AKBAYAN YOUTH v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 147066
6 March 2001

FACT:
Petitioners―representing the youth sector―seek to direct the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) to conduct a special registration before the 14 May 2001 General Elections, of
new voters ages 18 to 21. According to petitioners, around four million youth failed to register
on or before the 27 December 2000 deadline set by the respondent COMELEC under
Republic Act No. 8189. Memorandum No. 2001-027 on the Report on the Request for a Two-
day Additional Registration of New Voters Only is submitted but was then denied by the
COMELEC under Resolution No. 3584 on 8 February 2001. Aggrieved by the denial,
petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus. Section 8 (System of Continuing
Registration of Voters) of R.A. No. 8189 The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 provides: The
personal filing of application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily in the office of the
Election Officer during regular office hours. No registration shall, however, be conducted
during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety
(90) days before a special election.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing
COMELEC Resolution dated 8 February 2001.
2. Whether or not the Supreme Court can compel respondent COMELEC, through the
extraordinary writ of mandamus, to conduct a special registration of new voters during the
period between the COMELEC’s imposed 27 December 2000 deadline and the 14 May 2001
general elections.

RULING:
1. It is well-settled that the law does not require that the impossible be done. A two-day
special registration for new voters would give rise to time constraints due to additional pre-
election matters. Accordingly, COMELEC acted within the bounds and confines of the
applicable law on the matter. In issuing the assailed Resolution, respondent simply performed
its constitutional task to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct
of an election.

2.The Supreme Court cannot control the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law
imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any manner in which he is
required to act, because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court. The
remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a
discretionary one.

Macalintal vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 157013

July 10, 2003
Suffrage, Overseas Absentee Voting

FACTS:

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Romulo B. Macalintal, a member of the
Philippine Bar, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of Republic Act No. 9189 (The
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) suffer from constitutional infirmity. Claiming that he
has actual and material legal interest in the subject matter of this case in seeing to it that public
funds are properly and lawfully used and appropriated, petitioner filed the instant petition as a
taxpayer and as a lawyer.

Petitioner posits that Section 5(d) is unconstitutional because it violates Section 1, Article V of
the 1987 Constitution which requires that the voter must be a resident in the Philippines for at
least one year and in the place where he proposes to vote for at least six months immediately
preceding an election. Petitioner cites the ruling of the Court in Caasi vs. Court of Appeals to
support his claim. In that case, the Court held that a green card holder immigrant to the United
States is deemed to have abandoned his domicile and residence in the Philippines.
Petitioner further argues that Section 1, Article V of the Constitution does not allow provisional
registration or a promise by a voter to perform a condition to be qualified to vote in a political
exercise; that the legislature should not be allowed to circumvent the requirement of the
Constitution on the right of suffrage by providing a condition thereon which in effect amends or
alters the aforesaid residence requirement to qualify a Filipino abroad to vote. He claims that
the right of suffrage should not be granted to anyone who, on the date of the election, does not
possess the qualifications provided for by Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Is RA 9189 [Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003], valid & constitutional?

RULING:

Contrary to petitioner’s claim that Section 5(d) circumvents the Constitution, Congress enacted
the law prescribing a system of overseas absentee voting in compliance with the constitutional
mandate. Such mandate expressly requires that Congress provide a system of absentee
voting that necessarily presupposes that the “qualified citizen of the Philippines abroad” is not
physically present in the country.

The petition was partly GRANTED. The following portions of R.A. No. 9189 are declared VOID
for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

a) The phrase in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 17.1, to wit: “subject to the
approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee;”
b) The portion of the last paragraph of Section 17.1, to wit: “only upon review and approval of
the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee;”
c) The second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 19, to wit: “The Implementing Rules
and Regulations shall be submitted to the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created
by virtue of this Act for prior approval;” and
d) The second sentence in the second paragraph of Section 25, to wit: “It shall review, revise,
amend and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the
Commission” of the same law;
for being repugnant to Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution mandating the independence
of constitutional commission, such as COMELEC.

Pursuant to Section 30 of R.A. No. 9189, the rest of the provisions of said law continues to be
in full force and effect.

