.

SUFFRAGE

Q: What is the right of suffrage?  

A: It is the right to vote in the election of officers chosen by the people and in the determination
of questions submitted to the people. It includes:
1. Election
2. Plebiscite
3. Initiative and
4. Referendum  

(AKBAYAN‐YOUTH v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066, March 26,

2001)
Q: Is the right of suffrage absolute?
A:  No. Needless to say, the exercise of the right of suffrage, as in the enjoyment of all other
rights, is subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements embodied in our
Constitution, statute books and other repositories of law. 
Q: What are the procedural qualifications?
A: As to the procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon
certain procedural requirements he must undergo: among others, the process of registration.
Specifically, a citizen in order to be qualified to exercise his right to vote, in addition to the
minimum requirements set by the fundamental charter, is obliged by law to register, at present,
under the provisions of Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the “Voter’s Registration Act
of 1996.”(Akbayan ‐Youth v.COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066, Mar. 26, 2001)
Q: What is the system of continuing registration?
A: GR: It is a system where the application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily in
the office hours of the election officer during regular office hours. XPN: No registration shall be
conducted during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a
special election (Sec. 8, R.A. 8189)
Note: The SC upheld COMELEC’s denial of the request for two additional registration days in
order to enfranchise more than 4 million youth who failed to register on or before December 27,
2000. It is an accepted doctrine in administrative law that the determination of administrative
agencies as to the operation, implementation and application of a law is accorded greatest
weight, considering that these specialized government bodies are, by their nature and functions,
in the best position to know what they can possibly do or not do under prevailing circumstances
(Akbayan Youth v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066, Mar. 26, 2001)
Romualdez v. RTC of Tacloban

Issue:
Whether or not Romualdez has voluntarily left the country and abandoned his
residence in Tolosa, Leyte and, therefore may not register as a voter

. Held:
No. The term “residence” as used in the election law is synonymous with
“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 fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business
or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. That residence, in the case of
the petitioner, was established during the early 1980’s to be at Barangay Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte.
Residence thus acquired, however, may be lost by adopting another
choice of domicile. In order, in turn, to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must
concur: (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an intention to
remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. In other words, there must
basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The
purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of
time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place
chosen for the new domicile must be actual. The political situation brought about by the
“People’s Power Revolution” must
have truly caused great apprehension to the Romualdezes, as well as a serious
concern over the safety and welfare of the members of their immediate families. Their going into
self-exile until conditions favorable to them would have somehow
stabilized is understandable. Certainly, their sudden departure from the country
cannot be described as “voluntary”, or as “abandonment of residence” at least in
the context that these terms are used in applying the concept of “domicile by
choice.”No evidence on record that Romualdez voluntarily abandoned his residence
and established his domicile to somewhere else.
QUALIFICATION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF VOTERS
Q: What are the qualifications for suffrage?
A:  
1. Filipino citizenship
2. At least 18 years of age
3. Resident of the Philippines for at least one year
4. Resident of the place where he proposes to vote for at least 6 months; and
5. Not otherwise disqualified by law (Sec. 9, R.A. No. 8189)

CENIZA VS COMELEC
ISSUES:
1. WON the right to suffrage of Mandaue City
voters have been violated.
2. WON there was a denial of equal protection.
3. WON the charter is unconstitutional for lack of a
plebiscite.

HOLDING:
1. NO. The constitution confers no right to a voter in a city to vote for the provincial
officials of the province where the city is located. Moreover, provincial governments have
no supervision over highly urbanized cities thus it is only proper to exclude
aforementioned voters from provincial elections since their interest won’t be vitally
affected.
2. NO. The practice of allowing voters in one component city to vote for provincial officials
whilst denying the same to voters of another component city is a matter of legislative discretion
which violates neither the Constitution nor the right to suffrage.
3. NO. The requirement for plebiscite came with the 1973 Constitution while the City of
Mandaue
came into existent in June 21, 1969. It is a general rule that constitutional provisions
should apply prospectively only.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the petition should be, as it is hereby dismissed. Costs against the petitioners.
Related Provisions:
a. Batas Blg. 51, Sec 3(2). Until cities are reclassified into highly urbanized and component
cities in accordance with the standards established in the Local Government
Code as provided for in Article XI, Sec. 4 (1) of the Constitution, any city now existing with an
annual regular income derived from infrastructure and general funds of not less than forty million
pesos (P40,000,000.00) at the time of the approval of this Act shall be
classified as a highly urbanized city. All other cities shall be considered
components of the provinces where they are geographically located.b. R.A. 5519 Sec. 96.
Participation of voters in provincial election. The qualified voters of the city
shall not be entitled to vote in any election for the offices of the Provincial
Governor, Vice-Governor, and Members of the Provincial Board of the
Province of Cebu, but any of such qualified voters can be a candidate for
any provincial office.1973 Constitution, Art. XI, SEC. 4. (1).Provinces with respect to component
cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to
component barrios, shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the scope of
their assigned powers and functions. Highly urbanized cities, as determined by standards
established in the local government code, shall be independent of the province.
(2) Local government units may group themselves, or consolidate or coordinate their efforts,
services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them.

