Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34254)
Facts:
The case involves petitioners Jose P. Buenviaje, Nazario O. Fernandez, and Felixberto E. Bayani, who filed a petition for prohibition against the Honorable Judge Benjamin H. Aquino, presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and several respondents including Ernesto R. Garrido and others. The events leading to the case unfolded in Cainta, Rizal, where on October 9, 1971, the last day for voter registration, 146 qualified applicants presented themselves to register but were refused due to a shortage of registration forms. Consequently, on October 14, 1971, these applicants filed twenty inclusion petitions with the respondent court, seeking to be included in the permanent list of voters. The petitioners, who were candidates for local office and the election registrar, intervened in the proceedings, raising two legal issues regarding the court's jurisdiction. They contended that Section 136 of the Election Code of 1971 did not apply since no application for reg...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34254)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
The case involves 146 applicants who sought to be included in the permanent lists of voters for their respective precincts in Cainta, Rizal. They were refused registration on October 9, 1971 (the last day for registration) because the precincts had run out of registration forms.Filing of Inclusion Petitions:
On October 14, 1971, 20 inclusion petitions were filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal on behalf of the 146 applicants. They claimed they were qualified voters but were denied registration due to the lack of registration forms.Intervention by Petitioners:
Petitioners Jose P. Buenviaje and Nazario O. Fernandez, candidates for mayor and vice-mayor, respectively, and Felixberto E. Bayani, the election registrar of Cainta, intervened in the proceedings. They did not contest the facts but raised two legal issues challenging the court's jurisdiction.Legal Issues Raised:
- Petitioners argued that Section 136 of the Election Code of 1971 (Republic Act 6388) does not apply because no application for registration was filed by the voters.
- They also claimed that the personal notices served on October 14, 1971, for a hearing set on October 22, 1971, were insufficient under Section 139(b) of the Election Code, which allegedly requires a ten-day notice.
Court Proceedings:
The respondent court upheld its jurisdiction, prompting petitioners to file this petition for prohibition on October 25, 1971. The Supreme Court heard the case on October 28, 1971, due to its urgency.
Issue:
First Issue:
Whether Section 136 of the Election Code applies to situations where no application for registration has been filed due to a lack of registration forms.Second Issue:
Whether the personal notices served on October 14, 1971, for a hearing set on October 22, 1971, complied with the ten-day notice requirement under Section 139(b) of the Election Code.
Ruling:
On the First Issue:
The Supreme Court ruled that the filing of an application for registration is not a prerequisite for filing an inclusion petition under Section 136 of the Election Code. The Court emphasized that the applicants were refused registration due to the lack of forms, which was beyond their control. Requiring them to file an application under such circumstances would be impossible and unjust.On the Second Issue:
The Court held that the ten-day notice requirement under Section 139(b) applies only when notice is given by posting in a conspicuous place within the municipality. In this case, personal notices were served, which the Court deemed sufficient as they provided reasonable notice to the parties involved.Additional Rulings:
- The Court ordered the election registrar to furnish the respondent court with the necessary registration forms for the 146 applicants.
- The respondent court was directed to expedite the inclusion proceedings to ensure that no qualified voter is disenfranchised.
- The Court dismissed the petition and ordered petitioners to pay the costs and expenses of the suit.
Ratio:
Jurisdiction of Inclusion Petitions:
The Court clarified that Section 136 of the Election Code does not require a prior application for registration as a condition for filing an inclusion petition. The law applies to any person who has been refused registration, regardless of whether an application was filed.Fundamental Right to Vote:
The Court emphasized that the failure of election officers to provide registration forms cannot deprive qualified voters of their constitutional right to vote. The duty of election registrars is to facilitate, not hinder, voter registration.Notice Requirements:
The Court interpreted Section 139(b) of the Election Code to mean that the ten-day notice requirement applies only when notice is given by posting. Personal notices or service by registered mail are sufficient if they provide reasonable notice to the parties.Expedited Proceedings:
Given the urgency of the case and the proximity of the elections, the Court ordered the immediate execution of its decision and directed the respondent court to resolve the inclusion petitions without delay.