AKBAYAN-Youth vs Commission on ElectionPolitical Law Election Laws Right of Suffrage Extension of Voters RegistrationOn 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.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 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.

KABATAAN PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND V. PALATINO, et al. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONSG.R. No. 189868, 15 December 2009, EN BANC (Carpio Morales, J.)

Preserving the sanctity of the right of suffrage ensures that the State derives its power from the consent of the governed.

FACTS:On February 12, 2009 the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8585 adjusting the deadline of voter registration for the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections to October 31, 2009, instead of December 15, 2009 as fixed by their prior Resolution No. 8514 pursuant to R.A. 8189 or the Voters Registration Act of 1996. The public clamored for an extension but the COMELEC argued that they need more time to prepare for the automated elections. It contends that the Omnibus Election Code confer upon it the power to promulgate rules ad regulations in order to ensure free, orderly and honest elections. It also cited the case of Akbayan-Youth v. Commission on Elections where the court denied a similar prayer for an extension of the deadline of voter registration for the May 14, 2001 elections.

Raymond V. Palatino, representative of Kabataan Party-list assailed the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 and seeks declaration of its nullity. Palatino contends that this would be considered an encroachment of the legislative power of Congress as it amends the system of continuing voter registration under Section 8 of The Voters Registration Act of 1996. It was prayed that Resolution No. 8585 be declared null and void and to extend the registration until January 9, 2010.

ISSUE:Whether or not R.A. 8585, adjusting the deadline of voter registration to October 31, 2009 instead of December 15, 2009, is null and void

HELD:Preserving the sanctity of the right of suffrage ensures that the State derives its power from the consent of the governed. The paramount importance of this right is also a function of the State policy of people empowerment articulated in the constitutional declaration that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them, bolstered by the recognition of the vital role of the youth in nation-building and directive to the State to encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.

The clear text of the law thus decrees that voters be allowed to register daily during regular offices hours, except during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election.

In the present case, the Court finds no ground to hold that the mandate of continuing voter registration cannot be reasonably held within the period provided by R.A. 8189, Sec. 8 - daily during office hours, except during the period starting 120 days before the May 10, 2010 regular elections. There is thus no occasion for the COMELEC to exercise its power to fix other dates or deadlines therefor.

COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 is declared null and void insofar as it set the deadline of voter registration for the May 10, 2010 elections on October 31, 2009. The COMELEC is directed to proceed with dispatch in reopening the registration of voters and holding the same until January 9, 2010.

Domino vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999

Facts:PetitionerDominofiled his certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative ofthe lonelegislative district of the Province of Sarangani indicating that he has resided in the constituency where he seeks to be elected for1 yearand 2 months. Private respondents filed apetitionseekingto cancel the certificate of candidacy ofDomino, alleging thatDomino, contrary to his declaration in the certificate of candidacy, is not aresident, much less a registered voter, of the province of Sarangani where he seeks election. Thereafter, the COMELEC promulgated a resolution declaringDominodisqualified ascandidate forthe position of representative ofthe lonedistrict of Sarangani in the May 11, 1998 polls for lack of the one-year residency requirement and likewise ordered the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy based on his own Voters Registration Record and his address indicated as 24 Bonifacio St., Ayala Hts., Old Balara, Quezon City.

Issue:Whether or not petitioner has resided in Sarangani Province for at least1 yearimmediately preceding the May 11, 1998 elections

Held:The term residence, as used in the law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, means the same thing as domicile, which imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. Domicile denotes a fixedpermanentresidenceto which, whenever absent for business, pleasure, or some other reasons, one intends to return.

Records show that petitioners domicile of origin was Candon, Ilocos Sur and that sometime in 1991, he acquired a new domicile of choice in Quezon City, as shown by his certificate of candidacy for the position of representative of the Third District of Quezon City in the May 1995 election. Petitioner is now claiming that he had effectively abandoned hisresidencein Quezon City and has established a new domicile of choice in the Province of Sarangani.

