Election Parts IV and V

7/31/2019 Election Parts IV and V

1/57


2/57

Section 4.Permanent List of Voters. There shall be a permanent list of voters per precinct in each city ormunicipality consisting of all registered voters residing within the territorial jurisdiction of every precinctindicated by the precinct maps.

Such precinct-level list of voters shall be accompanied by an addition deletion list of the purpose ofupdating the list.

For the purpose of the 1997 general registration, the Commission shall cause the preparation and postingof all precinct maps in every barangay nationwide. Five days before the 1997 general registration,individual precinct maps shall be posted at the door of each polling place. Subsequently, the ElectionOfficer shall be responsible for the display, throughout the year, of precinct maps in his office and in thebulletin board of the city or municipal hall.

The precinct assignment of a voter in the permanent list of voters shall not be changed or altered ortransferred to another precinct without the express written consent of the voter: Provided, however, Thatthe voter shall not unreasonably withhold such consent. Any violation thereof shall constitute an electionoffense which shall be punished in accordance with law.

Section 5.Precincts and their Establishment. In preparation for the general registration in 1997, theCommission shall draw updated maps of all the precincts nationwide. Upon completion of the newprecinct maps, all the precincts established in the preceding elections shall be deemed abolished.

For the purpose of the general registration, the Commission shall create original precincts only. Spin-offprecinct may be created after the regular elections of 1998 to accommodate additional voters residingwithin the territorial jurisdiction of the original precincts.

The Commission shall introduce a permanent numbering of all precincts which shall be indicated by Arabicnumerals and a letter of the English alphabet. Original or mother precincts shall be indicated by the Arabicnumeral and letter "A of the English alphabet. Spin-off or daughter precincts shall be indicated by theArabic numeral and letter of the English alphabet starting with letter B and so on.

No territory comprising an election precinct shall be altered or a new precinct be established at the start ofthe election period.

Splitting of an original precinct or merger of two or more original precincts shall not be allowed withoutredrawing the precinct map/s one hundred twenty (120) days before election day.

Section 6.Arrangement of Precincts. Every barangay shall have at least one (1) precinct. Each precinct,shall have no more than two hundred (200) voters and shall comprise contiguous and compact territories.

a) A precinct shall be allowed to have less than 200 registered voters under the followingconditions:

1) As soon as the 200-limit for every precinct has been reached, a spin-off or daughter

precinct shall be created automatically by the Commission to accommodate voters residingwithin the territorial jurisdiction of the original precinct. Thereafter, a separate list of newvoters shall be prepared by the Election Officer; and

2) An island or group of islands with less than two hundred (200) voters may comprise one(1) original precinct.

b) Every case of alteration of precincts shall be duly announced by posting a notice thereof in aconspicuous place in the precinct, in the office of the election officer and in the city or municipalhall and by providing political parties and candidates a list of all the precincts at the start of thecampaign period; and

c) Consolidation or merger of at most three (3) precincts may be allowed: Provided, That thecomputerized counting shall be implemented: Provided, further, That the merger of such precinctsshall be effected ninety (90) days before election day.


3/57

Section 7.General Registration of Voters. Immediately after the barangay elections in 1997, the existingcertified list of voters shall cease to be effective and operative. For purposed of the May 1998 electionsand all elections, plebiscites, referenda, initiatives, and recalls subsequent thereto, the Commission shallundertake a general registration of voters before the Board of Election Inspectors on June 14, 15, 21, and22 and, subject to the discretion of the Commission, on June 28 and 29, 1997 in accordance with this Act.

Section 8.System of Continuing Registration of Voters. The personal filing of application of registration ofvoters shall be conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer during regular office hours. Noregistration 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.

Section 9.Who may Register. All citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law who are atleast eighteen (18) years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year, andin the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six (6) months immediately preceding the election,may register as a voter.

Any person who temporarily resides in another city, municipality or country solely by reason of hisoccupation, profession, employment in private or public service, educational activities, work in the militaryor naval reservations within the Philippines, service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the NationalPolice Forces, or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law, shall not bedeemed to have lost his original residence.

Any person, who, on the day of registration may not have reached the required age or period of residencebut, who, on the day of the election shall possess such qualifications, may register as a voter.

Section 10.Registration of Voters. A qualified voter shall be registered in the permanent list of voters in aprecinct of the city or municipality wherein he resides to be able to vote in any election. To register as avoter, he shall personally accomplish an application form for registration as prescribed by the Commissionin three (3) copies before the Election Officer on any date during office hours after having acquired thequalifications of a voter.

The application shall contain the following data:

a) Name, surname, middle name, and/or maternal surname;

b) Sex;

c) Date, and place of birth;

d) Citizenship;

e) Civil status, if married, name of spouse;

f) Profession, occupation or work;

g) Periods of residence in the Philippines and in the place of registration;

h) Exact address with the name of the street and house number for location in the precinct mapsmaintained by the local office of the Commission, or in case there is none, a brief description of hisresidence, sitio, and barangay;

i) A statement that the applicant possesses all the qualifications of a voter;

j) A statement that the applicant is not a registered voter of any precinct; and

k) Such information or data as may be required by the Commission.

The application for registration shall contain three (3) specimen signatures of the applicant, clear andlegible rolled prints of his left and right thumbprints, with four (4) identification size copies of his latestphotograph, attached thereto, to be taken at the expense of the Commission.


4/57

Before the applicant accomplishes his application for registration, the Election Officer shall inform him ofthe qualifications and disqualifications prescribed by law for a voter, and thereafter, see to it that theaccomplished application contains all the data therein required and that the applicants specimensignatures, fingerprints, and photographs are properly affixed in all copies of the voters application.

Section 11.Disqualification. The following shall be disqualified from registering:

a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment of not less thanone (1) year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty: Provided,however, That any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall automatically reacquirethe right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence;

b) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by a competent court or tribunal of havingcommitted any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such as rebellion,sedition, violation of the firearms laws or any crime against national security, unless restored to hisfull civil and political rights in accordance with law: Provided, That he shall automatically reacquirethe right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; and

c) Insane or incompetent persons declared as such by competent authority unless subsequentlydeclared by proper authority that such person is no longer insane or incompetent.

Section 12.Change of Residence to Another City or Municipality. Any registered voter who has transferredresidence to another city or municipality may apply with the Election Officer of his new residence for thetransfer of his registration records.

The application for transfer of registration shall be subject to the requirements of notice and hearing andthe approval of the Election Registration Board, in accordance with this Act. Upon approval of theapplication for transfer, and after notice of such approval to the Election Officer of the former residence ofthe voter, said Election Officer shall transmit by registered mail the voters registration record to theElection Officer of the voters new residence.

Section 13.Change of Address in the Same City or Municipality. Any voter who has changed his address inthe same city or municipality shall immediately notify the Election Officer in writing. If the change ofaddress involves a change in precinct, the Board shall transfer his registration record to the precinct bookof voters of his new precinct and notify the voter of his new precinct All changes of address shall bereported to the office of the provincial election supervisor and the Commission in Manila.

Section 14.Illiterate or Disabled Applicants. Any illiterate person may register with the assistance of theElection Officer or any member of an accredited citizens arms. The Election Officer shall place suchilliterate person under oath, ask him the questions, and record the answers given in order to accomplishthe application form in the presence of the majority of the members of the Board. The Election Officer orany member of an accredited citizens arm shall read the accomplished form aloud to the person assistedand ask him if the information given is true and correct The accomplished form shall be subscribed by theapplicant in the presence of the Board by means of thumbmark or some other customary mark and it shallbe subscribed and attested by the majority of the members of the Board.

The attestation shall state the name of the person assisted, the name of the Election Officer or themember of the accredited citizens arm who assisted the applicant, the fact that the Election Officer placedthe applicant under oath, that the Election Officer or the member of the accredited citizens arm whoassisted the applicant read the accomplished form to the person assisted, and that the person assistedaffirmed its truth and accuracy, by placing his thumbmark or some other customary mark on theapplication in the presence of the Board.

