Cabeza. Election Law Digests

7/24/2019 Cabeza. Election Law Digests

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cabeza-election-law-digests 1/10

JACINTO MAPPALA V JUDGE CRISPULO NUÑEZ

FACTS: In 1989, the Provincial prosecutor of Isabela filed: (1) an informationagainst Alejandro Angoluan for illegal possession of a firearm in violation of P! "o 18## ($riminal $ase "o %%&9') (%) an information against

Angoluan and five other co&accused for frustrated murder ($riminal $ase "o%%&9'') and (*) an information against Alejandro and +onorato Angoluan for violation of the mnibus election code ($riminal $ase "o %%&9#') -hecomplaining .itness in $riminal $ase "o %%&9'' .as /acinto 0appala, thecomplainant against respondent in this administrative case All the actions.ere consolidated and assigned to the egional -rial $ourt, 2ranch %%,$abagan, Isabela, presided b3 respondent

$omplainant charged respondent .ith, among others, serious misconduct for ac4uitting Alejandro Angoluan of violation of the 5$ in $rim $ase "o %%&9#'

espondent /udge justified the ac4uittal of Alejandro of violation of the5lection 6a. in $riminal $ase "o 9#' on the ground that 7 the firearm .asnot taen from his person .ithin the precinct but .as not taen more than' meters a.a3 from the precinct7

urthermore, he claimed that .hat the la. considered as a crime .as the7carr3ing of firearms .ithin (') or 1 meters a.a3 from the precinct -hefirearm .as not taen from the accused .ithin the ' or 1 meters distancefrom the precinct because in truth and in fact the said firearm .assurrendered b3 the accused t.o (%) da3s after the elections -he mistae inthe distance is merel3 a clerical error 2ut be it ' meters or 1 meters, stillthe accused could not be convicted under the said provision, specificall3;ection %#1, ;ubsection (p) of Article <<II of the mnibus election $ode7

ISSUE: =" /udge "u>e? erred in ac4uitting Angoluan for the commissionof the offense against ;ection %#1(p) of the 5$ ( i.e., illegal possession of firearms)

HELD: ;aid provision reads as follo.s:

Deadly weapons @ An3 person .ho carries an3 deadl3 .eapon in the pollingplace and .ithin a radius of one hundred meters thereof during the da3s andhours fied b3 la. for the registration of voters in the polling place, voting,counting of votes, or preparation of the election returns +o.ever, in cases of affra3, turmoil, or disorder, an3 peace officer or public officer authori?ed b3 the$ommission to supervise the election is entitled to carr3 firearms or an3 other .eapon for the purpose of preserving and enforcing the la.

-o support a conviction under ;ection %#1(p) of the mnibus election $ode, itis not necessar3 that the deadl3 .eapon should have been sei?ed from theaccused .hile he .as in the precinct or .ithin a radius of 1 meters

therefrom It is enough that the accused carried the deadl3 .eapon 7in thepolling place and .ithin a radius of one hundred meters thereof7 during an3 of



the specified da3s and hours After respondent himself had found that theprosecution had established these facts, it is difficult to understand .h3 heac4uitted Alejandro of the charge of violation of ;ection %#1(p) of themnibus election $ode

JOY CHRISMA LUNA V COMELEC

FACTS: n 1' /anuar3 %, 6una filed her certificate of candidac3 for theposition of vice&ma3or of 6aga3an, Abra as a substitute for +ans oger, .ho.ithdre. his certificate of candidac3 on the same date uperto 2lanco,5lection fficer of 6aga3an, Abra removed the name of +ans oger from thelist of candidates and placed the name of 6una

n % April %, private respondents -omas 6a3ao, ;olomon 6alugan III,

"elia 6a?aga, Anthon3 6a3ao, $ipriano 6ape?, /r, Bictoria 6a3ao, 0oderno6ape?, odrigo Pari>as, and 5ugenio $aber !onato (private respondents)filed a petition for the cancellation of the certificate of candidac3 or dis4ualification of 6una Private respondents alleged that 6una made a falsematerial representation in her certificate of candidac3 because 6una is not aregistered voter of 6aga3an, Abra but a registered voter of 2angued, AbraPrivate respondents also claimed that 6unaCs certificate of candidac3 .as notvalidl3 filed because the substitution b3 6una for +ans oger .as invalidPrivate respondents alleged that +ans oger .as onl3 % 3ears old onelection da3 and, therefore, he .as dis4ualified to run for vice&ma3or andcannot be substituted b3 6una