Nicolas-Lewis vs Comelec
G.R. No. 162759, 4 Aug 2006
[Citizenship Reacquisition Act of 2003 RA 9189; Dual Citizenship ]

FACTS:
Petitions for certiorari and mandamus for exercising their rights to suffrage under the Overseas
Absentee Voting Act or RA No. 9189. Petitioners are dual citizens who retained or reacquired
Philippine Citizenship under RA No. 9225, or Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of
2003. COMELEC denied their petitions on the ground that they fail to meet the qualification of
1-year residency required by the Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not dual citizens may exercise their right to suffrage as absentee voters even short
of 1-year residency requirement.

RULING:
Yes. There is no provision in the RA 9225 requiring duals to actually establish residence and
physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote. Congress
enacted RA 9189 pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of Article V of the Constitution, identifying in its
Section 4 of the said Act who can vote under it, among others, are Filipino immigrants and
permanent residents in another country opens an exception and qualifies the disqualification
rule under the Section 5(d) of the same Act.
By applying the doctrine of necessary implication, Constitutional Commission provided for an
exception to actual residency requirement of Section 1, Article 5 of 1987 Constitution, with
respect to qualified Filipinos abroad. Filipino immigrants and permanent residents in another
country may be allowed to vote even though they do not fulfill the residency requirement of
said Sec 1 Art V of the Constitution.

Kabataan Party-List v. Commission on Elections

G.R. No. 221318
(It is not a substantive law, but a procedural law that Comelec requires. Art. 5 sec 1)
Facts:
Petitioners filed a petition assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 10367, entitled "An
Act Providing for Mandatory Biometrics Voter Registration," as well as related Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) resolutions.
RA 10367 mandates the COMELEC to implement a mandatory biometrics registration system
for new voters in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent, and updated list of voters
through the adoption of biometric technology.
The COMELEC issued resolutions providing for the procedure of validation, deactivation, and
reactivation of voters' registration records.

Petitioners argue that the biometrics validation requirement is an additional qualification and
violates the right to suffrage, that deactivation is not a disqualification by law, and that the
process violates procedural due process.
They also argue that the poor experience of other countries in implementing biometrics
registration should serve as a warning against the system.

Issue:
Whether or not RA 10367 and the related COMELEC resolutions are unconstitutional.
Ruling:
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

Ratio:
The biometrics validation requirement is not an additional qualification but a means to ensure
and protect the identity of the voter. It enhances the right to suffrage by preventing multiple
votes and deterring the casting of ballots in the names of fictitious or deceased persons.
The requirement of biometric registration is a valid regulation that assists in the identification of
a person for voting purposes and purging the voters list of spurious names.
The COMELEC has the power to promulgate rules and regulations to fulfill its mandate,
including determining the periods for certain pre-election acts.
The process of biometrics validation commenced two and a half years before the deadline, and
the COMELEC conducted a massive public information campaign to inform voters about the
requirement.
The petitioners failed to establish the actual and concrete facts that entitle them standing to
question the constitutionality of the law and the COMELEC's implementing regulations.
The experiences of other countries cited by the petitioners are insufficient to veto political acts
in the guise of judicial review.
Summary:
The petitioners filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 10367 and
related COMELEC resolutions. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the biometrics
validation requirement is not an additional qualification but a means to ensure and protect the
identity of the voter. The requirement enhances the right to suffrage by preventing multiple
votes and deterring fraud. The COMELEC has the power to promulgate rules and regulations
to fulfill its mandate, and the process of biometrics validation commenced well in advance of
the deadline. The petitioners failed to establish standing and the experiences of other countries
are insufficient to veto political acts.

Francisco v. Commission on Elections

G.R. No. 230249

Facts:
Atty. Pablo B. Francisco filed a Petition for Disqualification against Atty. Johnielle Keith P.
Nieto before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
Francisco alleged that Nieto made financial contributions out of the government coffers for the
asphalt-paving of a road entrance, which amounted to the expending of public funds within 45
days before the 2016 polls and to illegal contributions for road repairs.
Nieto countered that the asphalting project was subjected to public bidding and falls within the
excepted public works mentioned in the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).
The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the Petition for Disqualification, ruling that there
must be a prior declaration by a final judgment of a competent court or a finding of the
Commission that the respondent is guilty of the acts complained of.
Francisco moved for reconsideration, but the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the dismissal of the
petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the COMELEC acted in grave abuse of discretion in ruling that a petition for
disqualification cannot prosper without a prior judgment finding the respondent guilty of an
election offense.
Whether or not Francisco sufficiently established by substantial evidence that Nieto violated
the OEC.