The application for registration of a physically disabled person may be prepared by any relative within thefourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity or by the Election Officer or any member of an accreditedcitizens arm using the data supplied by the applicant. The fact of illiteracy or disability shall be so indicatedin the application.

Section 15.Election Registration Board.There shall be in each city and municipality as many as ElectionRegistration Boards as there are election officers therein. In thickly populated cities/municipalities, theCommission may appoint additional election officers for such duration as may be necessary.


5/57

The Board shall be composed of the Election Officer as chairman and as members, the public school officialmost senior in rank and the local civil registrar, or in this absence, the city or municipal treasurer.

In case of disqualification of the Election Officer, the Commission shall designate an acting Election Officerwho shall serve as Chairman of the Election Registration Board. In case of disqualification ornon-availability of the Local Registrar or the Municipal Treasurer, the Commission shall designate any otherappointive civil service official from the same locality as substitute.

No member of the Board shall be related to each other or to any incumbent city or municipal electiveofficial within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. If in succeeding elections, any of thenewly elected city or municipal officials is related to a member of the board within the fourth civil degreeof consanguinity or affinity, such member is automatically disqualified to preserve the integrity of theElection Registration Board.

Every registered party and such organizations as may be authorized by the Commission shall be entitled toa watcher in every registration board.

Section 16.Compensation of the Members of the Board. Each member of the Board shall be entitled to anhonorarium to Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) for each day of actual service rendered in the Board, whichamount the Commission may adjust every three (3) years thereafter. No member of the Board shall beentitled to travelling expenses.

Section 17.Notice and Hearing of Applications. Upon receipt of applications for registration, the ElectionOfficer shall set them for hearing, notice of which shall be posted in the city or municipal bulletin boardand in his office for at least one (1) week before the hearing, and furnish copies thereof to the applicantconcerned, the heads or representatives of political parties, and other accredited groups or organizationswhich actively participate in the electoral process in the city or municipality. On the date of the hearing,the Election Officer shall receive such evidence for or against the applicant.

A registrant whose application is not seasonably objected to shall be notified in writing stating therein thatno objection was raised against his application and that he need not appear on the date set for the hearingof his application. Physical presence of the applicant concerned shall, however, be mandatory in all caseswhere objections against his application have been seasonably filed with the proper Election RegistrationBoard for him to rebut or refute evidence presented in opposition thereto.

All applications for registration shall be heard and processed on a quarterly basis. For this purpose, theElection Registration Board shall meet and convene on the third Monday of April, July, October, andJanuary of every calendar year, or on the next following working day if the designated days fail on anon-working holiday, except in an election year to conform with the one hundred twenty (120) daysprohibitive period before election day. Should one day be sufficient for the processing of all acceptedapplications, the Board shall adjourn from day to day until all the applications shall have been processed.

Section 18.Challenges to Right to Register. Any voter, candidate or representative of a registered politicalparty may challenge in writing any application for registration, stating the grounds therefor. The challengeshall be under oath and be attached to the application, together with the proof of notice of hearing to the

challenger and the applicant.

Oppositions to contest a registrants application for inclusion in the voters list must, in all cases, be filednot later than the second Monday of the month in which the same is scheduled to be heard or processedby the Election Registration Board. Should the second Monday of the month fall on a non-working holiday,oppositions may be filed on the next following working day. The hearing on the challenge shall be heard onthe third Monday of the month and the decision shall be rendered before the end of the month.

Section 19.Power to Administer Oath and Issue Summons. For purposes of determining the right of theapplicants to be registered as a voter, the Election Officer shall have the power to administer oath, issuesubpoena duces tecum and swear in witnesses. The fees and expenses incidental thereto shall be paid inadvance by the party in whose behalf the summons is issued.

Section 20.Approval and Disapproval of Application. The Election Officer shall submit to the Board allapplications for registration filed, together with the evidence received in connection therewith. The Boardshall, by majority vote, approve or disapprove the applications.


6/57

Upon approval, the Election Officer shall assign a voters identification number and issue the correspondingidentification card to the registered voter. If the Board disapproves the application, the applicant shall befurnished with a certificate of disapproval stating the ground therefor. In cases of approval or disapproval,any aggrieved party may file a petition for exclusion or inclusion, as the case may be, with the properMunicipal or Metropolitan Trial Court as provided for in this Act.

Section 21.Publication of Action on Application for Registration. Within five (5) days from approval ordisapproval of application, the Board shall post a notice in the bulletin board of the city or municipal halland in the office of the Election Officer, stating the name and address of the applicant, the date of the

application, and the action taken thereon. The Election Officer shall furnish a copy of such noticepersonally, or by registered mail or special delivery to the applicant and heads or representatives ofregistered political parties in the city or municipality.

Section 22.Preservation of Voters Registration Records. The Election Officer shall compile the originalcopies of the approved applications for registration per precinct and arrange the same alphabeticallyaccording to surname. He shall preserve the book of voters and ensure its integrity. The second and thirdcopies of the registration records shall be sent to the provincial and national central files within three (3)days after the approval of the Board.

Section 23.Provincial File. There shall be a provincial file consisting of the duplicate copies of allregistration records in each precinct of every city and municipality in the province. It shall be in the custody

of the Provincial Election Supervisor and shall be compiled and arranged by precinct, by municipality andalphabetically by surnames of voters.

Should the book of voters in the custody of the Election Officer be lost or destroyed at a time so close toelection day that there is no time to reconstitute the same, the corresponding book of voters in theprovincial file shall be used during the voting.

Section 24.National Central File.There shall be a national central file under the custody of the Commissionin Manila consisting of the third copies of all approved voter registration records in each city ormunicipality. It shall be compiled by precinct in each city/municipality and arranged alphabetically bysurname so as to make the file a replica of the book of voters in the possession of the Election Officer.Thereafter a national list shall be prepared following the alphabetical arrangements of surnames of voters.

There shall be a national file consisting of the computerized voters list (CVL), both in print and in diskette,submitted by the Election Officers in each city and municipality concerned, under the custody of theCommission in Manila.

The computerized voters list shall make use of a single and uniform computer program that will have adetailed sorting capability to list voters alphabetically by the precincts where they vote, by the barangays,municipalities, cities or provinces where they reside and by their voters identification number (VIN).

Section 25.Voters Identification Card. The voters identification card issued to the registered voter shallserve as a document for his identification. In case of loss or destruction, no copy thereof may be issuedexcept to the registered voter himself and only upon the authority of the Commission.

The Commission shall adopt a design for the voters identification card which shall be, as much as possible,tamper proof. It shall provide the following: the name and address of the voter, his date of birth, sex,photograph, thumbmark, and the number of precinct where he is registered, the signature of the voter andthe chairman of the Election Registration Board and the voters identification number (VIN).

Section 26.Voters Identification Number (VIN). The Commission shall assign every registered voter avoters identification number (V1N) consisting of three parts, each separated by a dash. For example: 7501-00191 -C145BCD.

a) Part 1: Current Address of the Voter

1) the first two digits 75 stand for the province; and

2) The last two digits, 01, stand for the city, municipality, or a district, particularly in Manila.


7/57

The code assignment for provinces, cities and municipalities shall follow the Urban Codedevised by the National Census and Statistics Office (NCSO).

b) Part II: Current Precinct Assignment of the Voter

1) The first four digits, 0019, stand for the permanent number of the precinct where thevoter is currently assigned: and

2) The letter indicates whether it is a mother or a daughter precinct.

The number assigned to the precinct in every city or municipality shall be permanent butthe voter may transfer his precinct number. The VIN reflects the current precinctassignment of the voter.

c) Part III: Permanent Birth and Name Code Unique to the Voter

1) The letter, C, stands for the month, i.e., A for January, B for February, and so forth;

2) The next two digits, 14, stand for the date of birth;

3) The next two digits, 51, stand for the year of birth; and

4) The last three letters, BCD, stand for the name code, i.e., Bayani Cruz Davide.

The last three letters shall stand for the first letter of the first name, the middle name, andthe last name in that order.