-he COMELEC First Division ruled that, .hile 6una complied .ith theprocedural re4uirements for substitution, +ans oger .as not a validcandidate for vice&ma3or

-he COMELEC First Division also ruled that 6una .as not a registered voter of 6aga3an, Abra and that this .as sufficient to dis4ualif3 6una from runningas vice&ma3or

-he COMELEC En Banc affirmed the finding that +ans oger, being

underage, ma3 not be validl3 substituted b3 6una

+o.ever, the COMELEC En Banc ruled that 6una .as a registered voter of 6aga3an, Abra

ISSUE: =" /o3 6unaCs substitution of +ans 6una for the vice&ma3oral seatis valid

HELD: -he petition is partl3 meritorious

=hen a candidate files his certificate of candidac3, the $0565$ has aministerial dut3 to receive and acno.ledge its receipt ;ection D# of the



mnibus 5lection $ode (5lection $ode) provides:

Sec. 76. Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging receipt .- TheCommission, provincial election supervisor, election registrar or officer designated by the Commission or the board of election inspectors under the

succeeding section shall have the ministerial duty to receive and acnowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy.

In this case, .hen +ans oger filed his certificate of candidac3 on ' /anuar3%,# the $0565$ had the ministerial dut3 to receive and acno.ledgereceipt of +ans ogerCs certificate of candidac3 -hus, the $0565$ had theministerial dut3 to give due course to +ans ogerCs certificate of candidac3D

n 1' /anuar3 %, +ans oger .ithdre. his certificate of candidac3 -he5lection $ode allo.s a person .ho has filed a certificate of candidac3 to.ithdra. the same prior to the election b3 submitting a .ritten declaration

under oath8 -here is no provision of la. .hich prevents a candidate from.ithdra.ing his certificate of candidac3 before the election9

n the same date, 6una filed her certificate of candidac3 as substitute for +ans oger ;ection DD of the 5lection $ode prescribes the rules onsubstitution of an official candidate of a registered political part3 .ho dies,.ithdra.s, or is dis4ualified for an3 cause after the last da3 for the filing of certificate of candidac3

;ec DD Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of another & If after the last da3 for the filing of certificates of candidac3, anofficial candidate of a registered or accredited political part3 dies, .ithdra.s or is dis4ualified for an3 cause, onl3 a person belonging to, and certified b3, thesame political part3 ma3 file a certificate of candidac3 to replace the candidate.ho died, .ithdre. or .as dis4ualified -he substitute candidate nominatedb3 the political part3 concerned ma3 file his certificate of candidac3 for theoffice affected in accordance .ith the preceding sections not later than mid&da3 of election da3 of the election If the death, .ithdra.al or dis4ualificationshould occur bet.een the da3 before the election and mid&da3 of election da3,said certificate ma3 be filed .ith an3 board of election inspectors in thepolitical subdivision .here he is a candidate, or, in the case of candidates to

be voted for b3 the entire electorate of the countr3, .ith the $ommission

;ince +ans oger it!"r# his certificate of candidac3 and the $0565$found that 6una complied .ith all the procedural re4uirements for a validsubstitution,1 6una can validl3 substitute for +ans oger

-he $0565$ acted .ith grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac or ecess of jurisdiction in declaring that +ans oger, being under age, could notbe considered to have filed a valid certificate of candidac3 and, thus, could notbe validl3 substituted b3 6una -he $0565$ ma3 not, b3 itself, .ithout theproper proceedings, den3 due course to or cancel a certificate of candidac3

filed in due form11

In Sanche! v. Del "osario,1%

the $ourt ruled that the



4uestion of eligibilit3 or ineligibilit3 of a candidate for non&age is be3ond theusual and proper cogni?ance of the $0565$

If +ans oger made a material misrepresentation as to his date of birth or agein his certificate of candidac3, his eligibilit3 ma3 onl3 be impugned through a

verified petition to den3 due course to or cancel such certificate of candidac3under ;ection D8 of the 5lection $ode