Ruling:
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court declares that in a Petition for
Disqualification under Section 68 of the OEC, a prior judgment by a competent court that the
candidate is guilty of an election offense is not required before the said petition can be
entertained or given due course by the COMELEC.

Ratio:
The COMELEC has full adjudicatory powers to resolve election contests outside the
jurisdiction of the electoral tribunals.
A prior court judgment is not required before a Petition for Disqualification can be lodged.
The burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish through substantial evidence that the
respondent committed the election offenses imputed.
The quantum of proof necessary in election cases is substantial evidence, or such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
The records are bereft of evidence to hold that Nieto violated the OEC.
Nieto sufficiently proved that the asphalting project falls under the exception in the OEC and
that the bidding and award of the project were regular and done consistent with existing laws.

Summary:
This case involves a Petition for Disqualification filed by Atty. Pablo B. Francisco against Atty.
Johnielle Keith P. Nieto before the COMELEC. Francisco alleged that Nieto made financial
contributions out of the government coffers for a road asphalting project, which violated the
OEC. The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petition, ruling that there must be a prior
declaration by a final judgment of a competent court or a finding of the Commission that the
respondent is guilty of the acts complained of. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the dismissal.
The Court held that a prior court judgment is not required before a Petition for Disqualification
can be lodged and that the burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish through substantial
evidence that the respondent committed the election offenses imputed. In this case, Francisco
failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his allegations, while Nieto proved that the
asphalting project falls under an exception in the OEC and that the bidding and award of the
project were regular. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. NO. 133486
(Total ban on exit polls, a violation of freedom of speech and of the press)

The Supreme Court rules in favor of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, declaring the
Commission on Elections' total ban on exit polls during the 1998 elections as unjustified and a
violation of freedom of expression, suggesting alternative measures to address concerns
without completely banning exit polls.

FACTS:
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation filed a petition for certiorari assailing the COMELEC En
Banc Resolution No. 98-1419 approving the issuance of a restraining order to stop ABS-CBN
or any other groups from conducting exit surveys during the May 11, 1998 elections.
The COMELEC justified the ban on exit polls to prevent confusion and disorder in voting
centers and to protect the secrecy and sanctity of the ballots.
ABS-CBN argued that the ban violated their freedom of speech and of the press.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in approving the ban on
exit polls.

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ABS-CBN.
The COMELEC's total ban on exit polls was too broad and violated the freedom of speech and
of the press.
The ban did not leave open any alternative channel of communication to gather information
obtained through exit polling.
The COMELEC's concerns about disorder and confusion in voting centers did not justify a total
ban on exit polls.
Narrowly tailored countermeasures could be implemented to minimize any potential problems
caused by exit polls.

RATIO:
The freedom of expression is a fundamental principle of democracy and should not be
abridged.
Restrictions on freedom of speech should be justified by a substantial government interest and
should not be greater than necessary to further that interest.
The COMELEC's concerns about disorder and confusion in voting centers did not justify a total
ban on exit polls.
Exit polls can be vital tools in eliminating election-fixing and fraud.
Narrowly tailored countermeasures can be implemented to minimize any potential problems
caused by exit polls.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This is a petition for certiorari filed by ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation against the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
The petition challenges the COMELEC's resolution approving the issuance of a restraining
order to stop ABS-CBN or any other groups from conducting exit surveys during the May 11,
1998 elections.
The issue to be resolved is whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in
approving the restraining order.

TOLENTINO V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS - G.R. NO. 148334

The Supreme Court dismisses a petition challenging the Commission on Elections' compliance
with the requirements of Republic Act No. 6645 in conducting a special election, ruling that the
lack of notice did not invalidate the election and did not affect the result.

FACTS:
This case involves a petition for prohibition filed by Arturo M. Tolentino and Arturo C. Mojica
against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Senator Ralph G. Recto, and Senator
Gregorio B. Honasan. The petition seeks to set aside Resolution No. NBC 01-005 and
Resolution No. NBC 01-006 of COMELEC. Resolution No. 01-005 proclaimed the 13
candidates elected as Senators in the May 14, 2001 elections, while Resolution No. 01-006
declared the ranking of the 13 Senators proclaimed in Resolution No. 01-005 as "official and
final."

