Marcos Yra vs.
Maximo Abao AKBAYAN-Youth vs Commission on Election
FACTS: Maximo Abao is a native of the municipality of Meycauayan,
Bulacan. At the proper age, he transferred to Manila to complete his
education. While temporarily residing in Manila, Abao registered as
a voter there. Shortly after qualifying as a member of the bar and after
the death of is father, Abao returned to Meycauayan to live. From
May 10, 1927, until the present, Abao has considered himself a
resident of Meycauayan. When the 1928 elections were approaching,
he made an application for cancellation of registration in Manila which
was dated April 3, 1928, but the application was rejected by the city
officials for the reason that it was not deposited in the mails on or
before April 4, 1928. Nevertheless, Abao presented himself as a
candidate for municipal president of Meycauayan in the 1928
elections and was elected by popular vote to the office. Marcos Yra
assigns and argues that Abao is ineligible to hold the position to
which he was elected for the reason that he had not been a resident
of Meycauayan for at least one year before the election.
ISSUE: Is the non-eligibility of the respondent to hold a municipal
office for the reason that he was not a qualified voter in his
municipality, connoting that he was not a qualified elector therein, HELD: No. The COMELEC was well within its right to do so pursuant
sufficient to nullify his election?
RULING: One of the qualifications required by law of a person who
announces his candidacy is that he must be a duly qualified elector.
The words qualified elector meant a person who had all of the
qualifications provided by law to be a voter and not a person
registered in the electoral list. The Executive Bureau has held that the
term qualified when applied to a voter does not necessarily mean
that a person must be a registered voter. To become a qualified
candidate, a person does not need to register as an elector.
Registering does not confer the right; it is a condition precedent to
exercise the right. The fact that a candidate failed to register as an
elector in the municipality does not deprive him of the right to become
a candidate and to be voted for.
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.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC exercised grave abuse of
discretion when it denied the extension of the voters registration.
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.
1
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 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.
Romulo Macalintal vs Commission on Elections
Romulo Macalintal, as a lawyer and a taxpayer, questions the validity
of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189). He
questions the validity of the said act on the following grounds, among
others: That the provision that a Filipino already considered an
immigrant abroad can be allowed to participate in absentee voting
provided he executes an affidavit stating his intent to return to the
Philippines is void because it dispenses of the requirement that a
voter must be a resident of the Philippines for at least one year and in
the place where he intends to vote for at least 6 months immediately
preceding the election; That the provision allowing the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) to proclaim winning candidates insofar as it
affects the canvass of votes and proclamation of winning candidates
for president and vice-president, is unconstitutional because it violates
the Constitution for it is Congress which is empowered to do so.
ISSUE: Whether or not Macalintals arguments are correct.
HELD: No. There can be no absentee voting if the absentee voters
are required to physically reside in the Philippines within the period
required for non-absentee voters. Further, as understood in election
laws, domicile and resident are interchangeably used. Hence, one is a
resident of his domicile (insofar as election laws is concerned). The
domicile is the place where one has the intention to return to. Thus,
an immigrant who executes an affidavit stating his intent to return to
the Philippines is considered a resident of the Philippines for
purposes of being qualified as a voter (absentee voter to be exact). If
the immigrant does not execute the affidavit then he is not qualified as
an absentee voter. The said provision should be harmonized. It could
not be the intention of Congress to allow COMELEC to include the
proclamation of the winners in the vice-presidential and presidential
race. To interpret it that way would mean that Congress allowed
COMELEC to usurp its power. The canvassing and proclamation of
the presidential and vice presidential elections is still lodged in
Congress and was in no way transferred to the COMELEC by virtue
of RA 9189.
2
NICOLAS-LEWIS VS COMELEC

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.