ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD

WHAT IS ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD AND ITS

COMPOSITION?
• ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD REFERS TO THE BODY CONSTITUTED HEREIN TO ACT
ON ALL APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION. THERE SHALL BE IN EACH CITY AND
MUNICIPALITY AS MANY AS ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARDS AS THERE ARE ELECTION
OFFICERS THEREIN TO ACT ON ALL APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION IN THICKLY
POPULATED CITIES/MUNICIPALITIES. THE BOARD SHALL COMPOSED OF THE ELECTION
OFFICER AS CHAIRMAN AND AS MEMBERS, THE PUBLIC SCHOOL OFFICIAL MOST
SENIOR IN RANK AND THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR IN HIS ABSENCE, THE CITY OR
MUNICIPAL TREASURER. THE ELECTION OFFICER IS THE HIGHEST OFFICIAL OR
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMISSION IN A CITY OR MUNICIPALITY.
SECTION 3.G OF THE VOTER’S ACT OF 1996
 WHAT ARE THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD?
• REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
• PRESERVATION OF VOTER’S REGISTRATION RECORDS
• IDENTIFICATION OF VOTERS
• DEACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION
• REACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION
• CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION
• MAINTAIN LIST OF VOTERS PER PRECINCT
• BOOK OF VOTERS
• THE INCLUSION, EXCLUSION, AND CORRECTION OF NAMES OF VOTERS
 REGISTRATION OF VOTERS

• REGISTRATION REFERS TO THE ACT OF ACCOMPLISHING AND FILING OF A SWORN

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BY A QUALIFIED VOTER BEFORE THE ELECTION
OFFICER OF THE CITY OR MUNICIPALITY WHEREIN HE RESIDES AND INCLUDING THE
SAME IN THE BOOK OF REGISTERED VOTERS UPON APPROVAL BY THE ELECTION
REGISTRATION BOARD.
• SECTION 3.A OF THE VOTER’S ACT OF 1996
 PRESERVATION OF VOTER’S REGISTRATION

• IN THE PRESERVATION OF VOTER’S REGISTRATION RECORD, THE ELECTION OFFICER

SHALL COMPILE THE ORIGINAL COPIES OF THE APPROVED APPLICATIONS FOR
REGISTRATION PER PRECINCT AND ARRANGE THE SAME ALPHABETICALLY ACCORDING
TO SURNAME. HE SHALL PRESERVE THE BOOK OF VOTERS AND ENSURE ITS
INTEGRITY. THE SECOND AND THIRD COPIES OF THE REGISTRATION RECORDS SHALL
BE SENT TO THE PROVINCIAL AND NATIONAL CENTRAL FILES WITHIN THREE DAYS
AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD.
• SECTION 22 OF RA 8189
 IDENTIFICATION OF VOTERS

• IN AN IDENTIFICATION OF VOTERS, THE COMMISSION SHALL ADOPT A DESIGN FOR THE

VOTER’S IDENTIFICATION CARD WHICH SHALL BE, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, TAMPER
PROOF. IT SHALL PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING: THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE VOTER,
HIS DATE OF BIRTH, SEX, PHOTOGRAPH, THUMBMARK, AND THE NUMBER OF PRECINCT
WHERE HE IS REGISTERED, THE SIGNATURE OF THE VOTER AND THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD, AND THE VOTER’S IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
(VIN).
 DEACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION

• THE ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD SHALL DEACTIVATE THE REGISTRATION OF VOTERS OF THE
FOLLOWING:
• (A) ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN SENTENCED BY FINAL JUDGMENT TO SUFFER IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT
LESS THAN ONE YEAR, SUCH DISABILITY NOT HAVING BEEN REMOVED BY PLENARY PARDON OR
AMNESTY. ANY SUCH PERSON DISQUALIFIED TO VOTE SHALL AUTOMATICALLY REACQUIRE THE RIGHT TO
VOTE UPON EXPIRATION OF FIVE (5) YEARS AFTER SERVICE OF SENTENCE AS CERTIFIED BY THE COURT;
• (B) ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN ADJUDGED BY FINAL JUDGMENT BY A COMPETENT COURT OR TRIBUNAL
OF HAVING CAUSED/COMMITTED ANY CRIME INVOLVING DISLOYALTY TO THE DULY CONSTITUTED
GOVERNMENT SUCH AS REBELLION, UNLESS RESTORED TO HIS FULL CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. HE SHALL REGAIN HIS RIGHT TO VOTE AUTOMATICALLY UPON EXPIRATION
OF FIVE (5) YEARS AFTER SERVICE OF SENTENCE;
• (C) ANY PERSON DECLARED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO BE INSANE OR
INCOMPETENT UNLESS SUCH DISQUALIFICATION HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY
REMOVED BY A DECLARATION OF A PROPER AUTHORITY THAT SUCH PERSON
IN NO LONGER INSANE OR INCOMPETENT;
• (D) ANY PERSON WHO DID NOT VOTE IN THE TWO (2) SUCCESSIVE PRECEDING
REGULAR ELECTIONS AS SHOWN BY HIS VOTING RECORDS. FOR THIS
PURPOSE, REGULAR ELECTIONS DO NOT INCLUDE THE SANGGUNIANG
KABATAAN (SK) ELECTIONS
• (E) ANY PERSON WHOSE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN ORDERED EXCLUDED BY THE
COURT;
• (F) ANY PERSON WHO HAS LOST HIS FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP.
SECTION 27 OF RA 8189
 REACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION

