1.

YRA v ABANO
FACTS

Maximo Abano is a native of Meycauayan, Bulacan. He transferred to

Manila to
complete his studies there. While temporarily residing at Manila, he
registered
as a voter there. After becoming a member of the bar and death of his
father,
he returned to Bulacan from May 10, 1927 up to the present. When 1928
elections came, he tried to cancel his registration at Manila, but failed to do
so.
Nevertheless, he ran as a candidate for municipal president (Mayor?) of
Meycauayan and won the elections. Petitioner now questions the
qualifications
of Abano through a quo warranto proceedings.

ISSUE
Whether registration is a qualification to run for a public office

HELD
NO, section 404 of the election law states that to run for public office, one
must
be a qualified elector. One of the requirement to be a qualified elector is to
be a
qualified voter. Section 431 states the requirements for a qualifications of a
voter, while section 432 states the disqualification. All of these are needed
in
able to be register and vote. However, registration and voting is NOT a
requirement in order to run for public office. What is needed is to be a
qualified
elector and a qualified voter, which Abano complied with. Registration only
regulates the exercise to vote.

AKBAYAN-Youth vs Commission on Election
Political Law Election Laws Right of Suffrage Extension of Voters
Registration
On January 25, 2001, AKBAYAN-Youth, together with other youth
movements sought the extension of the registration of voters for the May
2001 elections. The voters registration has already ended on December 27,
2000. AKBAYAN-Youth asks that persons aged 18-21 be allowed a special 2-
day registration. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied the
petition. AKBAYAN-Youth the sued COMELEC for alleged grave abuse of
discretion for denying the petition. AKBAYAN-Youth alleged that there are
about 4 million youth who were not able to register and are now
disenfranchised. COMELEC invoked Section 8 of Republic Act 8189 which
provides that no registration shall be conducted 120 days before the
regular election. AKBAYAN-Youth however counters that under Section 28 of
Republic Act 8436, the COMELEC in the exercise of its residual and stand-by
powers, can reset the periods of pre-election acts including voters
registration if the original period is not observed.
voters from the special two day registration will have to be screened,
entered into the book of voters, have to be inspected again, verified,
sealed, then entered into the computerized voters list; and then they will
have to reprint the voters information sheet for the update and distribute it
by that time, the May 14, 2001 elections would have been overshot
because of the lengthy processes after the special registration. In short, it
will cost more inconvenience than good. Further still, the allegation that
youth voters are disenfranchised is not sufficient. Nowhere in AKBAYAN-
Youths pleading was attached any actual complaint from an individual
youth voter about any inconvenience arising from the fact that the voters
registration has ended on December 27, 2001. Also, AKBAYAN-Youth et al
admitted in their pleading that they are asking an extension because they
failed to register on time for some reasons, which is not appealing to the
court. The law aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC exercised grave abuse of discretion

when it denied the extension of the voters registration.

HELD: No. The COMELEC was well within its right to do so pursuant to the
clear provisions of Section 8, RA 8189 which provides that no voters
registration shall be conducted within 120 days before the regular election.
The right of suffrage is not absolute. It is regulated by measures like voters
registration which is not a mere statutory requirement. The State, in the
exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact laws to safeguard and
regulate the act of voters registration for the ultimate purpose of
conducting honest, orderly and peaceful election, to the incidental yet
generally important end, that even pre-election activities could be
performed by the duly constituted authorities in a realistic and orderly
manner one which is not indifferent and so far removed from the pressing
order of the day and the prevalent circumstances of the times. RA 8189
prevails over RA 8436 in that RA 8189s provision is explicit as to the
prohibition. Suffice it to say that it is a pre-election act that cannot be reset.

