Case Digest: Nicolas-Lewis, et al vs. Comelec

Nicolas-Lewis, et al vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 162759 August 4, 2006

Facts: 

Petitioners were dual citizens by virtue of RA 9225. Petitioners sought to avail their right of suffrage under RA 9189 or the  Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003. Comelec, however, did not allow petitioners to vote in the 2004 election, reasoning the petitioners faield to comply with the requirement of 1-year residency prior the elections as provided for under Article 5, Sec 1 of the Constitution.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioners may participate in the election sans the compliance of the 1 year residency.

Ruling: 

The Court held that those who retained or reacquired their citizenship under RA 9225 may exercise their right to vote under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, RA 9189.

Article 5, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for the exception to the residency requirement in Section 1 of the same article. The voting mechanism in RA 9189 was practically set forth to provide a system wherein Filipinos of dual citizenship and are, at the same time, not residing in the Philippines are empowered to vote.

The Court held that present day duals may now exercise their right of suffrage provided they meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution in relation to R.A. 9189

Read More

Case Digest: Montesclaros, et al vs. Comelec, et al

G.R. No. 152295            July 9, 2002

Montesclaros, et al vs. Comelec, et al

Facts:

Petitioners sought to prevent the postponement of the 2002 SK election to a later date since doing so may render them unqualified to vote or be voted for in view of the age limitation set by law for those who may participate. The SK elections was postponed since it was deemed "operationally very difficult" to hold both SK and Barangay elections simultaneously in May 2002. Petitioners also sought to enjoin the lowering of  age for membership in the SK.

Issue:

Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction imputable to respondents.

Held:

The Court held that, in the present case, there was no actual controversy requiring the exercise of the power of judicial review. 

While seeking to prevent a postponement of the May 6, 2002 SK elections, petitioners are nevertheless amenable to a resetting of the SK elections to any date not later than July 15, 2002. RA No. 9164 has reset the SK elections to July 15, 2002, a date acceptable to petitioners.  Under the same law, Congress merely restored the age requirement in PD No. 684, the original charter of the SK, which fixed the maximum age for membership in the SK to youths less than 18 years old. Petitioners do not have a vested right to the permanence of the age requirement under Section 424 of the Local Government Code of 1991.

RA 9164 which resets and prescribes the qualifications of candidates and voters for the SK elections was held to be applicable on the July 15 2002 election. It’s constitutionality not having been assailed in the first place.

The Court ruled that petitioners had no personal and substantial interest in maintaining this suit, that the petition presented no actual justiciable controversy, that petitioners did not cite any provision of law that is alleged to be unconstitutional, and that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondents.

Read More