A persons domicile, once established, is considered to continue and will not be deemed lost until a new one is established. To successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place ofresidenceand establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose.

The contract of lease of ahouse and lotentered into sometime in January 1997 does not adequately support a change of domicile. The lease contract may be indicative of Dominos intention to reside in Sarangani, but it does not engender the kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of ones original domicile. The mereabsence ofindividual from hispermanentresidence, no matter how long, without the intention to abandon it does not result in loss or change of domicile. Thus, the date of the contract of lease of ahouse and lotin Sarangani cannot be used, in theabsence ofother circumstances, as the reckoning period of the one-yearresidencerequirement. Further, Dominos lack of intention to abandon hisresidencein Quezon City is strengthened by his act of registering as voter in Quezon City. While voting is not conclusive ofresidence, it does give rise to a strong presumption ofresidenceespecially in this case where Domino registered in his former barangay.

DATU INOCENCIO C. SIAWAN vs. JUDGE AQUILINO A. INOPIQUEZ, JR.A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056May 21, 2001

FACTS:

This is a complaint filed by Datu Inocencio Siawan against Judge Aquilino. A. Inopiquez, Jr. of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Kananga-Matag-ob, Leyte, for gross ignorance of the law, gross abuse of power, and misconduct in connection with the latter's handling of a criminal case (Crim. Case No. 584) and two election cases for inclusion of voters (Election Case Nos. 333 and 292.) .

In Crim. Case No. 584 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Julia Enriqua Seco . . ., the accused then was charged of Usurpation of Authority and Official Functions , involving, as the complaint states, a "paquiao" contract in which the accused Julia Seco allegedly signed as the Barangay Captain of Brgy. Cansuso, Matag-ob, Leyte; In the course of the proceedings after the prosecution had already presented its witnesses, the complaint was dismissed on the basis of an Affidavit of Desistance executed by complainant Restituto C. Pedrano. This Affidavit of Desistance is opposite to the earlier affidavit of the same complainant, which was made the basis of the Complaint. Prior to the issuance of the Affidavit of Desistance ,accused Seco had filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court a Motion for Inhibition of the Presiding Judge now respondent in this case .The meat of this motion for inhibition is that the father-in-law of the Presiding Judge, herein respondent, was conspicuously present in the proceedings during which time he gave consultation to the complainant. Without addressing the issues raised by accused Seco, respondent denied her motion for inhibition in his order, dated May 22, 1987. Apparently realizing that the motion for disqualification was meritorious, respondent, after partially hearing the case, dismissed it on the basis of an affidavit of desistance of the complainant, Restituto Pedrano. But, as Seco sued Pedrano for damages for filing the criminal case, respondent judge ordered the withdrawal of Pedrano's affidavit of desistance from the record and recalled his order dismissing the criminal case. Respondent then revived Criminal Case No. 584 only to dismiss it again, saying the complainant in the criminal case could always refile it. He then inhibited himself on the ground of delicadeza citing his relationship to counsel for the private prosecutor. When Criminal Case No. 1181 was filed against accused Seco, based on the same facts as Criminal Case No. 584, respondent, to whom the case was again assigned, issued an order, dated April 28, 1994, inhibiting himself, reiterating that he is related to the private prosecutor which was later denied by the RTC of Ormoc city and soon thereafter, respondent judge in an Order dated September 5, 1994 dismissed Criminal Case No. 1181. A Motion For Reconsideration re the Order of dismissal was filed by the private complainant. The respondent judge issued the Order of November 14, 1994 denying the motion for reconsideration complainant to which the respondent judge directed accused's counsel, to file comment to the motion; a second motion for reconsideration was again filed by the private complainant and the respondent in an Order dated December 23, 1994 directed anew the accused's counsel for another comment; Atty. Custodio Caete complied and filed his comment dated December 26, 1994 and later a supplemental comment. Criminal Case No. 1181 was finally laid to rest on February 17, 1995 as per admission of complainant

(b)Election Case Nos. 333 was a petition for inclusion of a voter in the voter's list. Respondent judge admits that the petitioner, retired Judge Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr., is his uncle. Nonetheless, he justifies his failure to recuse himself on the ground that the petition of Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr. was meritorious.