The Commission shall ensure that Part III hereof of the voters identification number (VIN)shall be permanent and unique to each voter. If necessary, the Commission may expand andmodify the same.

d) The combined birth and name code is assigned during the lifetime of every voter. Upon transferof the voter to another precinct, the first two parts of the VIN shall change.

Section 27.Deactivation of Registration. The board shall deactivate the registration and remove theregistration records of the following persons from the corresponding precinct book of voters and place thesame, properly marked and dated in indelible ink, in the inactive file after entering the cause or causes ofdeactivation:

a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less thanone (1) year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty: Provided,however, That any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall automatically reacquirethe right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence as certified by the clerksof courts of the Municipal/Municipal Circuit/Metropolitan/Regional Trial Courts and the

Sandiganbayan;

b) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by a competent court or tribunal of havingcaused/committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such asrebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and firearms laws, or any crime againstnational security, unless restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance with law;Provided, That he shall regain his right to vote automatically upon expiration of five (5) years afterservice of sentence;

c) Any person declared by competent authority to be insane or incompetent unless suchdisqualification has been subsequently removed by a declaration of a proper authority that suchperson is no longer insane or incompetent;

d) Any person who did not vote in the two (2) successive preceding regular elections as shown bytheir voting records. For this purpose, regular elections do not include the Sangguniang Kabataan(SK) elections;


8/57

e) Any person whose registration has been ordered excluded by the Court; and

f) Any person who has lost his Filipino citizenship.

For this purpose, the clerks of court for the Municipal/Municipal Circuit/Metropolitan/RegionalTrial Courts and the Sandiganbayan shall furnish the Election Officer of the city or municipalityconcerned at the end of each month a certified list of persons who are disqualified under paragraph(a) hereof, with their addresses. The Commission may request a certified list of persons who havelost their Filipino Citizenship or declared as insane or incompetent with their addresses from othergovernment agencies.

The Election Officer shall post in the bulletin board of his office a certified list of those personswhose registration were deactivated and the reasons therefor, and furnish copies thereof to thelocal heads of political parties, the national central file, provincial file, and the voter concerned.

Section 28.Reactivation of Registration. Any voter whose registration has been deactivated pursuant tothe preceding Section may file with the Election Officer a sworn application for reactivation of hisregistration in the form of an affidavit stating that the grounds for the deactivation no longer exist any timebut not later than one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before aspecial election.

The Election Officer shall submit said application to the Election Registration Board for appropriate action.

In case the application is approved, the Election Officer shall retrieve the registration record from theinactive file and include the same in the corresponding precinct book of voters. Local heads orrepresentatives of political parties shall be properly notified on approved applications.

Section 29.Cancellation of Registration. The Board shall cancel the registration records of those who havedied as certified by the Local Civil Registrar. The Local Civil Registrar shall submit each month a certified listof persons who died during the previous month to the Election Officer of the place where the deceased areregistered. In the absence of information concerning the place where the deceased is registered, the listshall be sent to the Election Officer of the city or municipality of the deceaseds residence as appearing inhis death certificate. In any case, the Local Civil Registrar shall furnish a copy of this list to the nationalcentral file and the proper provincial file.

The Election Officer shall post in the bulletin board of his office a list of those persons who died whoseregistrations were cancelled, and furnish copies thereof to the local heads of the political parties, thenational central file, and the provincial file.

Section 30.Preparation and Posting of the Certified List of Voters. The Board shall prepare and postcertified list of voters ninety (90) days before a regular election and sixty (60) days before a special electionand furnish copies thereof to the provincial, regional and national central files. Copies of the certified list,along with a certified list of deactivated voters categorized by precinct per barangay, within the sameperiod shall likewise be posted in the office of the Election Officer and in the bulletin board of eachcity/municipal hall. Upon payment of the fees as fixed by the Commission, the candidates and heads ofregistered political parties shall also be furnished copies thereof.

The Board shall also furnish two (2) certified copies for said certified list of voters, along with a certified listof deactivated voters to the Board of Election Inspectors for posting in the polling place and for theirreference on election day.

Section 31.Sealing of Precinct Book of Voters. The Board shall notify within fifteen (15) days before thestart of the campaign period of all registered political parties and members of the Board of ElectionInspectors to inspect and verify the completeness of the voters registration records for each precinctcompiled in the book of voters.

After verification and certification by the Board of Election Inspectors and party representatives as to thecompleteness of the voters registration records in the precinct book of voters, the Board shall seal thebook of voters in the presence of the former at the start of the campaign period and take custody of thesame until their distribution to the Board of Election Inspectors on election day. The Election Officer shalldeliver the sealed precinct book of voters to the chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors when thelatter secures its official ballots and other paraphernalia for election day.


9/57

Section 32.Common Rules Governing Judicial, Proceedings in the Matter of Inclusion, Exclusion, andCorrection of Names of Voters.

a) Petition for inclusion, exclusion or correction of names of voters shall be filed during office hours;

b) Notice of the place, date and time of the hearing of the petition shall be served upon themembers of the Board and the challenged voter upon filing of the petition. Service of such noticemay be made by sending a copy thereof by personal delivery, by leaving it in the possession of aperson of sufficient discretion in the residence of the challenged voter, or by registered mail.Should the foregoing procedures not be practicable, the notice shall be posted in the bulletin boardof the city or municipal hall and in two (2) other conspicuous places within the city or municipality;

c) A petition shall refer only to one (1) precinct and implead the Board as respondents;

d) No costs shall be assessed against any party in these proceedings. However, if the court shouldfind that the application has been filed solely to harass the adverse party and cause him to incurexpenses, it shall order the culpable party to pay the costs and incidental expenses;

e) Any voter, candidate or political party who may be affected by the proceedings may interveneand present his evidence;

f) The decision shall be based on the evidence presented and in no case rendered upon astipulation of facts. If the question is whether or not the voter is real or fictitious, hisnon-appearance on the day set for hearing shall be prima facie evidence that the challenged voteris fictitious; and

g) The petition shall be heard and decided within ten (10) days from the date of its filing. Casesappealed to the Regional Trial Court shall be decided within ten (10) days from receipt of theappeal. In all cases, the court shall decide these petitions not later than fifteen (15) days before theelection and the decision shall become final and executory.

Section 33.Jurisdiction in Inclusion and Exclusion Case. The Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts shall

have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters in their respectivecities or municipalities. Decisions of the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts may be appealed by theaggrieved party to the Regional Trial Court within five (5) days from receipt of notice thereof. Otherwise,said decision shall become final and executory. The regional trial court shall decide the appeal within ten(10) days from the time it is received and the decision shall immediately become final and executory. Nomotion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

Section 34.Petition for Inclusion of Voters in the List. Any person whose application for registration hasbeen disapproved by the Board or whose name has been stricken out from the list may file with the court apetition to include his name in the permanent list of voters in his precinct at any time except one hundredfive (105) days prior to a regular election or seventy-five (75) days prior to a special election. It shall besupported by a certificate of disapproval of his application and proof of service of notice of his petitionupon the Board. The petition shall be decided within fifteen (15) days after its filing.

If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the permanent list of voters, the Board shall place theapplication for registration previously disapproved in the corresponding book of voters and indicate in theapplication for registration the date of the order of inclusion and the court which issued the same.

Section 35.Petition for Exclusion of Voters from the List. Any registered voters, representative of a politicalparty or the Election Officer, may file with the court a sworn petition for the exclusion of a voter from thepermanent list of voters giving the name, address and the precinct of the challenged voter at any timeexcept one hundred (100) days prior to a regular election or sixty-five (65) days before a special election.The petition shall be accompanied by proof of notice to the Board and to the challenged voter and shall bedecided within ten (10) days from its filing.

If the decision is for the exclusion of the voter from the list, the Board shall, upon receipt of the finaldecision, remove the voters registration record from the corresponding book of voters, enter the order ofexclusion therein, and thereafter place the record in the inactive file.


10/57

Section 36.Verification of Registered Voters. The Election officer shall, in order to preserve the integrity ofthe permanent list of voters, file exclusion proceedings when necessary, and verify the list of the registeredvoters of any precinct by regular mail or house to house canvass.

