NICOLAS-LEWIS VS COMELEC

G.R. No. 162759, 4 Aug 2006

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 the Citizenship
Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. COMELEC denied their petitions on the
ground that they failed to meet the qualification of 1-year residency required by 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 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 under Sections 1 and 2 of Article V of the Constitution,
identifying in 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, the Constitutional Commission

provided for an exception to the actual residency requirement of Section 1, Article 5 of
1987 Constitution, for 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.

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Group vs COMELEC

Facts:
The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
assailing COMELEC Res. No. 98-1419 which resolved to approve the issuance of a
restraining order to stop the petitioner or any groups, its agents or representatives
from conducting exit survey. The electoral body believed that the exit survey might
conflict with the official COMELEC count, as well as the unofficial quick count of the
National Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL). It also had not authorized or
deputized petitioner to undertake the exit survey. The petitioner filed for a temporary
restraining order which was granted by the court on May 9, 1998.Solicitor General
contends that the petition is already moot and academic because the May 11,
1998 elections has already been held and done with and there is no longer any
actual controversy. SG further contends that the Petition should be dismissed for
petitioner’s failure to exhaust available remedies before issuing forum, especially
the filling of a motion for reconsideration. The Court believed that the issue is
not totally moot because of the basic feature of our democratic government which is
the periodic elections where exit polling is said to be tied with it. The Court ruled that the
procedural requirement may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice when
the need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and
speedy remedy available. The Court based its judgment on the span of time the
instant petition was filed by the respondent and the time when the petitioner got hold of
a copy thereof. Under the circumstances, the court believed that there was hardly
enough opportunity to move for reconsideration and to obtain a swift resolution in
time for the May 11, 1998 elections. Moreover, not only is time of the essence;
the Petition involves transcendental constitutional issues. And the court also resolved
to settle the issue because the fundamental freedoms of speech and of the press
are being invoked.

Argument of the Petitioner:

The petitioner argues that holding of exit polls and the nationwide reporting of
their results are valid exercises of the freedoms of speech and of the press.
That the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion and grossly violated the petitioner’s
constitutional right.

Argument of the Respondent:

It insists that the issuance was "pursuant to its constitutional and statutory powers to
promote a clean, honest, orderly and credible May 11, 1998 elections" and "to protect,
preserve and maintain the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot."
That “exit surveys indirectly violate the constitutional principle to preserve the
sanctity of the ballots," as the "voters are lured to reveal the contents of
ballots," in violation of Section 2, Article V of the Constitution; and relevant
provisions of the Omnibus Election Code.
That the exit poll has a clear and present danger of destroying the credibility
and integrity of the electoral process

Issue: Whether or not the respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
a lack or excess of jurisdiction when it approved the issuance of a restraining order
enjoining the petitioner or any other group, its agents or representatives from
conducting exit polls during the May 11, 1998 elections.

Ruling: Validity of Conducting Exit Polls:No law prohibits the holding and the reporting of
exit polls.Nature and Scope of Freedoms of Speech and of the Press: Freedom of
expression is a fundamental principle of our democratic government. Our Constitution
clearly mandates that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the
press.Limitation: a limitation on the freedom of expression may be justified only by
a danger of such substantive character that the state has a right to prevent. Even
though the government’s purpose is legitimate and substantial, they cannot be pursued
by means that broadly conceal fundamental liberties, when the end can be more
narrowly achieved. Secrecy of the Ballots. The Court noted that the COMELEC has
the duty to secure the secrecy of the ballot and to preserve the sanctity and the
integrity of the electoral process. However, in order to justify a restriction of the
people's freedoms of speech and of the press, the state's responsibility of
ensuring orderly voting must far outweigh them.The Court contends that the
contention of public respondent that exit polls indirectly violated the sanctity of the
ballot is off-tangent to the real issue. The reason behind the principle of ballot
secrecy is to avoid vote buying through voter identification.What is forbidden is
the association of voters with their respective votes, for the purpose of assuring that
the votes have been casted in accordance with the instruction of a third party.In exit
polls, the contents of the official ballot are not actually exposed. Moreover, the
revelation of whom an elector has voted for is not compulsory, but VOLUNTARY.On the
contention of the COMELEC that exit poll has a clear and present danger of destroying
the credibility and integrity of the electoral process, the court ruled that such
arguments are purely speculative and clearly untenable. Because: 1) the participants
are selected at random; 2) the survey result is not meant to replace or be at par
with the official COMELEC count. It is merely an opinion. 3) credibility and integrity
of the elections are not at stake here. The holding and the reporting of the results of
exit polls cannot undermine those of the elections, since the exit pollis only part of
the election.The Court argues that the COMELEC has other valid and reasonable ways
and means to avoid or minimize disorder and confusion that may be brought about by
exit surveys.The petition is granted and the temporary restraining order issued by
the court is made permanent. Resolution No. 98-1419 issued by the COMELEC is
nullified and set aside.

ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and THE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, THE AUDITOR,
and THE DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE 1971 CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION, respondents, RAUL S. MANGLAPUS, JESUS G. BARRERA, PABLO
S. TRILLANA III, VICTOR DE LA SERNA, MARCELO B. FERNAN, JOSE Y. FERIA,
LEONARDO SIGUION REYNA, VICTOR F. ORTEGA, and JUAN V.
BORRA, Intervenors.
GR. NO. L-34150
OCTOBER 16, 1971

FACTS:
A Constitutional Convention was called upon to propose amendments to the
Constitution of the Philippines, in which, the delegates to the said Convention were all
elected under and by virtue of resolutions and the implementing legislation thereof,
Republic Act 6132. The Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1, amending
section one of article 5 of the Constitution of the Philippines to lower the voting age to
18. Said resolution also provided in its Section 3 that the partial amendment, which
refers only to the age qualification for the exercise of suffrage shall be without prejudice
to other amendments that will be proposed in the future by the 1971 Constitutional
Convention on other portions of the amended Section or on other portions of the entire
Constitution.