The petitioners argue that COMELEC issued Resolution No. 01-005 without jurisdiction
because it failed to notify the electorate of the position to be filled in the special election, failed
to require senatorial candidates to indicate in their certificates of candidacy whether they seek
election under the special or regular elections, and failed to specify in the Voters Information
Sheet the candidates seeking election under the special or regular senatorial elections. The
petitioners claim that these omissions resulted in the failure to distinguish between the special
and regular elections for the Senate seats.

Additional context: During the deliberations of the Senate on the resolution calling for a special
election to fill the vacant Senate seat, it was suggested that the candidate obtaining the 13th
largest number of votes be declared as elected to fill up the unexpired term of Senator
Guingona. The Senate agreed that the procedure for determining the winner in the special
election would be for the guidance and implementation of COMELEC. The COMELEC adopted
the Senate's proposal in Resolution No. 84.

ISSUE:
The main issue raised in this case is whether a special election to fill a vacant three-year term
Senate seat was validly held on May 14, 2001.

RULING:
The Court ruled that the petition has no merit.

RATIO:
The Nature of the Petition and the Court's Jurisdiction: The Court determined that the petition
is not a petition for quo warranto, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Electoral
Tribunal. Instead, the petition questions the validity of the special election held on May 14,
2001. The Court has jurisdiction over the petition because it seeks to determine the validity of
the special election, not the right of Senator Honasan to hold office.

Mootness of the Petition: COMELEC argued that the petition has become moot and academic
due to the proclamation of the 13 Senators and the subsequent confirmation of their ranking.
However, the Court held that the petition falls under the exception to the rule on mootness
because the question of the validity of a special election in relation to COMELEC's failure to
comply with requirements on its conduct is likely to arise in every such election.

Petitioners' Standing: The Court recognized the liberal treatment given to voters' suits involving
the right of suffrage. Although the petitioners' claim of harm is a generalized grievance shared
by other voters, the Court exercised its discretion to give due course to the petition due to the
importance of the issues raised and the likelihood of the issue arising again.

Validity of the Special Election: The Court held that the special election to fill the vacant
three-year term Senate seat was validly held on May 14, 2001. The Constitution allows for a
special election to be called to fill a vacancy in the Senate, and R.A. No. 6645 provides the
procedure for such special election. The Court found no violation of the law in the conduct of
the special election.

Failure to Give Notice of the Special Election: The Court held that COMELEC's failure to
give notice of the time of the special election did not invalidate the calling of the election. In a
special election to fill a vacancy, the law fixes the date of the election, and the election is valid
without any call by the body charged to administer the election. The law charges the voters
with knowledge of the time and place of the election. Therefore, COMELEC's failure to give
additional notice did not negate the calling of the special election.

Failure to Give Notice of the Office to be Filled and the Manner of Determining the Winner: The
Court held that the failure of COMELEC to give notice of the office to be filled and the manner
of determining the winner in the special election did not invalidate the special election. The test
in determining the validity of a special election in relation to the failure to give notice is whether
the want of notice has resulted in misleading a sufficient number of voters as would change the
result of the special election. The petitioners failed to prove that COMELEC's failure to give
notice misled a sufficient number of voters or led them to believe that there was no special
election.

Separate Documentation and Canvassing not Required: The Court held that there is no
requirement in the election laws for separate documentation of candidates or separate
canvassing of votes in a jointly held regular and special elections. The method adopted by
COMELEC in conducting the special election merely implemented the procedure specified by
the Senate in its resolution. The absence of separate documentation and canvassing did not
invalidate the special election.

ASISTIO V. TRINIDAD-PE AGUIRRE - G.R. NO. 191124

A petition for certiorari is filed to challenge a court order and decision that would remove the
petitioner's name from the list of permanent voters in Caloocan City, Philippines, based on
allegations of non-residency, but the Supreme Court reverses the decision and affirms the
petitioner's right to remain a registered voter.

FACTS:
Petitioner Luis A. Asistio was the respondent in a Petition to Deny Due Course and/or
Cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy filed by private respondent Enrico R. Echiverri.
Echiverri filed a Petition for Exclusion of Voter from the Permanent List of Voters of Caloocan
City against Asistio, alleging that Asistio is not a resident of Caloocan City.
Echiverri attached a certification from the Tanggapan ng Punong Barangay stating that
Asistio's address in his Certificate of Candidacy is non-existent.
Asistio filed an Answer Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam with Affirmative Defenses, claiming that he
is a resident of Caloocan City but mistakenly relied on the address stated in the contract of
lease.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) rendered a decision directing the Election Registration
Board to remove Asistio's name from the list of permanent voters of Caloocan City.
Asistio filed a Notice of Appeal and paid the required appeal fees, but Echiverri filed a Motion
to Dismiss Appeal on the ground of failure to file the appeal fees on time.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an Order holding in abeyance the filing of the
responsive pleading and later granted the Motion to Dismiss Appeal on the ground of non-
payment of docket fees.