In this case, there .as no petition to den3 due course to or cancel thecertificate of candidac3 of +ans oger -he $0565$ onl3 declared that+ans oger did not file a valid certificate of candidac3 and, thus, .as not avalid candidate in the petition to den3 due course to or cancel 6unaCscertificate of candidac3 In effect, the $0565$, .ithout the proper proceedings, cancelled +ans ogerCs certificate of candidac3 and declaredthe substitution b3 6una invalid

It .ould have been different if there .as a petition to den3 due course to or cancel +ans ogerCs certificate of candidac3 or if the $0565$ cancelled+ans ogerCs certificate of candidac3 after the proper proceedings, then he isno candidate at all and there can be no substitution of a person .hosecertificate of candidac3 has been cancelled and denied due course1'

+o.ever, +ans ogerCs certificate of candidac3 .as never cancelled or denied due course b3 the $0565$

0oreover, +ans oger alread3 .ithdre. his certificate of candidac3 beforethe $0565$ declared that he .as not a valid candidate -herefore, unless+ans ogerCs certificate of candidac3 .as denied due course or cancelled inaccordance .ith ;ection D8 of the 5lection $ode, +ans ogerCs certificate of candidac3 .as valid and he ma3 be validl3 substituted b3 6una

$HEREFORE, .e PARTLY GRANT the petition =e AFFIRM the ruling of the $0565$ #n $anc that there .as no violation of petitioner /o3 $hrisma2 6unaCs right to due process =e SET ASIDE the ruling of the $0565$#n $anc that the substitution b3 petitioner /o3 $hrisma 2 6una for +ansoger 6una .as invalid Petitioner /o3 $hrisma 2 6una validl3 substituted for +ans oger 6una

ATTY ROMULO MACALINTAL V COMELEC

FACTS: 2efore the $ourt is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed b3omulo 2 0acalintal, a member of the Philippine 2ar, seeing a declarationthat certain provisions of epublic Act "o 9189 (-he verseas AbsenteeBoting Act of %*) suffer from constitutional infirmit3 $laiming that he hasactual and material legal interest in the subject matter of this case in seeing toit that public funds are properl3 and la.full3 used and appropriated, petitioner filed the instant petition as a tapa3er and as a la.3er

ISSUES:

(1) =hether or not ;ection '(d) of epublic Act "o 9189 violates theresidenc3 re4uirement in ;ection 1 of Article B of the $onstitution



(%) =hether or not ;ection 18' of the same la. violates the constitutionalmandate under ;ection , Article BII of the $onstitution that the .inningcandidates for President and the Bice&President shall be proclaimed as.inners b3 $ongress

(*) =hether or not $ongress ma3, through the /oint $ongressional versight$ommittee created in ;ection %' of ep Act "o 9189, eercise the po.er torevie., revise, amend, and approve the Implementing ules and egulationsthat the $ommission on 5lections, promulgate .ithout violating theindependence of the $0565$ under ;ection 1, Article I<&A of the$onstitution

HELD:

(1) "o ;ection ' of A "o 9189 enumerates those .ho are dis4ualifiedvoting under this Act It dis4ualifies an immigrant or a permanent resident .ho

is recogni?ed as such in the host countr3 +o.ever, an eception is providedie unless heEshe eecutes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for thepurpose b3 the $ommission declaring that heEshe shall resume actualph3sical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than * 3ears fromapproval of registration ;uch affidavit shall also state that heEshe has notapplied for citi?enship in another countr3 ailure to return shall be cause for the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the"ational egistr3 of Absentee Boters and hisEher permanent dis4ualification tovote in absentia

Petitioner claims that this is violative of the residenc3 re4uirement in ;ection 1 Article B of the $onstitution .hich re4uires the voter must be a resident in thePhilippines for at least one 3r, and a resident in the place .here he proposesto vote for at least # months immediatel3 preceding an election

