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: 
see: NICOLAS-LEWIS VS. COMELEC RULING

Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and  WORDPRESS

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

Posted on

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Category

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,


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:
see: MONTESCLAROS VS. COMELEC RULING


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

Category

,

,

,

,

,


G.R. No. 180363               April 28, 2009
EDGAR Y. TEVES, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HERMINIO G. TEVES

Facts:
In Oct 2007, petitioner was officially disqualified to run for a congressional seat in the May 2007 election because of a Sandiganbayan decision rendered against him in 2005 involving a crime, allegedly, of moral turpitude.

The Comelec likewise rendered the issue raised by petitioner as moot since the latter lost in the said election.

Issue: 
Whether or not there WAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION when Comelec disqualified petitioner in view of the petitioner’s conviction.

Ruling:
see: TEVES VS. COMELEC RULING


Case Digest: Teves vs. Comelec

Category

,

,

,


G.R. No. 170365               February 2, 2010
ABDUL GAFFAR P.M. DIBARATUN vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ABDUL CARIM MALA ABUBAKAR

Facts: 
The Comelec en banc ruled a failure of elections in precinct No. 6a/7a, Lanao del Sur
on the second instance stated in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code, that is, the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes. The Election on said precinct was disrupted by a commotion, was untimely suspended and never resumed. The Comelec decision, consequently nullified the proclamation of herein petitioner dibaratun as winner.

Petitioner Dibaratun contended that Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring a failure of elections for acting on herein respondents’ petition even if such petition was filed out of time.

Issue:
Whether or not Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring a failure of elections

Ruling:
SEE: DIBARATUN VS. COMELEC AND ABUBAKAR RULING


Case Digest: Dibaratun vs. Comelec and Abubakar

Category

,

,

,

,


G.R. No.  148334.  January 21, 2004
ARTURO M. TOLENTINO and ARTURO C. MOJICA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SENATOR RALPH G. RECTO and SENATOR GREGORIO B. HONASAN

FACTS:
Petitioners assailed the manner by which the simultaneous regular and special elections of 2001 were conducted by the COMELEC.Petitioners contend that, if held simultaneously, a special and a regular election must be distinguished in the documentation as well as in the canvassing of their results. Thirteen senators were proclaimed from the said election with the 13th placer to serve that of the remaining term of Sen. Guingona, who vacated a seat in the senate.
Petitioners sought for the nullification of the special election and, consequently, the declaration of the 13th elected senator.

Issue:
1Whether or not  Court had jurisdiction.
2Whether or not the petition was moot.
3Whether or not petioners had locus standi.
4Whether a Special Election for a Single, Three-Year Term
Senatorial Seat was Validly Held on 14 May 2001

RULING:
see: TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC RULING

Case Digest: Tolentino and Mojica vs. Comelec

Category

,

,

,

,

,


Ampatuan, et al. vs. COMELEC
G. R. No. 149803.  January 31, 2002

The petitioners were proclaimed victorious in the May 14, 2001 Maguindanao Provincial election after the order suspending such proclamation was lifted by the COMELEC, which issued the same.  Respondents petitioned, before the Supreme Court, the suspension of  the effects of  the said proclamation and insisted that there had been a “failure of election”. The COMELEC  ordered the consolidation of respondents’ petitions and  a random technical examination on several precincts.

Petitioners contended that by virtue of their proclamation, the proper remedy available to respondents was not a petition for declaration of failure of elections but an election protest.

Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC had jurisdiction to act on respondents’ petitions even after proclamation of petitioners as winners

Ruling: see: AMPATUAN VS. COMELEC RULING

Case Digest: Ampatuan, et al. vs. COMELEC

Category

,

,

,

,