Scribd
Upload
270 views2 pages

Case 8: Velasco VS COMELEC, GR No. 180051, December 24, 2008

Velasco applied for dual citizenship and registration as a voter but his application was denied. He filed to run for mayor. Another candidate filed a petition to cancel Velasco's candidacy claiming he was not a registered voter as the court had denied his petition for inclusion. COMELEC cancelled Velasco's candidacy. The issue was whether a decision in an inclusion proceeding bars future actions on voter registration. The court held that inclusion proceedings are summary in nature and a decision does not bar future actions concerning voter registration for different elections. A court ruling on the right to vote is binding only for that specific election.

Uploaded by

dhadhagladys
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
270 views2 pages

Case 8: Velasco VS COMELEC, GR No. 180051, December 24, 2008

Velasco applied for dual citizenship and registration as a voter but his application was denied. He filed to run for mayor. Another candidate filed a petition to cancel Velasco's candidacy claiming he was not a registered voter as the court had denied his petition for inclusion. COMELEC cancelled Velasco's candidacy. The issue was whether a decision in an inclusion proceeding bars future actions on voter registration. The court held that inclusion proceedings are summary in nature and a decision does not bar future actions concerning voter registration for different elections. A court ruling on the right to vote is binding only for that specific election.

Uploaded by

dhadhagladys
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ELEC Chapter 3

Case 8: Velasco VS COMELEC, GR No. 180051, December 24, 2008

Facts: Nardo Velasco - applied for dual citizenship under RA No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and
Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. His application was approved on July 31, 2006. On the same day, he took his
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. On October 13, 2006, Velasco applied for
registration as a voter of Sasmuan, Pampanga. Upon denial of the ERB, he filed a petition for the
inclusion of his name in the list of voters. He also filed his COC for the position of Mayor of Sasmuan

Mozart Palanqui – filed a petition to deny due course and/or To Cancel Velascos COC, claiming that:
Velasco is not a registered voter as his name is not included in the list of voters; RTC rendered a decision
denying Velasco’s petition for inclusion as voter; Velasco does not possess the constitutional
requirement of legal residency and; Velasco is not eligible to run for office since he is not a qualified
voter.

COMELEC- issued a Resolution anceling Velascos COC and declaring his proclamation as Mayor of
Sasmuan null and void.

Issue: WON a decision in an inclusion/exclusion proceeding operate as a bar to any future action
challenging one’s right to be registered as a voter?

Held:

Inclusion/Exclusion Proceedings - Inclusion/exclusion proceedings, while judicial in character, are


summary proceedings. A decision in an inclusion/exclusion proceeding does not operate as a bar to any
future action in any other election that a party may take concerning his right to be registered as a voter.
A ruling on the right to vote by the trial court for a specific election is binding on the COMELEC. By clear
implication, the COMELEC itself does not rule on the right to vote by recognizing in a Sec. 78 COC
denial/cancellation proceeding the final and executory ruling by a court, as mandated by law, in
an inclusion/exclusion proceeding.

You might also like