GALLEGO vs. VERA

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Gallego lost his domicile of origin in Abuyog, Leyte and acquired a new domicile in
Malaybalay, Bukidnon.

HELD:
Yes. Gallego did not lose his domicile in Abuyog by working in Malaybalay as an employee,
registering as voter there and securing his residence certificate there for 1940. The decision of the
CA is reversed.

RATIO:
In the definition of “residence” in the election law under the 1935 Constitution, it states that in
order to acquire a domicile by choice, there must concur:
1. Residence or a bodily presence in the new locality
2. An intention to remain there
3. An intention to abandon the old domicile
The purpose to remain in the domicile should be for an INDEFINITE period of time. The court
believed that Gallego had no intention to stay in Malaybalay indefinitely because:
1. When he was employed as a teacher in Samar, he always returned in Abuyog and even
resigned when he ran for office in 1937
2. His departure was only for the purpose of making up for the financial drawback caused by
his loss in the election
3. He did not take his wife and children to Malaybalay with him
4. He bought a piece of land in Abuyog and did not avail of the land in the plantation offered to
him by the government
5. He visited his family no less than three times despite the great distance between Abuyog,
Leyte and Malaybalay Bukidnon

Q: Who are disqualified to vote?

A:  
1. Persons sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than one year,
unless pardoned or granted amnesty; but right is reacquired before expiration of 5 years after
service of sentence.
2. Conviction by final judgment of any of the following crimes:
a. Crime involving disloyalty to the government
b. Any crime against national security
c. Firearms laws But right is reacquired before expiration of 5 years after service of sentence.
3. Insanity or incompetence declared by competent authority (Sec. 118, B.P. 881 Omnibus
Election Code)

. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS

Q: Does registration confer the right to vote?

A: No. It is but a condition precedent to the exercise of the right to vote. Registration is a
regulation, not a qualification. (Yra v. Abano, G.R.No. L‐30187, November 15, 1928)

Q: What is the effect of transfer of residence?

A: Any person, who transfers residence solely by reason of his occupation, profession or
employment in private or public service, education, etc., shall not be deemed to have lost his
original residence.

Q: What is domicile?
A: A place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and
depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent. (

Q: What is residence for election purposes?

A: It implies the factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence
of a person in a given area, community or country.  For election purposes the concepts of
residence and domicile are dictated by the peculiar criteria of political laws. As these concepts
have evolved in our election law, what has clearly and unequivocally emerged is the fact that
residence for election purposes is used synonymously with domicile. (Ibid.)

MACALINTAL vs COMELEC
Q: What is absentee voting?
A: It is a process by which qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad exercise their right to vote
pursuant to the constitutional mandate that Congress shall provide a system for absentee voting
by qualified Filipinos abroad (Sec. 2, Art. V, 1987 Constitution). Absentee voting is an exception
to the six month/one year residency requirement.
(Note: The constitutionality of Sec. 18.5 of R.A. 9189 (Absentee Voting) is upheld with respect
only to the authority given to the COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for the Senators
and party‐list representatives but not as to the power to canvass votes and proclaim the winning
candidates for President and Vice‐president. (Ibid.)

Q: Who are qualified to vote under the absentee voting law?