The Commission may enlist the help of representatives of political parties and deputize non-governmentorganizations (NGOs), civic organizations and barangay officials to assist in the verification and house tohouse canvass of registered voters in every precinct.

Section 37.Voter Excluded Through Inadvertence or Registered with an Erroneous or Misspelled name. -Any registered voter who has not been included in the precinct certified list of voters or who has beenincluded therein with a wrong or misspelled name may file with the Board an application for reinstatementor correction of name. If it is denied or not acted upon, he may file on any date with the proper MunicipalCircuit, Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court a petition for an order directing that his name be entered orcorrected in the list. He shall attach to the petition a certified copy of his registration record oridentification card or the entry of his name in the certified list of voters used in the preceding election,together with the proof that his application was denied or not acted upon by the Board and that he hasserved notice to the Board.

Section 38.Voters Excluded through Inadvertence or Registered with an Erroneous or Mispelled Name. -Any registered voter whose registration record has not been included in the precinct book of voters, orwhose name has been omitted in the list of voters or who has been included therein with a wrong or

mispelled name may file with the Board an application for inclusion of his record, or reinstatement orcorrection of his name as the case may be. If it is denied or not acted upon, the voter may file on any datewith the proper Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court a petition for an order directing that the votersname be entered or corrected in the list. The voters shall attach to the petition a certified true copy of hisregistration record or identification card or the entry of his name in the list of voters used in the precedingelection, together with proof that his application was denied or not acted upon by the Board and that hehas served notice thereof to the Board.

Section 39.Annulment at Book of Voters. The Commission shall, upon verified petition of any voter orelection officer or duly registered political party, and after notice and hearing, annul any book of votersthat is not prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act or was prepared through fraud, bribery,forgery, impersonation, intimidation, force or any similar irregularity, or which contains data that are

statistically improbable. No order, ruling or decision annulling a book of voters shall be executed withinninety (90) days before an election.

Section 40.Reconstitution of Lost or Destroyed Registration Records. The Commission shall reconstitute allregistration records which have been lost or destroyed by using the corresponding copies of the provincialor national central files. In case of conflict the Commission shall determine which file shall be used forreconstitution purposes. If this is not feasible, the Commission shall conduct a general registration ofvoters in the affected area: Provided, That there is a scheduled election before the next scheduled generalregistration of voters in accordance with the Omnibus Election Code. All such voters shall retain theirvoters identification number. Reconstituted forms shall be clearly marked with the word "reconstituted."

It shall be the duty of the Election Officer to immediately report to the Commission any case of loss or

destruction of registration record in his custody.

The reconstitution of any lost or destroyed registration records shall not affect the criminal liability of anyperson who is responsible for such loss or destruction.

Section 41.Examination of Registration Records. All registration records/computerized voters list in thepossession of the Election officer, the Provincial Election Supervisor, and the Commission in Manila shall,during regular office hours, be open to examination by the public for legitimate inquiries on electionrelated matters, free from any charge or access fee.

Law enforcement agencies may, upon prior authorization and subject to regulations promulgated by theCommission, have access to said registration records should the same be necessary to and in aid of their

investigative functions and duties.

Section 42.Right to Information. - The duly authorized representative of a registered political party or of abonafide candidate shall have the right to inspect and/or copy at their expense the accountableregistration forms and/or the list of registered voters in the precincts constituting the constituency of the


11/57

bonafide candidate or at which the political party is fielding candidates. The inspection and copying shallbe conducted during business hours of the Commission and shall be subject to reasonable regulations.

Section 43.Computerization at Permanent List of Voters. - A permanent and computerized list arranged byprecinct, city or municipality, province and region shall be prepared by the Commission. Thereafter,another list shall be prepared consisting of the names of the voters, arranged alphabetically according tosurnames.

The computer print-outs of the list of voters duly certified by the Board are official documents and shall beused for voting and other election related purposes as well as for legitimate research needs.

The total number of voters in the permanent list shall be the basis for the printing of the official ballots bythe Commission.

Section 44.Reassignment of Election Officers. No Election Officer shall hold office in a particular city ormunicipality for more than four (4) years. Any election officer who, either at the time of the approval ofthis Act or subsequent thereto, has served for at least four (4) years in a particular city or municipality shallautomatically be reassigned by the Commission to a new station outside the original congressional district.

Section 45.Election Offenses. - The following shall be considered election offenses under this Act:

a) to deliver, hand over, entrust or give, directly or indirectly, his voters identification card toanother in consideration of money or other benefit of promise; or take or accept such votersidentification card, directly or indirectly, by giving or causing the giving or money or other benefit ormaking or causing the making of a promise therefore;

b) to fail, without cause, to post or give any of the notices or to make any of the reports re-acquiredunder this Act;

c) to issue or cause the issuance of a voters identification number or to cancel or cause thecancellation thereof in violation of the provisions of this Act; or to refuse the issuance of registeredvoters their voters identification card;

d) to accept an appointment, to assume office and to actually serve as a member of the ElectionRegistration Board although ineligible thereto, to appoint such ineligible person knowing him to beineligible;

e) to interfere with, impede, abscond for purpose of gain or to prevent the installation or use ofcomputers and devices and the processing, storage, generation, and transmission of registrationdata or information;

f) to gain, cause access to use, alter, destroy, or disclose any computer data, program, systemsoftware, network, or any computer-related devices, facilities, hardware or equipment, whetherclassified or declassified;

g) failure to provide certified voters and deactivated voters list to candidates and heads ofrepresentatives of political parties upon written request as provided in Section 30 hereof;

h) failure to include the approved application form for registration of a qualified voter in the bookof voters of a particular precinct or the omission of the name of a duly registered voter in thecertified list of voters of the precinct where he is duly, registered resulting in his failure to cast hisvote during an election, plebiscite, referendum, initiative and/or recall. The presence of the form orname in the book of voters or certified list of voters in precincts other than where he is dulyregistered shall not be an excuse hereof;

i) the posting of a list of voters outside or at the door of a precinct on the day of an election,

plebiscite, referendum, initiative and/or recall, and which list is different in contents from thecertified list of voters being used by the Board of Election Inspectors; and

j) Violation of the provisions of this Act.


12/57

Section 46.Penalties. Any person found guilty of any Election offense under this Act shall be punished withimprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not more than six (6) years and shall not be subject toprobation. In addition, the guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office anddeprivation of the right of suffrage. If he is a foreigner, he shall be deported after the prison term has beenserved. Any political party found guilty shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than One hundredthousand pesos (P100,000) but not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000).

Section 47.Funding. The amount of Two billion pesos (2,000,000,000) is hereby included in the GeneralAppropriations Act for the fiscal year 1997 to defray the expenses for the registration activities.

Section 48.Multi-partisan Monitoring and Evaluation Committee. A Monitoring and Evaluation Committeeis hereby created composed of seven (7) members to be based on party representation of the seven (7)major political parties that fielded presidential candidates in the 1992 synchronized elections. TheCommittee is an ad hoc body attached to the Commission but not subject to its supervision and control.

The task of the Committee is to monitor and evaluate the system, procedures or guidelines prepared bythe Commission for the conduct of the general registration and the continuing system of registration inaccordance with this Act.

The Committee shall prepare two reports outlining the findings and recommendations for immediateaction or institution of corrective measures by the Commission and/or Congress. The first report shall besubmitted to the Commission and Congress three (3) months before the holding of the general registration.The second report shall be due at the end of the year on the initial implementation of the system ofcontinuing registration.

The amount not less than Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000) but not more than One hundred million pesos(P100,000,000) is hereby allocated from the Two billion pesos (P2,000,000,000) allocation provided in thepreceding section for the operations of the Committee. This amount shall be held in trust by theCommission subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures.

Section 49.Rules and Regulations. - The Commission shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulationsto implement the provisions of this Act not later than ninety (90) days before the first day of registration asprovided for in this Act.

Section 50.Separability Clause. - If any part of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, the other parts orprovisions hereof shall remain valid and effective.

Section 51.Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations inconsistent withthis Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 52.Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2)newspapers of general circulation.

Approved, June 11, 1996.