Further, even if what is asked is a mere two-day special registration,

COMELEC has shown in its pleadings that if it is allowed, it will substantially
create a setback in the other pre-election matters because the additional
Kabataan Party-list vs. COMELEC Case DIgest (G.R. No. 189868,
December 15, 2009)
FACTS:
In the instant case, the petitioners, Kabataan Party-List, seeks to extend the
voters registration for the May 10, 2010 national and local elections from
October 31, 2009, as fixed by COMELEC Resolution No. 8514, to January 9,
2010 which is the day before the 120-day prohibitive period starting on
January 10, 2010.
The petitioners anchor its ground on the provision of Section 8 of R.A. 8189
which reads: "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."
On the other hand, COMELEC maintains that the Constitution and the
Omnibus Election Code confer upon it the power to promulgate rules and
regulations in order to ensure free, orderly and honest elections; that
Section 29 of R.A. 6646 and Section 28 of R.A. 8436 authorize it to fix other
dates for pre-election acts which include voters registration; and that the
October 31, 2009 deadline was impelled by operational and pragmatic
considerations, citing Akbayan-Youth v. COMELEC.
COMELEC the power to fix other period for pre-election activities only if the
same cannot be reasonable held within the period provided by law.
However, this grant of power, is for the purpose of enabling the people to
exercise the right of suffrage -- the common underlying policy under R.A.
8189, R.A. 6646 and R.A. 8436.
In the case at bar, the Court did not find any ground to hold that continuing
voter's registration cannot be reasonably held within the period provided by
R.A. 8189.
With regard to the Court's ruling in Akbayan-Youth v. COMELEC, The court
explained that if the petitioners had only filed their petition, and sought
extension, before the 120 day prohibitive period, the prayer would have
been granted pursuant to the mandate of R.A. 8189.
As a result, the petition was granted and the COMELEC resolution fixing
voters registration for the May 10, 2010 national and local elections on
October 31, 2009 was declared null and void.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the COMELEC has the authority to fix the voter's
registration beyond the prohibitive period set forth by R.A. 8189.

RULING:

The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners.

It held that the right of every Filipino to choose its leaders and participate
to the fullest extent in every national or local election is so zealously
guarded by Article V of the 1987 Constitution.

The Court explained that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 decrees that voters be
allowed to register daily during office hours, except during the
period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a
special election. The Court is bound to respect the determination of
Congress that the 120 day or 90 day period, as the case may be, was
enough to make the necessary preparations with respect to the coming
elections and COMELEC's rule making power should be exercised in
accordance with the prevailing law.

R.A. 6646 and R.A. 8436 is not in conflict with the mandate of continuing
voter's registration under R.A. 8189. R.A. 6646 and R.A. 8436 both grant
Purisima v. Salanga Interpretation of election laws should give effect to the expressed
will of the electorate.
L-22335

December 31, 1965

FACTS:

Petitioner Purisima is a candidate for any of the three offices of Provincial

Board Member of Ilocos Sur. During the canvass, he notes that the returns
from precints (41) showed on their face that the words and figures for
Gregorio Cordero had been obviously and manifestly erased and
superimposed with other words and figures. For comparison, the
Nacionalista Party copies of returns were submitted to the board of
canvassers and discrepancy was found.Purisima requested for suspension
of the canvass, which the board denied upon the ground that it was not yet
ascertainable whether the discrepancies would materially affect the result.
After the canvass, Cordero got the last spot with 1, 857 votes more than
Purisima. The petitioner again called the attention to the erasures which
the board again denied and proceeded with the proclamation of Cordero.
Purisima went to the COMELEC to annul the canvass and proclamation to
which the Commission respinded by passing a resolution annulling the
canvass and proclamation. He filed a petition for recount with the CFI which
was dismissed. It was argued that the Nacionalista copies cannot be made
basis of a petition for recount accdg to Sec. 163 of the Revised Election
Code.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court is correct in dismissing the petition for recount and its
interpretation of Sec. 163 of the Revised Election Code.

HELD:

The dismissal of petition for recount set aside. There is no more question
now that the number of votes involved in said discrepancy is more than
enough to alter the result. The record shows that the reason why Purisima
was not able to submit to the board the COMELEC copies of returns was
because the board declined to suspend the canvass and proclamation. He
should not be prejudiced by such. It is the duty of canvassers to suspend in
case of patent irregularity in the returns as in the present case.