A: All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not otherwise disqualified by law, at least
eighteen (18) years of age on the day of the elections, may vote for president, vice‐president,
senators and party‐list representatives. (Sec. 4, R.A. 9189)

Q: Who are disqualified from voting under the absentee voting law?
A:
1. Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with Philippine laws;
2. Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship and who have pledged
allegiance to a foreign country;
3. Those who have committed and are convicted in a final judgment by a court or tribunal of an
offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one (1) year, including those who have
committed and been found guilty of Disloyalty as defined under Art. 137 of the Revised Penal
Code, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty;  
Note: However, any person disqualified to vote under this subsection shall automatically acquire
the right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; Provided further, that
the Commission may take cognizance of final judgments issued by foreign courts otribunals only
on the basis of reciprocity and subject to the formalities and processes prescribed by the Rules
of Court on execution of judgments;
4. An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host country
Note: An immigrant or permanent resident may vote if he/she executes, upon registration, an
affidavit prepared for the purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual
physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three (3) years from approval of
his/her registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for
citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be the cause for the removal of the name of
the immigrant or permanent resident from the National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her
permanent disqualification to vote in absentia.
5. Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared insane or incompetent by competent
authority in the Philippines or abroad, as verified by the Philippine embassies, consulates or
Foreign Service establishments concerned
Note: Unless such competent authority subsequently certifies that such person is no longer
insane or incompetent. (Sec. 5, Absentee Voting Law)

Q: How is registration done for absentee voters?

A: Registration as an overseas absentee voter shall be done in person (Sec. 6, R.A. 9189,
Absentee Voting Law)

Q: How shall voting be done?

A:
1. The overseas absentee voter shall personally accomplish his/her ballot at the embassy,
consulate or other foreign service establishment that has jurisdiction over the country where
he/she temporarily resides or at any polling place designated and accredited by the
Commission. (Sec. 16, R.A. 9189 Absentee Voting Law)
2. The overseas absentee voter may also vote by mail. (R.A. 9189 Absentee Voting Law)

Gonzales vs COMELEC
ISSUE(s):
Whether or not the freedom of expression may be limited. YES
HELD:
 The primacy, the high estate accorded freedom of expression is of course a fundamental
postulate of our constitutional system. No law shall he passed abridging the freedom of speech
or of the press. It embraces, at the very least, free speech and free press may be identified with
the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship or
punishment. There is to be then no previous restraint on the communication of views or
subsequent liability whether in libel suits, prosecutionfor sedition, or action for damages, or
contempt proceedings unless there be a clear and present danger of substantive evil that
Congress has a right to prevent.
 The vital need in a constitutional democracy for freedom of expression is undeniable whether
as a means of assuring individual self-fulfillment, of attaining the truth, of securing participation
by the people in social including political decision-making, and of maintaining the balance
between stability and change. The trend as reflected in Philippine and American decisions is to
recognize the broadest scope and assure the widest latitude to this constitutional guaranty. It
represents a profound commitment to the principle that debate of public issue should be
uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.
 It is not going too far to view the function of free speech as inviting dispute. “It may indeed
best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with
conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” Freedom of speech and of the press thus
means something more than the right to approve existing political beliefs or economic
arrangements, to lend support to official measures, to take refuge in the existing climate of
opinion on any matter of public consequence. So atrophied, the right becomes meaningless.
The right belongs as well, if not more, for those who question, who do not conform, who differ.
To paraphrase Justice Holmes, it is freedom for the thought that we hate, no less than for the
thought that agrees with
 Two tests that may supply an acceptable criterion for permissible restriction. These are the
"clear and present danger" rule and the "dangerous tendency" rule. The test, the "clear and
present danger" rule, as a limitation on freedom of expression is justified by the danger or evil of
a substantive character that the state has a right to prevent. Unlike the dangerous tendency
doctrine, the danger must not only be clear but also present. The term clear seems to point to a
causal connection with the danger of the substantive evil arising from the utterance question.
Present refers to the time element. It used to be identified with imminent and immediate danger.
The danger must not only be probable but very likely inevitable.

.
DOCTRINE(s)/KEY POINT(s):
- At the very least, free speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss
publicly and previous restrain on the communication of views or subsequent liability whether in
libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or contempt proceedings unless there
be a clear and present danger of substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent.
- This Court spoke, in Cabansag v. Fernandez, of two tests that may supply an acceptable
criterion for permissible restriction. These are the "clear and present danger" rule and the
"dangerous tendency" rule. The test, the "clear and present danger" rule, as a limitation on
freedom of expression is justified by the danger or evil of a substantive character that the state
has a right to prevent. Unlike the dangerous tendency doctrine, the danger must not only be
clear but also present. The term clear seems to point to a causal connection with the danger of
the substantive evil arising from the utterance question. Present refers tothe time element. It
used to be identified with imminent and immediate danger. The danger must not only be
probable but very likely inevitable.