ISSUE:
Whether the RTC erred in dismissing Asistio's appeal on the ground of non-payment of docket
fees.

RULING:
The petition is granted. The RTC's Order and the MeTC's decision are reversed and set aside.
Asistio remains a registered voter of Caloocan City.

RATIO:
The payment of docket fees is an essential requirement for the perfection of an appeal.
However, blind adherence to a technicality that would nullify the constitutionally guaranteed
right of suffrage cannot be countenanced.
Courts have the discretion to relax rules of procedure to serve substantial justice. Dismissal of
appeals on purely technical grounds is frowned upon, and the court should excuse a technical
lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal rather than dispose of it on a
technicality that would cause grave injustice.
Asistio, by purchasing the postal money orders for the purpose of paying the appellate docket
fees on the same day he filed his notice of appeal, had already substantially complied with the
procedural requirements.
Asistio has always been a resident of Caloocan City and has qualified as a voter. There is no
showing that he has established domicile elsewhere or consciously and voluntarily abandoned
his residence in Caloocan City.
Alleged misrepresentations in Asistio's Certificate of Candidacy do not serve as proof that he
has abandoned his domicile or established residence outside of Caloocan City.

G.R. NO. 187478

FERNANDEZ V. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

Facts:
- The petitioner, Danilo Ramon S. Fernandez, filed for candidacy as Representative of the First
Legislative District of the Province of Laguna in the May 14, 2007 elections.
- In his Certificate of Candidacy (COC), he indicated his complete address as "No. 13
Maharlika St., Villa Toledo Subdivision, Barangay Balibago, Sta. Rosa City, Laguna" (alleged
Sta. Rosa residence).
- The private respondent, Jesus L. Vicente, filed a petition to deny due course to and/or cancel
the COC and petition for disqualification, claiming that the petitioner made a material
misrepresentation in his COC regarding his place of residence.
- The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
- Petitioner was proclaimed as the duly elected Representative of the First District of Laguna
on June 27, 2007.
- Private respondent filed a petition for quo warranto before the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET), praying that petitioner be declared ineligible to hold office as a
Member of the House of Representatives representing the First Legislative District of the
Province of Laguna.
- The HRET ruled in favor of private respondent, declaring petitioner ineligible for the office of
Representative of the First District of Laguna for lack of residence in the district.

Issue:
- Whether the HRET had jurisdiction over the case.
- Whether petitioner sufficiently complied with the one-year residency requirement to be a
Member of the House of Representatives.

Ruling:
- The HRET had jurisdiction over the case as it is the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives.
- Petitioner sufficiently complied with the one-year residency requirement to be a Member of
the House of Representatives.

Ratio:
- The HRET and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) are the sole judges of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members.
- The burden of proof is on the petitioner in a quo warranto case to prove the disqualification of
the candidate.
- The residency requirement for Members of the House of Representatives is fulfilled by actual,
physical presence in the district for at least one year prior to election day, coupled with conduct
indicative of the intention to permanently reside in the district.
- The fact that a candidate owns property in another district does not disqualify them from
running in a different district.
- The purpose of the residency requirement is to ensure that the person elected is familiar with
the needs and problems of their constituency.
- The will of the electorate should be respected, and doubts should be resolved in favor of the
candidate's eligibility.

