Case: Lambino vs COMELEC

GR No. 174153, Oct. 25,2006

Facts:
l The Lambino group filed a petition with the COMELIC to hold
plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under section 5(b)
and (c) and section 7 of RA 6735.
l Lambino group claims that their petition has the support of 6M
individuals satisfying the requirement for signatories to constitute
12% of all registered voters.
l Their initiative petition modifies sections 1-7 of Art VI and sections
1-4 of Art VII of the constitution and to shift the gov’t from
Bicameral-Presidential to Unicameral - Parliamentary form.
l Lambino group filed their petition to COMELIC but it was denied
invoking Santiago vs COMELIC case.
l Lambino group petition for the issuance of writs of certiorari and
mandamus to set aside COMELEC’S resolution and to compel
COMELIC to give due course to their petition.

Issue: WON the Lambino Group’s Initiative petition complied with

Section 2, Article XVII of the constitution?

Ruling:
l No. The Lambino Group does not comply w/ the requirement that
the amendment be “ directly proposed by the people upon a
petition” because they failed to present the full text of the
proposed changes to the constitution to the signatories having no
knowledge of the full nature and effect of the changes they were
supporting. The SC ruled that, given that the initiative first
gathered signatures w/out showing the full text of the proposed
amendments, it can be seen as a “ gigantic fraud on the people”.
 Case: Pundaodaya vs COMELEC
GR No. 197313, sept. 17, 2009

Facts:
l Petitioner ran against noble for Municipal Mayor of Kinoguitan,
Misamis Oriental in the 2007 elections. Pundaodaya filed a
petirion for disqualification against Noble alleging that Noble lacks
the residency requirement/qualification, being resident of
Lapasan, CDO city.
l Noble averred that he is a registered voter and resident of Misamis
Oriental. In a resolution, COMELIC disqualified Noble from
running as mayor. Noble filed for motion for reconsideration.
l In the meantime, he garnered the highest vote and was proclaimed
as winner candidate. Pundaodaya filed an urgent motion to
annual the proclamation. The COMELEC EN Banc reversed the
decision and declared Noble qualified to run.
l Pundaodaya filed the instant petition for certiorari.

Issue: WON Noble has successfully changed his Domicile?

Ruling:
l No. The SC ruled that Noble failed to convince that he successfully
affected a change of domicile. The law provides that to establish a
new domicile of choice, personal presence in the place must be
coupled w/ conduct indicative of that intention. It requires not only
such bodily presence in that place but also a declared and
probable intent to make it one’s fixed and permanent place of
abode.
 Case: Marcos vs COMELEC and Montejo
GR No.119976, Sept. 18, 1995

Facts:
l Montejo filed a petition for cancellation and disqualification w/ the
COMELIC alleging that Imelda Marcos did not meet the
constitutional requirements for residency.
l Marcos filed a corrected certificate of candidacy (COO) changing
the entry “ seven months” to “since childhood”.
l The COMELEC En Banc denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration declaring Imelda Marcos not qualified to run as
representative for first District of Leyte.
l In a supplemental petition, Marcos averred that she was the
overwhelming winner of the 1995 election.

Issue: WON Imelda Marcos was a resident, for election purposes, of the
first District of Leyte for 1 year?

Ruling:

st​
l Yes. Marcos was a legitimate resident in the 1​ District of Leyte.

SC ruled that an individual does not lose his domicile even if he

 has lived and maintained residences in different places. In the
case @ bar, Montejo failed to prove the allegation on Marco’s
abandonment of domicile. It cannot be correctly be argued that
Marcos lost her marriage to pres. F. Marcos. Thus, having
determined that Marcos posses the necessary residence
requirement to run as representative, Provincial Board of
canvassers is directed to proclaim Marcos as the duly elected
Representative of the first District of Leyte.

Case: Kabataan Party List vs COMELIC

GR No. 221318, Dec. 16, 2015

Facts:
l RA 10367 mandates the COMELEC to implement a mandatory
biometrics registration system for new voters in order to establish
a clean, complete, permanent, and updated list of voters through
the adoption or biometric technology. The law also directs
validation for uncaptured biometrics, and failure to submit for
validation on or before the last day of filing of applcation shall be
deactivated.
l COMELEC issued a resolution w/c provides that “the registration
records of voters w/out biometrics data who failed to submit for
validation on or before the last day of application for registration
for 2016 election shall be deactivated.
 l Petitioner filed the instant petition for TRO and Writ of Preliminary
mandatory injunction (WPI) assailing the constitutionality of the
biometric validation requirement and the COMELEC resolution.

Issues: (1) WON the statutory requirement of biometrics validation is an

unconstitutional requirement of literary and property?
(2) WON COMELEC Resolution w/c fixed the deadline for validation
violets section 8 of RA 8189 ( System of continuing Registration of
Voters).

Ruling:
(1) No. The SC ruled that biometrics validation is not a “qualification” to
the exercise of the right of suffrage, but a mere aspect of the registration
procedure, of w/c the state has the right to reasonably regulate. Thus,
although one is deemed “ disqualified elector”, he must nonetheless still
comply w/ the registration procedure in order to vote.
(2) No. The SC ruled that the 120-

Case: Palatino vs COMELEC

GR No. 189868; Dec. 15 2009

Facts:
l COMELEC issued a resolution No. 8514 set December 2, 2008 to
December 15, 2009 as the period of continuing voter registration
in all areas nationwide, except in ARMM.
l However, COMELEC issued another resolution No. 8585 adjusted
the deadline to October 31, 2009.
 l Petitioner asked the SC to declare COMELEC to extend the voter
registration until January 9, 2010.
l COMELEC argued that section 29 of RA 6646 and section 28 of RA
8436 authorize it to fix another dates for pre - election acts w/c
include voter registration, such October 31, 2009 deadline was
impelled by operational and pragmatic considerations.

Issue: WON COMELEC resolution 8585 should be declared null and

void in so far as it set the deadline for 2010 election on Oct. 31,2009?

Ruling:
l Yes. SC ruled tat RA 8189; section 8 decrees that voters be
allowed to register daily during office hours, except during the
period of starting 120 days before election and 90 for especial,
hence, by this provision, congress itself has determined that the
said 120- and 90 day period is clear enough time for the
COMELEC to make necessary preparations w/ respect to the
coming elections. Therefore, the COMELECS rule-making power
should be exercised in accordance w/ the prevailing law. There is
no reasonable ground that the mandate of continuing voter
registration cannot be reasonably hold w/in the period provided
under section 8 of RA 8189

Case: Domino vs COMELEC

GR No. 134015; July 19, 1999
Facts:
l DOMINO filed his COC for the position of Representative of
Sarangani, indicating that he had resided in the continuing where
he seeks to be elected for 1 year and 2 months immediately
preceding the election.
l Private respondent alleged that DOMINO is not a resident, much
less a registered voter of Sarangani Province. He maintains that
he had complied for 1 year residence requirement and been
resided in Sarangani.
l COMELEC declared DOMINO disqualified for lack of one-year
residency requirement and ordered to cancel his COC. However,
COMELEC issued a supplemental omnibus resolution ordering
that the votes of Domino be counted but to suspend the
proclamation if winning, considering that such resolution for
disqualification had not become final and executory.
l Result shows that DOMINO garnered highest votes.

Issue