(c) In Election Case No. 292, on the other hand, the seven petitioners, all surnamed Herbas, alleged that they were refused registration on February 1, 1992 at Brgy. San Sebastian, Matag-ob, Leyte by the Board of Election Inspectors; and that they have not voted for two consecutive elections.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr is guilty of grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law for his mishandling of the 3 cases mentioned above. .

HELD:

Respondent Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr. is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine of P20,000.00 for violation of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and is SUSPENDED without pay for a period of three months for abuse of authority and ignorance of the law

(a) Complainant's counsel in Criminal Case No. 584 was Atty. Eusebio Otadoy, Jr. Respondent admits that he is related to Atty. Otadoy. Although respondent is not related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to Atty Otadoy, the evidence shows that because of his relationship not only to Atty Otadoy but also to those helping the complainant, Restituto Pedrano, one of whom, Guillermo Laurente, is respondent's father-in-law, while the other one, Atty. Felix Sun, is his brother-in-law, respondent judge acted with obvious partiality for complainant in the criminal case.

It is obvious that respondent got entangled in his own maneuverings in his desire to favor and protect the complainant Restituto Pedrano and those helping the latter .Respondent could have recused himself from the moment his disqualification was sought by the accused Seco in Criminal Case No. 594. Respondent hung on to the case as long as he could until this case was filed against him. But then he realized that it was untenable for him to continue hearing the criminal case not only because of his relationship to Atty. Otadoy but also to Atty. Felix Sun and Edgardo Laurente, both of whom were his brothers-in-law, who were actively participating in the prosecution of the criminal case.

Indeed, although the disqualification of judges is limited only to cases where the judge is related to counsel within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, the Rules nonetheless provide that a judge may, in the exercise of his discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case for other just and valid reasons. (Rule 137, 1 of the Rules of Court.)It may also be added that a well-meaning judge may not just order the reopening of an already dismissed criminal case or direct the removal of a vital evidence on record without first going over the record of the case.We are referring to the irregular actuations of respondent in the same Crim. Case No. 584 wherein he granted the motion of the private prosecutor to withdraw or detach the Affidavit of Desistance executed by the private complainant 1) without the approval of the private prosecutor; 2) despite the fact that the dismissal of the case was already final; and 3) stating in the order that the accused was not yet arraigned, when the truth is the prosecution has already rested when the case was dismissed on December 22, 1992

(b) Respondent judge's contention is without merit. Rule 137, 1 of the Rules of Court provides:

No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.Similarly, Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. These cases include, among others, proceedings where:. . . .(d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth degree;. . . .In every instance the judge shall indicate the legal reason for inhibition.

Under these provisions, respondent judge was disqualified from hearing the petition of his uncle and it was immaterial that the petition was meritorious. The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent not only a conflict of interest but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of a judge.

(c) The records show that neither of the petition in Election Case No. 333 and Election Case No. 292 named the board of election inspectors a party to the proceedings. Nor is there any showing that the board of election inspectors was ever notified of hearings to be conducted on such inclusion proceedings either by registered mail or by personal delivery, or by notice posted in a conspicuous place in the city hall or municipal building and in two other conspicuous places within the city or municipality at least 10 days prior to the day set for the hearing as required in paragraph (b) of the above provision.The Omnibus Election Code provides:Section 143. Common rules governing judicial proceedings in the matter of inclusion, exclusion, and correction of names of voters. --- (a) Outside of regular office hours, no petition for inclusion, exclusion, or correction of names of voters shall be received.(b) Notices to the members of the board of election inspectors and to challenged voters shall state the place, day and hour in which such petition shall be heard, and such notice may be made by sending a copy thereof by registered mail or by personal deliveryThe failure of respondent to observe the requirements of the Election Code is inexcusable. As a judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court vested with the jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for inclusion or exclusion of voters, he is expected to be familiar with these requirements because it can be assumed that these election cases were not the first cases he has decided.