Summary:
The petitioner, Danilo Ramon S. Fernandez, filed for candidacy as Representative of the First
Legislative District of the Province of Laguna in the May 14, 2007 elections. The private
respondent, Jesus L. Vicente, filed a petition to deny due course to and/or cancel the COC and
petition for disqualification, claiming that the petitioner made a material misrepresentation in
his COC regarding his place of residence. The COMELEC dismissed the petition, and
petitioner was proclaimed as the duly elected Representative of the First District of Laguna.
Private respondent filed a petition for quo warranto before the HRET, which ruled in favor of
private respondent, declaring petitioner ineligible for the office of Representative of the First
District of Laguna for lack of residence in the district. The HRET had jurisdiction over the case
as it is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of
Members of the House of Representatives. Petitioner sufficiently complied with the one-year
residency requirement to be a Member of the House of Representatives. The residency
requirement is fulfilled by actual, physical presence in the district for at least one year prior to
election day, coupled with conduct indicative of the intention to permanently reside in the
district. The fact that a candidate owns property in another district does not disqualify them
from running in a different district. The purpose of the residency requirement is to ensure that
the person elected is familiar with the needs and problems of their constituency. The will of the
electorate should be respected, and doubts should be resolved in favor of the candidate's
eligibility.
G.R. NO. 179430
MARUHOM V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Facts:
- Petitioner Jamela Salic Maruhom and respondent Mohammadali "Mericano" A. Abinal were
mayoralty candidates in the Municipality of Marantao, Lanao del Sur, for the 14 May 2007
national and local elections.
- Abinal filed a Petition for Disqualification and to Deny Due Course to or Cancel the Certificate
of Candidacy against Maruhom, alleging that she was a double registrant and made false
material representations in her registrations and COC.
- Maruhom filed an Answer with Motion to Dismiss, arguing that she was qualified to run and
did not make false material representations.
- The COMELEC First Division granted Abinal's Petition and ordered the deletion of
Maruhom's name from the list of official candidates.
- Maruhom filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the COMELEC En Banc.
- Maruhom filed a Petition for Certiorari, challenging the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and
alleging grave abuse of discretion.

Issue:
- Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to declare Maruhom's registration in Marantao void
and whether there was grave abuse of discretion in the resolutions of the COMELEC.

Ruling:
- The Petition for Certiorari is dismissed.
- The resolutions of the COMELEC are affirmed.

Ratio:
- The COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions filed under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election
Code (OEC) which pertain to false material representations in the Certificate of Candidacy
(COC).
- Maruhom made false material representations in her COC by claiming to be a registered
voter in Marantao when she had a subsisting registration in Marawi.
- The COMELEC has the power to deny due course to or cancel a COC if there are false
material representations.
- Maruhom's double registration in Marawi and Marantao was addressed by COMELEC Minute
Resolution No. 00-1513, which states that any subsequent registration is void ab initio.
- Maruhom's earlier registration in Marawi is deemed valid, while her subsequent registration in
Marantao is void.
- Maruhom's voter registration is a material fact that affects her eligibility to be elected as
municipal mayor of Marantao.
- Maruhom's requests for cancellation of her Marawi registration, without official action by the
COMELEC, cannot be deemed granted.
- The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its resolutions.

Summary:
This case involves a petition filed by Jamela Salic Maruhom, a mayoralty candidate, against
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Mohammadali "Mericano" A. Abinal, another
mayoralty candidate. Abinal filed a petition to disqualify Maruhom, alleging that she was a
double registrant and made false material representations in her registrations and Certificate of
Candidacy (COC). The COMELEC First Division granted Abinal's petition, and Maruhom's
name was deleted from the list of official candidates. Maruhom filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied by the COMELEC En Banc. Maruhom then filed a petition
for certiorari, challenging the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and alleging grave abuse of
discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the resolutions of the
COMELEC. The Court held that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions involving false
material representations in COCs and that Maruhom made false representations by claiming to
be a registered voter in Marantao when she had a subsisting registration in Marawi. The Court
also upheld the validity of COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 00-1513, which declares
subsequent registrations void ab initio. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the
resolutions of the COMELEC.
G.R. NO. 168792
GUNSI, SR. V. COMMISSIONERS

Facts:
- Petitioner Antonio B. Gunsi, Sr. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging the
resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) which affirmed the order of the
COMELEC Second Division.
- Private respondent Datu Israel Sinsuat filed a petition for the denial of due course to or
cancellation of the certificate of candidacy (COC) of Gunsi for Mayor of South Upi,
Maguindanao.
- Sinsuat alleged that Gunsi was not a registered voter in the Municipality of South Upi,
Maguindanao since he failed to sign his application for registration.
- Gunsi argued that his failure to sign his application for registration did not affect the validity of
his registration since he possesses the qualifications of a voter set forth in the Omnibus
Election Code.
- The Investigating Officer recommended Gunsi's disqualification on the ground that he is not a
registered voter of the municipality.
- The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petition as moot and academic since Sinsuat
had already been proclaimed as the winning candidate for the position of Mayor of South Upi,
Maguindanao.
- The COMELEC Second Division clarified its resolution after the proclamation of Sinsuat was
annulled by the COMELEC First Division.
- The COMELEC En Banc denied Gunsi's motion for reconsideration.