13/57

G.R. No. 105111 July 3, 1992

RAMON L. LABO, Jr., petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and ROBERTO ORTEGA, respondents.

G.R. No. 105384 July 3, 1992

ROBERTO C. ORTEGA, petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and RAMON L. LABO, Jr., respondents.

BIDIN,J.:

This is the second time1that this Court is called upon to rule on the citizenship of Ramon Labo, Jr., who,

believing that he is a Filipino citizen launched his candidacy for mayor of Baguio City in the last May 11,1992 elections by filing his certificate of candidacy on March 23, 1992.

Petitioner Roberto Ortega (GR No. 105384), on other hand, also filed his certificate of candidacy for thesame office on March 25, 1992.

Shortly after petitioner Labo filed his certificate of candidacy, petitioner Ortega filed on March 26, 1992, adisqualification proceeding against Labo before the Commission on Elections (Comelec), docketed as SPANo. 92-029, seeking to cancel Labo's certificate of candidacy on the ground that Labo made a falserepresentation when he stated therein that he (Labo) is a "natural-born" citizen of the Philippines.

Summons in the disqualification case was issued by the Comelec on March 27, 1992 to petitioner Labofollowed by a telegram dated April 1, 1992, requiring him to file his Answer within three (3) non-extendibledays but the latter failed to respond.

On April 15, 1992, Ortega filed a motion to declare Labo in default for failure to file his Answer.

On April 24, 1992, the Comelec issued another order directing the Election Registrar of Baguio City topersonally deliver the summons. On May 4, 1992, the disqualification case was set for reception ofevidence. At the said hearing, Ortega presented the decision of this Court in Labo v. Commission onElections (176 SCRA 1 [1989]) declaring Labo not a citizen of the Philippines. Labo, on the other hand,though represented by counsel, did not present any evidence. It was only on May 5, 1992 that petitionersubmitted his Answer claiming Filipino citizenship.

On May 9, 1992, respondent Comelec issued the assailed resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby resolves, to

grant the petition; respondent's (Labo's) certificate of candidacy is hereby DENIED duecourse and ordered CANCELLED; the City Election Registrar of Baguio City is hereby directedto delete the name of the respondent (Labo) from the list of candidates for City Mayor ofBaguio City. (Rollo, pp. 47-48; GR No. 105111)

On the same date, Labo filed a motion to stay implementation of said resolution until after he shall haveraised the matter before this Court.

On May 10, 1992, respondent Comelec issued an Order which reads:

Acting on the "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Clarification", filed by respondent (Labo) on May9, 1992,the Commission resolves that the decision promulgated on May 9, 1992 disqualifying

respondent Ramon L. Labo, Jr., shall become final and executory only after five (5) days frompromulgationpursuant to Rule 18, Section 13, Paragraph (b) of the Comelec Rules ofProcedure.


14/57

Accordingly, respondent (Labo) may still continue to be voted upon as candidate for CityMayor of Baguio City on May 11, 1992 subject to the final outcome of this case in the eventthe issue is elevated to the Supreme Court either on appeal or certiorari. (Rollo, p. 53; GR No.105111; emphasis supplied)

On May 13, 1992, respondent Comelec resolved, motu proprio to suspend the proclamation of Labo in theevent he wins in the elections for the City Mayor of Baguio. (Rollo, pp. 64-65; GR No. 105111)

On May 15, 1992, petitioner Labo filed the instant petition for review docketed as G.R. No. 105111 withprayer, among others, for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to set aside the May 9, 1992resolution of respondent Comelec; to render judgment declaring him as a Filipino citizen; and to directrespondent Comelec to proceed with his proclamation in the event he wins in the contested elections.

On the same date, or on May 15, 1992 petitioner Ortega filed before the Comelec an urgent motion for theimplementation of its May 9, 1992 resolution cancelling Labo's certificate of candidacy.

After an exchange of pleadings, respondent Comelec, in its resolution dated May 26, 1992, denied Ortega'smotion in view of the pending case (G.R. No. 105111) earlier filed by Labo of the same nature before thisCourt.

On June 1, 1992, Ortega filed a petition for mandamus docketed as G.R. No. 105384 praying for theimplementation of the Comelec's May 9, 1992 resolution.

Petitioner Ortega argues that respondent Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it refused toimplement its May 9, 1992 resolution notwithstanding the fact that said resolution disqualifying RamonLabo has already become final and executory.

After the parties have submitted their respective pleadings, the Court, on June 16, 1992, Resolved toconsider the case submitted for decision.

I. GR No. 105111

In essence, it is the contention of petitioner Labo that he is a Filipino citizen. Alleging lack of trial on themerits as well as the lack of opportunity to be heard in Labo v. Commission on Elections (supra), it is thesubmission of petitioner that he can prove his Filipino citizenship.

Petitioner cites the 1980 US case ofVance v. Terrazas (444 US 252), wherein it was held that in provingexpatriation, an expatriating act an intent to relinquish citizenship must be proved by a preponderance ofevidence.

Petitioner contends that no finding was made either by the Commission on Immigration or the Comelec asregards his specific intent to renounce his Philippine citizenship.

Petitioner also faults the Comelec for the supposed abbreviated proceedings in SPA No. 92-029 which

denied him adequate opportunity to present a full-dress presentation of his case. Thus: a) only one (1) daywas set for hearing of the case, i.e., May 4, 1992; b) two days later, May 6, 1992 the hearing was set; c)instead of holding a hearing, the Comelec issued the questioned resolution on May 9, 1992.

If only to refresh the mind of petitioner Labo, as well as that of his counsel, records disclose that summonswere issued by respondent Comelec as early as March 27, 1992 followed by a telegram on April 1, 1992.But petitioner chose to ignore the same. Came April 15, 1992, petitioner Ortega filed a motion to declarepetitioner Labo in default. Over-extending him (Labo) the benefit of due process, respondent Comelecissued another order dated April 24, 1992, this time directing the Acting City Election Registrar of Baguio topersonally serve the summons. The alleged delay in the resolution of SPA No. 92-029 can only beattributed to petitioner Labo and no one else. Thus, the respondent Comelec in its resolution dated May 9,1992 stated:

On May 4, 1992, the Acting Regional Election Registrar called this case for reception ofevidence. Surprisingly, while as of that date respondent had not yet filed his Answer, alawyer appeared for him.


15/57

The petitioner (Ortega) presented the certificate of candidacy of respondent Ramon L. Labo,Jr., which contained in item 9 thereof the verified statement that respondent is a"natural-born" Filipino citizen. To prove that respondent is not a Filipino citizen, petitionersubmitted the decision of the Supreme Court in "Ramon L. Labo, Jr., petitioner, v. Comelec,et al.," GR No. 86564, August 1, 1989, the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, petitioner Ramon J. (sic) Labo, Jr. is hereby declared NOT acitizen of the Philippines and therefore DISQUALIFIED from continuing toserve as Mayor of Baguio City. He is ordered to VACATE his office and

surrender the same to the Vice-Mayor of Baguio City once this decisionbecomes final and executory.

No evidence was adduced for the respondent as in fact he had no Answer as of the hearing.

On May 5, 1992, respondent (Labo) filed his verified Answer, insisting that he is a Filipinocitizen and continue to maintain and preserve his Filipino citizenship; that he does not holdan Australian citizenship; that the doctrine ofres judicata does not apply in citizenship; andthat "existing facts support his continuous maintenance and holding of Philippinecitizenship" and "supervening events now preclude the application of the ruling in the Labov. Comelec case and the respondent (Labo) now hold and enjoys Philippine citizenship.

No evidence has been offered by respondent to show what these existing facts andsupervening events are to preclude the application of the Labo decision. (emphasis supplied)

The Commission is bound by the final declaration that respondent is not a Filipino citizen.Consequently, respondent's verified statement in his certificate of candidacy that he is a"natural-born" Filipino citizen is a false material representation." (Rollo, pp. 45-48; GR No.105111)

Up to this moment, petitioner Labo still failed to submit a scintilla of proof to shore his claim before thisCourt that he has indeed reacquired his Philippine citizenship.

