J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0002: BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, GR. No. 222731 INC., and RICHARD J. GORDON, as Chairman of BAGUMBAYAN-VNP Present: MOVEMENT, INC., Petitioners, versus-  COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (G.R. NO. 222731, 08 MARCH 2016, LEONEN J.) BRIEF TITLE: GORDON ET AL VS. COMELEC)

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Mandamus is GRANTED. The Commission on Elections is ORDERED to enable the vote verification feature of the vote-counting machines, which prints the voter’s choices without prejudice to the issuance of guidelines to regulate the release and disposal of the issued receipts in order to ensure a clean, honest, and orderly elections such as, but not limited to, ensuring that after voter verification, receipts should be deposited in a separate ballot box and not taken out of the precinct.

SO ORDERED.

DOCTRINES:

 COMELEC HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO ENFORCE THE LAW

It is true that the Commission on Elections is given ample discretion to administer the elections, but certainly, its constitutional duty is to “enforce the law.” The Commission is not given the constitutional competence to amend or modify the law it is sworn to uphold. Section 6( e ), (t), and (n) of Republic Act No. 8436, as amended, is law. Should there be policy objections to it, the remedy is to have Congress amend it.

COMELECT CANNOT OPT TO BREACH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW

The Commission on Elections cannot opt to breach the requirements of the law to assuage its fears regarding the VVPAT. Vote-buying can be averted by placing proper procedures. The Commission on Elections has the power to choose the appropriate procedure in order to enforce the VVPAT requirement under the law, and balance it with the constitutional mandate to secure the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot. 73

REASON FOR VOTER’S RECEIPT

We see no reason why voters should be denied the opportunity to read the voter’s receipt after casting his or her ballot. There is no legal prohibition for the Commission on Elections to require that after the voter reads and verifies the receipt, he or she is to leave it in a separate box, not take it out of the precinct. Definitely, the availability of all the voters’ receipts will make random manual audits more accurate.

The credibility of the results of any election depends, to a large extent, on the confidence of each voter that his or her individual choices have actually been counted. It is in that local precinct after the voter casts his or her ballot that this confidence starts. It is there where it will be possible for the voter to believe that his or her participation as sovereign truly counts.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 SCD-2016-0002-GORDON

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0001: MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE- LLAMANZARES, Petitioner,  -versus COMMISSION. ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents, (G.R. NO. 221697); MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POELLAMANZARES, Petitioner, -versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,  G.R. Nos. 221698-700 (08 MARCH 2016, PEREZ, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: POE-LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. . . . .

SO ORDERED. “

DOCTRINES:

ON CITIZENSHIP:

”It is apparent from the enumeration of who are citizens under the present Constitution that there are only two classes of citizens: (1) those who are natural-born and (2) those who are naturalized in accordance with law. A citizen who is not a naturalized Filipino, ie., did not have to undergo the process of naturalization to obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily is a natural-born Filipino. Noteworthy is the absence in said enumeration of a separate category for persons who, after losing Philippine citizenship, subsequently reacquire it. The reason therefor is clear: as to such persons, they would either be natural-born or naturalized depending on the reasons for the loss of their citizenship and the mode prescribed by the applicable law for the reacquisition thereof. As respondent Cruz was not required by law to go through naturalization proceedings in order to reacquire his citizenship, he is perforce a naturalborn Filipino. As such, he possessed all the necessary qualifications to be elected as member of the House of Representatives.146

The COMELEC cannot reverse a judicial precedent. That is reserved to this Court. And while we may always revisit a doctrine, a new rule reversing standing doctrine cannot be retroactively applied. In Morales v. Court of Appeals and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., 147 where we decreed reversed the condonation doctrine, we cautioned that it “should be prospective in application for the reason that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws of the Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.” This Court also said that “while the future may ultimately uncover a doctrine’s error, it should be, as a general rule, recognized as good law prior to its abandonment. Consequently, the people’s reliance thereupon should be respected.”148

…………………….

ON RESIDENCY:

“In sum, the COMELEC, with the same posture of infallibilism, virtually ignored a good number of evidenced dates all of which can evince animus manendi to the Philippines and animus non revertedi to the United States of America. The veracity of the events of coming and staying home was as much as dismissed as inconsequential, the focus having been fixed at the petitioner’s “sworn declaration in her COC for Senator” which the COMELEC said “amounts to a declaration and therefore an admission that her residence in the Philippines only commence sometime in November 2006”; such that “based on this declaration, [petitioner] fails to meet the residency requirement for President.” This conclusion, as already shown, ignores the standing jurisprudence that it is the fact of residence, not the statement of the person that determines residence for purposes of compliance with the constitutional requirement of residency for election as President. It ignores the easily researched matter that cases on questions of residency have been decided favorably for the candidate on the basis of facts of residence far less in number, weight and substance than that presented by petitioner.169 It ignores, above all else, what we consider as a primary reason why petitioner cannot be bound by her declaration in her COC for Senator which declaration was not even considered by the SET as an issue against her eligibility for Senator. When petitioner made the declaration in her COC for Senator that she has been a resident for a period of six ( 6) years and six (6) months counted up to the 13 May 2013 Elections, she naturally had as reference the residency requirements for election as Senator which was satisfied by her declared years of residence. It was uncontested during the oral arguments before us that at the time the declaration for Senator was made, petitioner did not have as yet any intention to vie for the Presidency in 2016 and that the general public was never made aware by petitioner, by word or action, that she would run for President in 2016. Presidential candidacy has a length-of-residence different from that of a senatorial candidacy. There are facts of residence other than that which was mentioned in the COC for Senator. . . ”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0001-POE

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.