+o.ever, ;F held that ruling in said case does not hold .ater at present,and that the $ourt ma3 have to discard that particular ruling Panacea of thecontrovers3: Affidavit for .ithout it, the presumption of abandonment of Phildomicile shall remain -he 4ualified ilipino abroad .ho eecuted an affidavitis deemed to have retained his domicile in the Philippines and presumed notto have lost his domicile b3 his ph3sical absence from this countr3 ;ection '

of A "o 9189 does not onl3 re4uire the promise to resume actual ph3sicalpermanent residence in the Philippines not later than * 3ears after approval of registration but it also re4uires the ilipino abroad, =" he is a green cardholder, a temporar3 visitor or even on business trip, must declare that heEshehas not applied for citi?enship in another countr3 -hus, heEshe must return tothe Philippines other.ise conse4uences .ill be met according to A "o9189

Although there is a possibilit3 that the ilipino .ill not return after he haseercised his right to vote, the $ourt is not in a position to rule on the .isdomof the la. or to repeal or modif3 it if such la. is found to be impractical

+o.ever, it can be said that the $ongress itself .as conscious of thisprobabilit3 and provided for deterrence .hich is that the ilipino .ho fails to



return as promised stands to lose his right of suffrage Accordingl3, the voteshe cast shall not be invalidated because he .as 4ualified to vote on the dateof the elections

#%pressum facit cessare tacitum: .here a la. sets do.n plainl3 its .hole

meaning, the $ourt is prevented from maing it mean .hat the $ourt pleasesIn fine, considering that underl3ing intent of the $onstitution, as is evident inits statutor3 construction and intent of the framers, .hich is to grant ilipinoimmigrants and permanent residents abroad the un4uestionable right toeercise the right of suffrage (;ection 1 Article B) the $ourt finds that ;ection' of A "o 9189 is not constitutionall3 defective

(%) Ges $ongress should not have allo.ed $0565$ to usurp a po.er thatconstitutionall3 belongs to it -he canvassing of the votes and theproclamation of the .inning candidates for President and Bice President for the entire nation must remain in the hands of $ongress as its dut3 and po.er

under ;ection of Article BII of the $onstitution $0565$ has the authorit3to proclaim the .inning candidates onl3 for ;enators and Part3&list eps

(*) "o 23 vesting itself .ith the po.ers to approve, revie., amend and revisethe Implementing ules H egulations for A "o 9189, $ongress .entbe3ond the scope of its constitutional authorit3 $ongress trampled upon theconstitutional mandate of independence of the $0565$ nder such asituation, the $ourt is left .ith no option but to .ithdra. from its usual silencein declaring a provision of la. unconstitutional

$HEREFORE, the petition is partl3 FA"-5! -he follo.ing portionsof A "o 9189 are declared BI! for being "$";-I--I"A6:

a) -he phrase in the first sentence of the first paragraph of ;ection 1D1, to.it: subject to the approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Coittee

b) -he portion of the last paragraph of ;ection 1D1, to .it: only upon review and approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Coittee

c) -he second sentence of the first paragraph of ;ection 19, to .it: !he

"pleenting #ules and #egulations shall be subitted to the Joint Congressional Oversight Coittee created by virtue of this $ct for prior approval and

d) -he second sentence in the second paragraph of ;ection %', to .it: "t shall review, revise, aend and approve the "pleenting #ules and #egulations proulgated by the Coission of the same la.

for being repugnant to ;ection 1, Article I<&A of the $onstitution mandatingthe independence of constitutional commission, such as $0565$

-he constitutionalit3 of ;ection 18' of A "o 9189 is UPHELD .ith respectonl3 to the authorit3 given to the $0565$ to proclaim the .inning



candidates for the ;enators and part3&list representatives but not as to thepo.er to canvass the votes and proclaim the .inning candidates for Presidentand Bice&President .hich is lodged .ith $ongress under ;ection , Article BIIof the $onstitution

-he constitutionalit3 of ;ection '(d) is UPHELD

Pursuant to ;ection * of A "o 9189, the rest of the provisions of said la.continues to be in full force and effect