Instead, petitioner relies in the US case ofVance v. Terrazas (supra). Suffice it to state that petitioner hasalready pleaded Vance in his motion for reconsideration in Labo v. Comelec (supra; Rollo, p. 375). Havingbeen previously passed upon, the Court sees no pressing need to re-examine the same and make a lengthydissertation thereon.

At any rate, the fact remains that he has not submitted in the instant case any evidence, if there be any,to prove his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship either before this Court or the Comelec. On this scorealone, We find no grave abuse of discretion committed by respondent Comelec in cancelling his (Labo's)certificate of candidacy and declaring that he is NOT a Filipino citizen pursuant to our ruling in the 1989case ofLabo v. Comelec (supra).

Petitioner Labo claims, however, that Sec. 722of the Omnibus Election Code "operates as a legislatively

mandated special repatriation proceeding" and that it allows his proclamation as the winning candidatesince the resolution disqualifying him was not yet final at the time the election was held.

The Court finds petitioner Labo's strained argument quixotic and untenable. In the first place, Sec. 72 ofthe Omnibus Election Code has already been repealed by Sec. 6 of RA No. 6646, to wit:

Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. Any candidate who has been declared by finaljudgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not becounted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election tobe disqualifiedand he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election,the Court or the Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry,or protestand, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendencythereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidenceof his guilt is strong. (emphasis supplied)

A perusal of the above provision would readily disclose that the Comelec can legally suspend theproclamation of petitioner Labo, his reception of the winning number of votes notwithstanding ,


16/57

especially so where, as in this case. Labo failed to present any evidence before the Comelec to support hisclaim of reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.

Furthermore, we need only to reiterate what we have stated in Labo v. Comelec (supra), viz.,:

Under CA No. 63, as amended by P.D. No. 725, Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by adirect act of Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation. It does not appear in the record,nor does the petitioner claim, that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by any of thesemethods. He does not point to any judicial decree of naturalization or to any statute directlyconferring Philippine citizenship upon him. . . .

Petitioner Labo's status has not changed in the case at bar. To reiterate, he (Labo) was disqualified as acandidate for being an alien. His election does not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship, thepossession of which is an indispensable requirement for holding public office (Sec. 39, Local GovernmentCode).

Still, petitioner takes pains in raising a new argument not litigated before the respondent Comelec.Petitioner claims that he has reacquired his Filipino citizenship by citing his application for reacquisition ofPhilippine citizenship filed before the Office of the Solicitor General pursuant to PD 725 and Letter ofInstruction No. 270

3(Rollo, pp. 116-119; G.R. No. 105111).

To date, however, and despite favorable recommendation by the Solicitor General, the Special Committeeon Naturalization had yet acted upon said application for repatriation. Indeed, such fact is even admittedpetitioner. In the absence of any official action or approval by the proper authorities, a mere applicationfor repratriation, does not, and cannot, amount to an automatic reacquisition of the applicant's Philippinecitizenship.

II. GR No. 105384

Petitioner Ortega submits that since this Court did not issue a temporary restraining order as regards theMay 9, 1992 resolution of respondent Comelec cancelling Labo's certificate of candidacy, said resolutionhas already become final and executory. Ortega further posits the view that as a result of such finality, thecandidate receiving the next highest number of votes should be declared Mayor of Baguio City.

We agree with Ortega's first proposition.

At the time petitioner Labo filed his petition (GR No. 105111) on May 15, 1992, the May 9, 1992 resolutionof respondent Comelec cancelling his (Labo's) certificate of candidacy had already become final andexecutory a day earlier, or on May 14, 1992, said resolution having been received by petitioner Labo on thesame day it was promulgated, i.e., May 9, 1992 and in the interim no restraining order was issued by thisCourt.

Thus, Sec. 78 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy

xxx xxx xxx

(e) The decision, order, or ruling of the Commission shall, after five (5) days from receiptof acopy thereof by the parties, be final and executory unless stayed by the Supreme Court.(emphasis supplied)

A similar provision is also found in Sec. 3, Rule 39 of the Comelec Rules of procedure, to wit:

Sec. 3. Decisions final after five days. Decisions inpre-proclamation cases and petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates of

candidacy, to declare a candidate as nuisance candidate or to disqualify a candidate, and topostpone or suspend elections shall become final and executory after the lapse of five (5)days from their promulgation, unless restrained by the Supreme Court. (emphasis supplied)


17/57

The resolution cancelling Labo's certificate of candidacy on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizenhaving acquired finality on May 14, 1992 constrains Us to rule against his proclamation as Mayor of BaguioCity.

To begin with, one of the qualifications of an elective official is that he must be a citizen of the Philippines.Thus, the Local Government Code provides:

Sec. 39. Qualifications. (a)An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; aregistered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province or, in the case of a memberof the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, sangguniang bayan, the districtwhere he intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediatelypreceding the day of the election; and able to read and write Filipino or any other locallanguage or dialect. (emphasis supplied)

Undoubtedly, petitioner Labo, not being a Filipino citizen, lacks the fundamental qualification for thecontested office. Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement for holding an elective office. Asmandated by law: "An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines."

The issue here is citizenship and/or Labo's alienage the very essence which strikes at the very core ofpetitioner Labo's qualification to assume the contested office, he being an alien and not a Filipino citizen. The fact that he was elected by the majority of the electorate is of no moment. As we have held in Frivaldov. Commission on Elections (174 SCRA 245 [1989]):

. . . The fact that he was elected by the people of Sorsogon does not excuse this patentviolation of the salutary rule limiting public office and employment only to the citizens ofthis country. The qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by theelectorate alone. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the viceof ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed, as in this case, that the candidate wasqualified. Obviously, this rule requires strict application when the deficiency is lack ofcitizenship. If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the Philippines, he must owe histotal loyalty to this country only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any otherstate.

This brings us to the second issue raised by petitioner Ortega, i.e., whether the disqualification ofpetitioner Labo entitles the candidate (Ortega) receiving the next highest number of votes to beproclaimed as the winning candidate for mayor of Baguio City.

We hold in the negative. The disqualification of petitioner Labo does not necessarily entitle petitionerOrtega as the candidate with the next highest number of votes to proclamation as the Mayor of BaguioCity.

We make mention of petitioner Ortega because in his petition, he alleges that:

. . . the May 11, 1992 elections were held with both herein petitioner (Roberto Ortega) andrespondent LABO having been voted for the position of Mayor and unofficial results indicatethat if the name of respondent LABO were deleted from the list of candidates, herein

petitioner (Ortega) will be entitled to be proclaimed as Mayor-elect of Baguio City. (Rollo, p.7, GR No. 105384; emphasis supplied)

and further prays this Court "to proclaim as the Mayor-elect of Baguio City the candidate who may havegarnered the most number of votes after the exclusion of the name of respondent candidate LABO."(Rollo, p. 15, Ibid.) Implicit, therefore, is petitioner Ortega's desire to be proclaimed Mayor-elect of BaguioCity.

As discussed hereunder, however, the Court finds Ortega's prayer devoid of merit.

While Ortega may have garnered the second highest number of votes for the office of city mayor, thefact remains that he was not the choice of the sovereign will. Petitioner Labo was overwhelmingly votedby the electorate for the office of mayor in the belief that he was then qualified to serve the people ofBaguio City and his subsequent disqualification does not make respondent Ortega the mayor-elect. This isthe import of the recent case ofAbella v. Comelec (201 SCRA 253 [1991]), wherein we held that:


18/57

While it is true that SPC No. 88-546 was originally a petition to deny due course to thecertificate of candidacy of Larrazabal and was filed before Larrazabal could be proclaimed,the fact remains that the local elections of Feb. 1, 1988 in the province of Leyte proceededwith Larrazabal considered as a bona fide candidate. The voters of the province voted for herin the sincere belief that she was a qualified candidate for the position of governor. Her voteswas counted and she obtained the highest number of votes. The net effect is that petitionerlost in the election. He was repudiated by the electorate. . . . What matters is that in theevent a candidate for an elected position who is voted for and who obtains the highestnumber of votes is disqualified for not possessing the eligibility requirements at the time of

the election as provided by law, the candidate who obtains the second highest number ofvotes for the same position cannot assume the vacated position. (emphasis supplied)

Our ruling inAbella applies squarely to the case at bar and we see no compelling reason to departtherefrom. Like Abella, petitioner Ortega lost in the election. He was repudiated by the electorate. He wasobviously not the choice of the people of Baguio City.

