEC from assuming jurisdiction or deciding issues involving the right to vote. Section 33 of Republic Act No. 8189, or the Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 (VRA), confers upon the MTCs and MeTCs original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters in their respective cities or municipalities.
ISSUE: Is the challenge on Maruhom’s registration, an issue on the “right to vote” and thus, beyond COMELEC jurisdiction?
HELD: The present case is not about her being denied her right to register as a voter, but is all about her making false material representations in her COC, which would warrant the cancellation of the same. The resolutions of the COMELEC en banc merely defeated Maruhom’s intent to run for elective office, but it did not deprive her of her right to vote. Although Maruhom’s registration in Marantao is void, her registration in Marawi still subsists. She may be barred from voting or running for mayor in the former, but she may still exercise her right to vote, or even run for an elective post, in the latter.
It is settled that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over a petition filed under Section 78 of the OEC.[21] In the exercise of such jurisdiction, it is within the competence of the COMELEC to determine whether false representation as to material facts was made in the COC.
COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8585 on February 12, 2009 adjusting the deadline of voter registration for the May 10, 2010 national and local elections to October 31, 2009, instead of December 15, 2009 as previously fixed by Resolution No. 8514. The intense public clamor for an extension of the October 31, 2009 deadline notwithstanding, the COMELEC stood firm in its decision not to extend it, arguing mainly that it needs ample time to prepare for the automated elections. Via the present Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus filed on October 30, 2009, petitioners challenge the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 and seek a declaration of its nullity.
Issue: Does the Comelec have discretion to fix other dates for continuing registration?
Held: The clear text of the law thus decrees that voters be allowed to register daily during regular offices hours, except during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election. Both R.A. No. 6646, Section 29 and R.A. No. 8436, Section 28 grant 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. This grant of power, however, is for the purpose of enabling the people to exercise the right of suffrage – the common underlying policy of RA 8189, RA 6646 and RA 8436.
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 – daily during office hours, except during the period starting 120 days before the May 10, 2010 regular elections. There is thus no occasion for the COMELEC to exercise its power to fix other dates or deadlines therefor.
Nicolas Lewis vs. Comelec
In this petition for certiorari and mandamus, petitioners, referring to themselves as "duals" or dual citizens, pray that they and others who retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Re Acquisition Act of 2003, be allowed to avail themselves of the mechanism provided under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189) and that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) accordingly be ordered to allow them to vote and register as absentee voters under the aegis of R.A. 9189.
Issue: Does RA 9225 require “duals” to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote?
Held: No. There is no provision in the dual citizenship law - R.A. 9225 - requiring "duals" to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote. On the contrary, R.A. 9225, in implicit acknowledgment that “duals” are most likely non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1) the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under R.A. 9189. It cannot be overemphasized that R.A. 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos who, save for the residency requirements exacted of an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote. 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 "duals" may now exercise the right of suffrage thru the absentee voting scheme and as overseas absentee voters.
Velasco vs COMELEC
This petition for certiorari seeks to set aside and annul the resolutions denying the COC Velasco had filed for the position of Mayor of the Municipality of Sasmuan, Pampanga. The distinctions between inclusion/exclusion proceedings and COC denial/cancellation proceedings, refute and belie Velasco's position that the COMELEC improperly ruled on his right to vote when it cancelled his COC.
ISSUE: Is decision in an inclusion/exclusion proceeding operate as a bar to any future action challenging one’s right to be registered as a voter?
HELD: Inclusion/exclusion proceedings, while judicial in character, are summary proceedings. A decision in an inclusion/exclusion proceeding does not operate as a bar to any future action in any other election that a party may take concerning his right to be registered as a voter. A ruling on the right to vote by the trial court 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 final and executory ruling by a court, as mandated by law, in an inclusion/exclusion proceeding.
Maruhom vs COMELEC
Maruhom challenges in her Petition the jurisdiction of the COMELEC in declaring her registration in Marantao void. She asserts that Section 2, Article IX(c) of the Constitution prohibits the COMELEC from assuming jurisdiction or deciding issues involving the right to vote. Section 33 of Republic Act No. 8189, or the Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 (VRA), confers upon the MTCs and MeTCs original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters in their respective cities or municipalities.
ISSUE: Is the challenge on Maruhom’s registration, an issue on the “right to vote” and thus, beyond COMELEC jurisdiction?
HELD: The present case is not about her being denied her right to register as a voter, but is all about her making false material representations in her COC, which would warrant the cancellation of the same. The resolutions of the COMELEC en banc merely defeated Maruhom’s intent to run for elective office, but it did not deprive her of her right to vote. Although Maruhom’s registration in Marantao is void, her registration in Marawi still subsists. She may be barred from voting or running for mayor in the former, but she may still exercise her right to vote, or even run for an elective post, in the latter.
It is settled that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over a petition filed under Section 78 of the OEC.[21] In the exercise of such jurisdiction, it is within the competence of the COMELEC to determine whether false representation as to material facts was made in the COC.
Comments
Post a Comment