ROMMEL ARNADO V COMELEC

FACTS: ommel Arnado, a natural born ilipino citi?en, lost his citi?enship.hen he .as naturalised as a ; citi?en n /ul3 1, %8, he too his athof Allegiance to the epublic of the Philippines under the provisions of

epublic Act 9%%' thereupon an rder of Approval of his citi?enship retentionand re&ac4uisition .as issued in his favour n April *, %9, he again too hisath of Allegiance as .ell as eecuted an Affidavit of enunciation of his ;citi?enship n "ovember *, %9, A"A! filed his $ertificate of $andidac3 for 0a3or of Jaus.agan, 6anao del "orte n April %8, %1,6iong, another ma3oralt3 candidate, filed a petition to dis4ualif3 andEor cancelhis certificate of candidac3 in connection .ith the %1 elections According to2A6A, A"A! is not a resident of Jaus.agan he is also a foreigner, asattested to b3 the 2ureau of Immigration In support of his claim, 2A6Apresented in his 0emorandum a computer&generated travel recordK dated *!ecember %9 indicating that Arnado has been using his ; Passport "o'DD8%D in entering and departing the Philippines -he said record sho.sthat Arnado left the countr3 on 1 April %9 and returned on %' /une %9,and again departed on %9 /ul3 %9, arriving bac in the Philippines on %"ovember %9

=hen re4uired to ans.er, A"A! did not file an3 It .as onl3 after hisproclamation as .inner that he filed an ans.er, traversing the allegations of 2A6A, and submitting his documentar3 evidence in support of his ans.er-he $0565$ irst !ivision instead of treating the case as a petition for cancellation of the certificate of candidac3, treated as a petition for

dis4ualification Although the division dismissed 2A6ACs claim that A"A!is a ; resident, it agreed .ith him in sa3ing A"A! is a ; citi?en, citingthat A"A!Cs consistent use of his American passport negated his Affidavitof enunciation of ; citi?enship and sho.ed his intention to retain ;citi?enship It therefore annulled his proclamation as 0unicipal 0a3or of Jaus.agan, and ordered the rule of replacement of A"A! pursuant to therule of succession under the 6ocal Fovernment $ode A"A! thus filed his0otion for econsideration to the order 0ean.hile, $asan, another ma3oralt3 candidate and .ho garnered the second highest number of votes inthe %1 elections, filed his 0otion or Intervention and opposition to the0otion for econsideration filed b3 A"A! According to $asan, .hile the

$omelec irst !ivision ruled correctl3 on A"A!Cs citi?enship, it erred .henit ruled that the order of succession under the 6ocal Fovernment should be



follo.ed ollo.ing the cancellation of A"A!Cs certificate of candidac3 andhis dis4ualification, he ($asan), as the legitimate candidate .ith the highestnumber of votes, should be proclaimed the .inner A"A! opposed the0otion or Intervention filed b3 $asan, alleging that intervention is notallo.ed after the $omelec had alread3 rendered a decision, and $asan .as

never the .inner

-he $0565$ 5n 2anc, acting on the 0otion for econsideration filed b3 A"A! and the 0otion for Intervention of $asan, granted the 0otion for econsideration It allo.ed the 0otion for Intervention b3 $asan, but ruledthat he .ill not be prejudiced b3 the decision of the irst !ivision as it correctl3ruled that the order of succession should be follo.ed +o.ever, it reversedthe irst !ivision and held that A"A!Cs use of the ; passport .as notone of the grounds b3 .hich citi?enship ma3 be lost under A 9%%' It ruledthat A"A! had a plausible eplanation as to .h3 he used his ; passportin his travels, that is, his Philippine passport .as issued late =hen he too

the oath of allegiance and eecuted his Affidavit of enunciation on April *,%9, he regained his Philippine citi?enship

ISSUE: =" the $0565$ committed grave abuse of discretion indis4ualif3ing petitioner .ho has full3 complied .ith the re4uirements of A9%%' before the filing of his $$ on ct 1, %1%

HELD: -he ballot cannot override the constitutional and statutor3re4uirements for 4ualifications and dis4ualifications of candidates =hen thela. re4uires certain 4ualifications to be possessed or that certaindis4ualifications be not possessed b3 persons desiring to serve as electivepublic officials, those 4ualifications must be met before one even becomes acandidate =hen a person .ho is not 4ualified is voted for and eventuall3garners the highest number of votes, even the .ill of the electorate epressedthrough the ballot cannot cure the defect in the 4ualifications of the candidate-o rule other.ise is to trample upon and rent asunder the ver3 la. that setsforth the 4ualifications and dis4ualifications of candidates =e might as .ell.rite off our election la.s if the voice of the electorate is the sole determinantof .ho should be proclaimed .orth3 to occup3 elective positions in our republic