Thus, while respondent Ortega (GR No. 105111) originally filed a disqualification case with the Comelec(docketed as SPA-92-029) seeking to deny due course to petitioner's (Labo's) candidacy, the same did notdeter the people of Baguio City from voting for petitioner Labo, who, by then, was allowed by therespondent Comelec to be voted upon, the resolution for his disqualification having yet to attain thedegree of finality (Sec. 78. Omnibus Election Code).

And in the earlier case ofLabo v. Comelec (supra), We held:

Finally, there is the question of whether or not the private respondent, who filed the quowarrantopetition, can replace the petitioner as mayor. He cannot. The simple reason is thatas he obtained only the second highest number of votes in the election, he was obviouslynot the choice of the people of Baguio City.

The latest ruling of the Court in this issue is Santos v. Commission on Election, (137 SCRA740) decided in 1985. In that case, the candidate who placed second was proclaimedelected after the votes for his winning rival, who was disqualified as a turncoat andconsidered a non-candidate, were all disregarded as stray. In effect, the second placer won

by default. That decision was supported by eight members of the Court then(Cuevas,J., ponente, with Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Escolin, Relova, De la Fuente, Alampay,and AquinoJJ., concurring) with three dissenting (Teehankee, acting C.J., Abad Santos andMelencio-Herrera) and another two reserving their votes (Plana and Gutierrez, Jr.). One wason official leave (Fernando, C.J.)

Re-examining that decision, the Court finds, and so holds, that it should be reversed in favorof the earlier case of Geronimo v. Santos (136 SCRA 435), which represents the more logicaland democratic rule. That case, which reiterated the doctrine first announced in 1912 inTopacio vs. Paredes (23 Phil. 238) was supported by ten members of the Court (Gutierrez, Jr.,J., ponente,with Teehankee, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, De laFuente, Cuevas and Alampay,JJ., concurring), without any dissent, . . . . There the Court

held:

. . . it would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of theconstitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who has notacquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a winner andimposed as the representative of a constituency, the majority of which havepositively declared through their ballots that they did not choose him.

Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who havereceived the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office, andit is a fundamental idea in all republican forms of government that no onecan be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or

it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election. (20Corpus Juris 2nd, S 243, p. 676)

The fact that a candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is laterdeclared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was


19/57

elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the secondhighest number of votes to be declared the winner of the elective office. Thevotes cast for a dead, disqualified, or non-eligible person may be valid to votethe winner into office or maintain him there. However, in the absence of astatute which clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative policy on thematter, if the votes were cast in the sincere belief that that candidate wasalive, qualified, or eligible, they should not be treated as stray, void ormeaningless.

The rule, therefore, is: the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligiblecandidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. A minority or defeatedcandidate cannot be deemed elected to the office.

Indeed, this has been the rule in the United States since 1849 (State ex rel. Dunning v. Giles, 52 Am. Dec.149).

It is therefore incorrect to argue that since a candidate has been disqualified, the votes intended for thedisqualified candidate should, in effect, be considered null and void. This would amount to disenfranchisingthe electorate in whom sovereignty resides. At the risk of being repetitious, the people of Baguio Cityopted to elect petitioner Labo bona fide, without any intention to misapply their franchise, and in thehonest belief that Labo was then qualified to be the person to whom they would entrust the exercise of

the powers of the government. Unfortunately, petitioner Labo turned out to be disqualified and cannotassume the office.

Whether or not the candidate whom the majority voted for can or cannot be installed, under nocircumstances can a minority or defeated candidate be deemed elected to the office. Surely, the 12,602votes cast for petitioner Ortega is not a larger number than the 27,471 votes cast for petitioner Labo (ascertified by the Election Registrar of Baguio City; rollo, p. 109; GR No. 105111).

The rule would have been different if the electorate fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate'sdisqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety, would nonetheless cast theirvotes in favor of the ineligible candidate. In such case, the electorate may be said to have waived thevalidity and efficacy of their votes by notoriously misapplying their franchise or throwing away their votes,

in which case, the eligible candidate obtaining the next higher number of votes may be deemed elected.

But this is not the situation obtaining in the instant dispute. It has not been shown, and none was alleged,that petitioner Labo was notoriously known as an ineligible candidate, much less the electorate as havingknown of such fact. On the contrary, petitioner Labo was even allowed by no less than the Comelec itself inits resolution dated May 10, 1992 to be voted for the office of the city mayor as its resolution dated May 9,1992 denying due course to petitioner Labo's certificate of candidacy had not yet become final and subjectto the final outcome of this case.

As aforesaid, the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the candidatereceiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. Ortega failed to satisfy the necessaryrequisite of winning the election either by a majority or mere plurality of votes sufficient to elevate him in

public office as mayor of Baguio City. Having lost in the election for mayor, petitioner Ortega was obviouslynot the choice of the people of Baguio City.

As a consequence of petitioners' ineligibility, a permanent vacancy in the contested office has occurred.This should now be filled by the vice-mayor, in accordance with Sec. 44 of the Local Government Code, towit:

Chapter 2. Vacancies and Succession

Sec. 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the Governor, Vice-Governor, Mayor andVice-Mayor. (a) If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor, thevice-governor or the vice-mayor concerned shall becomethe governor or mayor. . . .

(emphasis supplied)

WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DISMISSED for lack of merit. Petitioners both being ineligible for theOffice of the City Mayor of Baguio City and in view of the vacancy created in said office, the vice-mayor


20/57

elect of said city in the May 11, 1992 elections is hereby declared Mayor of Baguio City after proclamationby the City Board of Canvassers. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,Nocon and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.


21/57

G.R. No. L-59068 January 27, 1983

JOSE MARI EULALIO C. LOZADA and ROMEO B. IGOT, petitioners,vs.THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

DE CASTRO,J.:

This is a petition for mandamus filed by Jose Mari Eulalio C. Lozada and Romeo B. Igot as a representativesuit for and in behalf of those who wish to participate in the election irrespective of party affiliation, tocompel the respondent COMELEC to call a special election to fill up existing vacancies numbering twelve(12) in the Interim Batasan Pambansa. The petition is based on Section 5(2), Article VIII of the 1973Constitution which reads:

(2) In case a vacancy arises in the Batasang Pambansa eighteen months or more before aregular election, the Commission on Election shall call a special election to be held withinsixty (60) days after the vacancy occurs to elect the Member to serve the unexpired term.

Petitioner Lozada claims that he is a taxpayer and a bona fide elector of Cebu City and a transient voter ofQuezon City, Metro Manila, who desires to run for the position in the Batasang Pambansa; while petitionerRomeo B. Igot alleges that, as a taxpayer, he has standing to petition by mandamus the calling of a specialelection as mandated by the 1973 Constitution. As reason for their petition, petitioners allege that they are"... deeply concerned about their duties as citizens and desirous to uphold the constitutional mandate andrule of law ...; that they have filed the instant petition on their own and in behalf of all other Filipinos sincethe subject matters are of profound and general interest. "

The respondent COMELEC, represented by counsel, opposes the petition alleging, substantially, that 1)petitioners lack standing to file the instant petition for they are not the proper parties to institute theaction; 2) this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition; and 3) Section 5(2), Article VIII of the 1973Constitution does not apply to the Interim Batasan Pambansa.

The petition must be dismissed.

I

As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant petition, for nowhere therein is it alleged that tax moneyis being illegally spent. The act complained of is the inaction of the COMELEC to call a special election, as isallegedly its ministerial duty under the constitutional provision above cited, and therefore, involves noexpenditure of public funds. It is only when an act complained of, which may include a legislativeenactment or statute, involves the illegal expenditure of public money that the so-called taxpayer suit maybe allowed.