The main thrust of the petition is that Organic Resolution No. 1 and the other
implementing resolutions thereof subsequently approved by the Convention have no
force and effect as laws as far as they are in contravention to Section 1 Article XV of the
Constitution. Under the said provision, the proposed amendment in question cannot be
presented to the people for ratification separately from each and all of the other
amendments to be drafted and proposed by the Convention.

ISSUE:
WON the Resolution approved by the 1971 Constitutional Convention constitutional.

HELD:
NO. Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 and the
implementing acts and resolutions of the Convention, insofar as they provide for the
holding of a plebiscite, as well as the resolution of the respondent COMELEC complying
therewith are null and void.

The Court is of the opinion that in providing for the questioned plebiscite before it has
finished, and separately from, the whole draft of the constitution it has been called to
formulate, the Convention’s Organic Resolution No. 1 and all subsequent acts of the
Convention implementing the same violate the condition in Section 1, Article XV that
there should only be one “election” or plebiscite for the ratification of all the
amendments the Convention may propose. We are not denying any right of the people
to vote on the proposed amendment; We are only holding that under Section 1, Article
XV of the Constitution, the same should be submitted to them not separately from but
together with all the other amendments to be proposed by this present Convention.

MARUHOM vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 179430 July 27, 2009

NOVEMBER 23, 2017

FACTS:

Petitioner Jamela Salic Maruhom was a mayoralty candidate in the Municipality of

Marantao, Lanao del Sur.Her opponent, re-electionist Mayor Abinal filed before the
COMELEC a Petition for Disqualification against Maruhom, which alleged that she was
a double registrant.

The COMELEC First Division found that Maruhom had two subsisting registrations, one
in Marawi, and another in Marantao, and subsequently ordered the deletion of
Maruhom’s name from the list of official candidates for municipal mayor of Marantao.
Aggrieved, Maruhom filed the instant Petition for Certiorari, under Rule 64 of the
Revised Rules of Court; imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC,
for the Comelec had no jurisdiction to declare null and void her registration as a
registered voter of Marantao, Lanao el Sur and to declare her as a double registrant.

ISSUE:
Is the challenge on Maruhom’s registration, an issue on the right to vote and, thus,
beyond the COMELEC’s jurisdiction?

RULING:

No. The Court held that 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.

COMELEC has laid down the rule that while the first registration of any voter subsists,
any subsequent registration thereto is void ab initio. Following this, Maruhom’s earlier
registration in Marawi is deemed valid, while her subsequent registration in Marantao is
void ab initio. Accordingly, Maruhom cannot be considered a registered voter in
Marantao and, thus, she made a false representation in her COC when she claimed to
be one.

It must be underscored that in addition to the express jurisdiction of COMELEC over

petitions for cancellation of COCs, on the ground of false material representations,
under Section 78 of the OEC, the Constitution also extends to COMELEC all the
necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the holding of free, orderly, honest,
peaceful, and credible elections. The determination, therefore, made by the COMELEC
that Maruhom’s Marawi registration is valid, while her Marantao registration is void, is
only in accord with its explicit jurisdiction, or at the very least, its residual powers.

The Resolution 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.

Gunsi Sr. vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 168792 February 23, 2009

Facts:

Private respondent Sinsuat filed a petition for cancellation of the CoC of Gunsi in
connection with May 10, 2004 elections based on the following grounds: (1) Gunsi was
not a registered voter in the Municipality of South Upi, Maguidanao since he failed to
sign his application for registration; (2) Gunsi’s name was inserted illegally in the List of
Applicant and Voters by Alice Lim as acting election officer; and (3) the unsigned
application for registration has no legal effect. Investigating officer Bedol issued a
resolution recommending Gunsi’s disqualification to run for Mayor of South Upi. The
COMELEC second division issued a resolution dismissing the petition for being moot
and academic as Sinsuat was already proclaimed Mayor of South Upi. Subsequently,
the same division issued another resolution because of the resolution issued by the
COMELEC 1st division annulling the proclamation of Sinsuat and the possibility of re-
canvassing of election returns. The COMELEC 2nd division declared in their
subsequent resolution that Gunsi is disqualified to run as Mayor for being a non-
registered resident of South Upi, Maguidanao. The motion for reconsideration filed by
Gunsi was denied by the COMELEC en banc. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not failure to sign the application for registration to vote invalidates
the same.

Held:

The Supreme Court ruled that Gunsi’s arguments are annihilated by Section 10
of RA 8189 which provides that “the application for registration shall contain 3 specimen
signatures of the applicant, clear and legible rolled prints of his left and right
thumbprints, with four identification copies of his latest photograph, attached thereto, to
be taken at the expense of the Commission.” The irregularities surrounding Gunsi’s
application for registration eloquently proclaim that he did not comply with the minimum
requirements of RA 8189. This leads to only one conclusion: that Gunsi, not having
demonstrated that he duly accomplished an application for registration, is not a
registered voter. In short, the cancellation of Gunsi’s CoC by the COMELEC and his
consequent disqualification from running as Mayor was correct.