Sarangani vs. COMELEC (334 SCRA 379[2000])

Facts:On September 15, 1997, a petition for annulment of several precincts and annulment of book of voters in Madalum, Lanao Del Sur was filed with the COMELEC by, among others, Hadji Oblais R. Omar thru counsel Atty. Nasib D. Yasin, herein private respondents. Among the precincts sought to be annulled was Padian Torogan, subject matter of the present petition for certiorari.[1]

On September 18, 1997, the COMELEC, thru the Clerk of the Commission sent telegrams to the respective Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) of the questioned precincts in Madalum, Lanao Del Sur, including Padian Torogan, to file their answer to the petition for abolition of precincts and annulment of book of voters.[2]

On October 31, 1997, the incumbent mayor of Madalum, Lanao Del Sur, Usman T. Sarangani, herein petitioner, together with other oppositors who were allegedly barangay chairmen of the twenty- three (23) barangays the "Books of Voters" and precincts of which were sought to be annulled and abolished, respectively, filed an "Answer in Opposition"[3] which included the affidavits of the barangay chairmen of the affected precincts attesting to the fact that the move to annul the book of voters and abolish the questioned election precincts were for the purpose of diminishing the bailiwicks of the incumbent mayor of Madalum, Lanao del Sur.[4]

After hearing and submission of formal offer of exhibits and memoranda by the parties, the COMELEC issued an Order[5] dated February 11, 1998, referring the case to its Law Department for appropriate investigation. The COMELEC - Law Department conformably issued a memorandum dated April 29, 1998 directing Atty. Muslemin Tahir, the Provincial Election Supervisor of Marawi City, Lanao del Sur "to conduct a rigorous incisive investigation on the alleged ghost precincts and thereafter submit a report on the investigation conducted."[6] Consequently, Atty. Tahir created a TASK FORCE INVESTIGATION TEAM by virtue of a memorandum dated June 13, 1998 directing Election Officers Casan Macadato, Sacrain Guro and Anuar Datudacula "to conduct ocular inspection on the alleged twelve (12) ghost barangays in the Municipality of Madalum, Lanao Del Sur.On June 18, 1998, an ocular inspection was conducted on the alleged ghost precincts yielding the following results

"At 12:10 pm, the Task Force Investigation Team from the COMELEC accompanied by traditional leaders, political leaders, many concerned residents of this town, a representative from the Lanao del Sur Provincial Statistics Office, Mr. Lacson Abdullah, and a Team from the DILG-ARMM, Lanao del Sur, arrived in the area supposedly Barangay Padian Torogan with these comments and observations:

"It appears that in this area there are only two structures: One is a concrete house with no roof, and the other is a wooden structure without walls and roof. This obviously mean that no single human being could possibly reside in these two structures.

"Also, it came out that the name Padian-Torogan means a cemetery not a residential place. So this contradicts the records being brought by the COMELEC Team from the Census saying that the area has 45 households with a total population of 285. (Ref. Municipal census Report as of September 1, 1995).

"Besides, no less than the Chairman of the COMELEC Investigating Team asked the people around who among them is a resident or a registered voter in the so-called Barangay Padian-Torogan, and no one answered affirmatively.

"Then at 12:50 PM, the COMELEC Investigating Team still with the people mentioned above are in Barangay Lumbac to look for the other supposed Barangay named Rakutan, and found this observations.

Held:It bears emphasis that the COMELEC has broad powers to ascertain the true results of an election by means available to it. Acting on a petition to annul the book of voters, the COMELEC has the authority to exclude a precinct from an election when there are no buildings and inhabitants in said precinct and hence no registered voters.Elec Digests|Mimi1