Issue:
- Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction over cases involving the right to vote.
- Whether or not the COMELEC Second Division can clarify its resolution after it has become
final and executory.
- Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.
- Whether or not the COMELEC is correct in disqualifying Gunsi for being a non-registered
resident due to his failure to affix his signature on his application for registration.

Ruling:
- The petition is dismissed. The COMELEC Order and Resolution are affirmed.

Ratio:
- The term of office of Mayor of South Upi, Maguindanao, for which position Gunsi was
disqualified, had already expired, rendering the case moot and academic.
- Courts may choose to decide cases otherwise moot and academic if there is a grave violation
of the Constitution, exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest is
involved, the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles, or the
case is capable of repetition yet evasive of review. None of these exceptions apply in this
case.
- Gunsi's arguments are annulled by Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8189, which explicitly
provides that a qualified voter shall be registered in the permanent list of voters in the city or
municipality wherein he resides.
- Gunsi's application for registration did not comply with the minimum requirements of RA No.
8189. He failed to sign parts 2 and 3 of the application, and the administering officer did not
sign part 3. Witnesses also testified that they did not encounter Gunsi's application for
registration.
- Therefore, Gunsi is not a registered voter and his disqualification from running as Mayor of
South Upi, Maguindanao was correct.

Summary:
This case involves a petition filed by Antonio B. Gunsi, Sr. challenging the resolution of the
COMELEC which affirmed the order of the COMELEC Second Division. The petitioner was
accused of not being a registered voter and therefore sought the disqualification of Gunsi for
Mayor of South Upi, Maguindanao. Gunsi argued that his failure to sign his application for
registration did not affect the validity of his registration. The Investigating Officer recommended
Gunsi's disqualification, and the COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petition as moot
and academic. However, the division clarified its resolution after the proclamation of the
winning candidate was annulled. The COMELEC En Banc denied Gunsi's motion for
reconsideration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, stating that the term of office had
already expired, rendering the case moot and academic. Gunsi's arguments were annulled by
the Voter's Registration Act, as he failed to comply with the minimum requirements. Therefore,
Gunsi's disqualification was correct.

G.R. NO. 134015

DOMINO V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Facts:
- Juan Domino filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the Lone
District of the Province of Sarangani.
- Private respondents filed a petition with the COMELEC to deny due course to or cancel
Domino's certificate of candidacy because he is neither a resident nor a registered voter of
Sarangani.
- The COMELEC Second Division declared Domino disqualified as a candidate and ordered
the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy.
- On the day of the election, the COMELEC ordered that the votes cast for Domino be counted
but suspended the proclamation if he wins.
- Domino garnered the highest number of votes over his opponents.
- Domino filed a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC's resolution, which was denied by
the COMELEC en banc.
- Domino filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging that the COMELEC
committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that he did not meet the one-year residence
requirement.

Issue:
- Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Domino did not
meet the one-year residence requirement.

Ruling:
- The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
- Domino failed to show compliance with the residency requirement, as both intent and actual
presence in the district one intends to represent must satisfy the length of time prescribed by
the law.
- The decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court in the exclusion proceedings declaring Domino a
resident of Sarangani is not conclusive upon the COMELEC in determining his qualification as
a candidate.
- The COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificate of
candidacy, even after the election, if no final judgment of disqualification is rendered
before the election and the winning candidate has not been proclaimed or taken his oath
of office.
- The candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be proclaimed
winner if the winning candidate is disqualified.
- The votes cast for Domino cannot be considered stray votes, as they were presumed to have
been cast in the sincere belief that he was a qualified candidate.
- The petition is dismissed.

Ratio:
- The COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificate of
candidacy.
- The decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court in exclusion proceedings is not conclusive upon
the COMELEC in determining a candidate's qualification.
- The candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be proclaimed
winner if the winning candidate is disqualified.
- Votes cast for a disqualified candidate cannot be considered stray votes if they were cast in
the sincere belief that the candidate was qualified.
- The COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificate of
candidacy, even after the election, if no final judgment of disqualification is rendered before the
election and the winning candidate has not been proclaimed or taken his oath of office.