1What the case at bar seeks is one that entails expenditure of public funds which may be

illegal because it would be spent for a purpose that of calling a special election which, as will be shown, has

no authority either in the Constitution or a statute.

As voters, neither have petitioners the requisite interest or personality to qualify them to maintain andprosecute the present petition. The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of astatute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain,direct injury as a result of its enforcement.

2In the case before Us, the alleged inaction of the COMELEC tocall a special election to fill-up the existing vacancies in the Batasan Pambansa, standing alone, wouldadversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens. Petitioners' standing to sue may not bepredicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here, which is held in common by all members of the publicbecause of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury supposedly shared by all citizens. Concrete injury,whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in aform traditionally capable of judicial resolution.

3When the asserted harm is a "generalized grievance"

shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does notwarrant exercise of jurisdiction. 4 As adverted to earlier, petitioners have not demonstrated anypermissible personal stake, for petitioner Lozada's interest as an alleged candidate and as a voter is notsufficient to confer standing. Petitioner Lozada does not only fail to inform the Court of the region hewants to be a candidate but makes indiscriminate demand that special election be called throughout the


22/57

country. Even his plea as a voter is predicated on an interest held in common by all members of the publicand does not demonstrate any injury specially directed to him in particular.

II

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the COMELEC is only to review by certiorari the latter's decision,orders or rulings. This is as clearly provided in Article XI IC Section 11 of the New Constitution which reads:

Any decision, order, or ruling of the Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court oncertiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from his receipt of a copy thereof.

There is in this case no decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC which is sought to be reviewed by thisCourt under its certiorari jurisdiction as provided for in the aforequoted provision which is the only knownprovision conferring jurisdiction or authority on the Supreme Court over the COMELEC. It is not allegedthat the COMELEC was asked by petitioners to perform its alleged duty under the Constitution to call aspecial election, and that COMELEC has issued an order or resolution denying such petition.

Even from the standpoint of an action for mandamus, with the total absence of a showing that COMELEChas unlawfully neglected the performance of a ministerial duty, or has refused on being demanded, todischarge such a duty; and as demonstrated above, it is not shown, nor can it ever be shown, that

petitioners have a clear right to the holding of a special election. which is equally the clear and ministerialduty of COMELEC to respect, mandamus will not lie. 5 The writ will not issue in doubtful cases. 6

It is obvious that the holding of special elections in several regional districts where vacancies exist, wouldentail huge expenditure of money. Only the Batasan Pambansa can make the necessary appropriation forthe purpose, and this power of the Batasan Pambansa may neither be subject to mandamus by the courtsmuch less may COMELEC compel the Batasan to exercise its power of appropriation. From the role BatasanPambansa has to play in the holding of special elections, which is to appropriate the funds for the expensesthereof, it would seem that the initiative on the matter must come from said body, not the COMELEC, evenwhen the vacancies would occur in the regular not interim Batasan Pambansa. The power to appropriate isthe sole and exclusive prerogative of the legislative body, the exercise of which may not be compelledthrough a petition for mandamus. What is more, the provision of Section 5(2), Article VIII of theConstitution was intended to apply to vacancies in the regular National Assembly, now Batasan Pambansa,not to the Interim Batasan Pambansa, as will presently be shown.

III

Perhaps the strongest reason why the aforecited provision of the Constitution is not intended to apply tothe Interim National Assembly as originally envisioned by the 1973 Constitution is the fact that as passedby the Constitutional Convention, the Interim National Assembly was to be composed by the delegates tothe Constitutional Convention, as well as the then incumbent President and Vice-President, and themembers of the Senate and House of Representatives of Congress under the 1935 Constitution. With suchnumber of representatives representing each congressional district, or a province, not to mention theSenators, there was felt absolutely no need for filing vacancies occurring in the Interim National Assembly,considering the uncertainty of the duration of its existence. What was in the mind of the Constitutional

Convention in providing for special elections to fill up vacancies is the regularNational Assembly, because aprovince or representative district would have only one representative in the said National Assembly.

Even as presently constituted where the representation in the Interim Batasan Pambansa is regional andsectoral, the need to fill up vacancies in the Body is neither imperative nor urgent. No district or provincewould ever be left without representation at all, as to necessitate the filling up of vacancies in the InterimBatasan Pambansa. There would always be adequate representation for every province which only formspart of a certain region, specially considering that the Body is only transitory in character.

The unmistakable intent of the Constitutional Convention as adverted to is even more positively revealedby the fact that the provision of Section 5(2) of Article VIII of the New Constitution is in the main body ofthe said Constitution, not in the transitory provisions in which all matters relating to the Interim Batasan

Pambansa are found. No provision outside of Article VIII on the "Transitory Provisions" has reference orrelevance to the Interim Batasan Pambansa.

Also under the original provision of the Constitution (Section 1, Article XVII-Transitory Provisions), theInterim National Assembly had only one single occasion on which to call for an election, and that is for the


23/57

election of members of the regular National Assembly. The Constitution could not have at that timecontemplated to fill up vacancies in the Interim National Assembly the composition of which, as alreadydemonstrated, would not raise any imperious necessity of having to call special elections for that purpose,because the duration of its existence was neither known or pre-determined. It could be for a period sobrief that the time prescriptions mentioned in Section 5(2), Article VIII of the Constitution cannot beapplicable.

The foregoing observations make it indubitably clear that the aforementioned provision for callingspecial elections to fill up vacancies apply only to the regular Batasan Pambansa . This is evident from thelanguage thereof which speaks of a vacancy in the Batasan Pambansa, " which means the regularBatasanPambansa as the same words "Batasan Pambansa" found in all the many other sections of Article VIII,undoubtedly refer to the regularBatasan, not the interim one. A word or phrase used in one part of aConstitution is to receive the same interpretation when used in every other part, unless it clearly appears,from the context or otherwise, that a different meaning should be applied.

7

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.


24/57

G.R. No. 180048 June 19, 2009

ROSELLER DE GUZMAN, Petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ANGELINA DG. DELA CRUZ, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.:

This petition1for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order assails

the June 15, 2007 Resolution2of the First Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in SPA No.

07-211, disqualifying petitioner Roseller De Guzman from running as vice-mayor in the May 14, 2007Synchronized National and Local Elections. Also assailed is the October 9, 2007 Resolution3of theCOMELEC En Banc denying petitioners motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner De Guzman and private respondent Angelina DG. Dela Cruz were candidates for vice-mayor ofGuimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 elections. On April 3, 2007, private respondent filed againstpetitioner a petition

4for disqualification docketed as SPA No. 07-211, alleging that petitioner is not a

citizen of the Philippines, but an immigrant and resident of the United States of America.

In his answer, petitioner admitted that he was a naturalized American. However, on January 25, 2006, heapplied for dual citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (R.A. No. 9225), otherwise known as theCitizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003.5Upon approval of his application, he took his oathof allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on September 6, 2006. He argued that, having re-acquiredPhilippine citizenship, he is entitled to exercise full civil and political rights. As such, he is qualified to runas vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija.

During the May 14, 2007 elections, private respondent won as vice-mayor. Petitioner filed an electionprotest on grounds of irregularities and massive cheating. The case was filed before Branch 31 of theRegional Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija and was docketed as Election Protest No. 07-01.

Meanwhile, in SPA No. 07-211, the COMELEC First Division rendered its June 15, 2007 Resolutiondisqualifying petitioner, which reads as follows:

Section 3 of R.A. No. 9225 states:

"Retention of Philippine Citizenship. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost theirPhilippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemedto have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic: x x x"

Hence, under the provisions of the aforementioned law, respondent has validly reacquired Filipinocitizenship. By taking this Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on September 6, 2006before Mary Jo Bernardo Aragon, Deputy Consul General at the Philippine Consulate General, Los Angeles,

California respondent was deemed a dual citizen, possessing both Filipino and American citizenship.

However, subparagraph (2), Section 5 of the aforementioned Act also provides:

Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities -- Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine Citizenshipunder this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities andresponsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:

x x x x

(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications

Election Parts IV and V

Documents

Transcript of Election Parts IV and V