-he first re4uirement that ma3 fall .hen an un4ualified reading is made is;ection *9 of the 6F$ .hich specifies the basic 4ualifications of localgovernment officials 54uall3 susceptive of being rendered toothless is;ection D of the 5$ that sets out .hat should be stated in a $$ ;ectionD8 ma3 lie.ise be emasculated as mere dela3 in the resolution of the petitionto cancel or den3 due course to a $$ can render a ;ection D8 petitionuseless if a candidate .ith false $$ data .ins -o state the obvious,candidates ma3 ris falsif3ing their $$ 4ualifications if the3 no. that anelection victor3 .ill cure an3 defect that their $$s ma3 have 5lectionvictor3 then becomes a magic formula to b3pass election eligibilit3re4uirements ($itations omitted)



It is imperative to safeguard the epression of the sovereign voice through theballot b3 ensuring that its eercise respects the rule of la. -o allo. thesovereign voice spoen through the ballot to trump constitutional and statutor3provisions on 4ualifications and dis4ualifications of candidates is notdemocrac3 or republicanism It is electoral anarch3 =hen set rules are

disregarded and onl3 the electorateCs voice spoen through the ballot is madeto matter in the end, it precisel3 serves as an open invitation for electoralanarch3 to set in

0a4uiling is not a second&placer as he obtained the highest number of votesfrom among the 4ualified candidates =ith ArnadoCs dis4ualification, 0a4uiling then becomes the .inner in theelection as he obtained the highest number of votes from among the 4ualifiedcandidates

=e have ruled in the recent cases of Aratea v $0565$K and /alosjos v$0565$ that a void $$ cannot produce an3 legal effect -hus, the votescast in favor of the ineligible candidate are not considered at all in determiningthe .inner of an election

5ven .hen the votes for the ineligible candidate are disregarded, the .ill of the electorate is still respected, and even more so -he votes cast in favor of an ineligible candidate do not constitute the sole and total epression of thesovereign voice -he votes cast in favor of eligible and legitimate candidatesform part of that voice and must also be respected

-here is no need to appl3 the rule cited in 6abo v $0565$ that .hen thevoters are .ell a.are .ithin the realm of notoriet3 of a candidateCsdis4ualification and still cast their votes in favor said candidate, then theeligible candidate obtaining the net higher number of votes ma3 be deemedelected -hat rule is also a mere obiter that further complicated the rulesaffecting 4ualified candidates .ho placed second to ineligible ones

-he electorateCs a.areness of the candidateCs dis4ualification is not aprere4uisite for the dis4ualification to attach to the candidate -he ver3eistence of a dis4ualif3ing circumstance maes the candidate ineligible

Jno.ledge b3 the electorate of a candidateCs dis4ualification is not necessar3before a 4ualified candidate .ho placed second to a dis4ualified one can beproclaimed as the .inner -he second&placer in the vote count is actuall3 thefirst&placer among the 4ualified candidates

-hat the dis4ualified candidate has alread3 been proclaimed and hasassumed office is of no moment -he subse4uent dis4ualification based on asubstantive ground that eisted prior to the filing of the certificate of candidac3voids not onl3 the $$ but also the proclamation

Arnado being a non&candidate, the votes cast in his favor should not have

been counted -his leaves 0a4uiling as the 4ualified candidate .ho obtained



the highest number of votes -herefore, the rule on succession under the6ocal Fovernment $ode .ill not appl3

In fine, this $ourt finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the$omelec 5n 2anc in sustaining the esolution of the $omelec ;econd

!ivision dis4ualif3ing Arnado from running in the 0a3 1*, %1* elections andin accordingl3 setting aside his proclamation as elected ma3or of Jaus.agan,6anao del "orte and proclaiming $apitan as the dul3 elected ma3or of saidmunicipalit3

=+555, the instant Petition is hereb3 !I;0I;;5! and the assailed$omelec esolutions are AI05! -he ;tatus Luo Ante rder issued b3this $ourt is 6I-5!

Documents

Cabeza. Election Law Digests