• IN REACTIVATION OF REGISTRATION, ANY VOTER WHOSE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN

DEACTIVATED MAY FILE WITH THE ELECTION OFFICER A SWORN APPLICATION FOR
REACTIVATION OF HIS REGISTRATION IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT THE
GROUNDS FOR THE DEACTIVATION NO LONGER EXIST ANY TIME BUT NOT LATER 120
DAYS BEFORE REGULAR ELECTION AND 90 DAYS BEFORE A SPECIAL ELECTION. IN
CASE THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED, THE ELECTION OFFICER SHALL RETRIEVE THE
REGISTRATION RECORD FROM THE INACTIVE FILE AND INCLUDE THE SAME IN THE
CORRESPONDING PRECINCT BOOK OF VOTERS. LOCAL HEADS OR REPRESENTATIVES
OF POLITICAL PARTIES SHALL BE PROPERLY NOTIFIED ON APPROVED APPLICATIONS.
• SECTION 28, RA 8189
 CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION

• IN CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION, THE BOARD SHALL CANCEL THE REGISTRATION

RECORDS OF THOSE WHO HAVE DIED AS CERTIFIED BY THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR
WHO SHALL SUBMIT EACH MONTH A CERTIFIED LIST OF PERSONS WHO DIED DURING
THE PREVIOUS MONTH TO THE ELECTION OFFICER OF THE PLACE WHERE THE
DECEASED IS REGISTERED.
• SECTION 29, RA 8189
 MAINTAINING LIST OF VOTERS

• IN MAINTAINING LIST OF VOTERS PER PRECINCT, THE ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD, SHALL HAVE
PERMANENT LIST OF VOTERS PER PRECINCT IN EACH CITY OR MUNICIPALITY CONSISTING OF ALL
REGISTERED VOTERS RESIDING WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF EVERY PRECINCT
INDICATED BY THE PRECINCT MAPS. A PERMANENT AND COMPUTERIZED LIST ARRANGED BY PRECINCT,
CITY OR MUNICIPALITY, PROVINCE, AND REGION SHALL BE PREPARED BY THE COMMISSION. THE BOARD
SHALL PREPARE AND POST CERTIFIED LIST OF VOTERS 90 DAYS BEFORE A REGULAR ELECTION AND 60
DAYS BEFORE A SPECIAL ELECTION AND FURNISH COPIES THEREOF TO THE PROVINCIAL, REGIONAL,
AND NATIONAL CENTRAL FILES.
• SECTION 4, RA 8189
• SECTION 43, IBID
• SECTION 30, IBID
 BOOK OF VOTERS
• IN BOOK OF VOTERS, REFERS TO THE COMPILATION OF ALL REGISTRATION RECORDS
IN A PRECINT. THE ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD SHALL NOTIFY WITHIN 15 DAYS
BEFORE THE START OF THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL
REGISTERED POLITICAL PARTIES AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ELECTION
INSPECTORS TO INSPECT AND VERIFY THE COMPLETENESS OF THE VOTERS’
REGISTRATION RECORDS FOR EACH PRECINCT COMPLIED IN THE BOOK OF VOTERS.
THE COMMISSION SHALL, UPON VERIFIED PETITION OF ANY VOTER OR ELECTION
OFFICER OR DULY REGISTERED POLITICAL PARTY AND AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING,
ANNUL ANY BOOK OF VOTERS THAT IS NOT PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RA 8189
OR WAS PREPARED THROUGH FRAUD, BRIBERY, FORGERY, IMPERSONATION,
INTIMIDATION, FORCE OR ANY SIMILAR IRREGULARITY, OR WHICH CONTAINS DATA THAT
ARE STATISTICALLY IMPROBABLE. NO ORDER, RULING OR DECISION ANNULLING A
BOOK OF VOTERS SHALL BE EXECUTED WITHIN 90 DAYS BEFORE AN ELECTION.
INCLUDE, EXCLUDE AND CORRECT NAMES OF VOTERS

• THE ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD HAS THE DUTY TO INCLUDE, EXCLUDE AND
CORRECT THE NAMES OF VOTERS. THE VOTER AGGRIEVED MUST FILE A PETITION AND
IMPLEAD THE BOARD AS RESPONDENT TO THE MUNICIPAL AND METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURTS ANYTIME EXCEPT 105 DAYS PRIOR TO A REGULAR ELECTION OR 75 DAYS
PRIOR TO A SPECIAL ELECTION. ANY VOTER, CANDIDATE OR POLITICAL PARTY WHO
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROCEEDINGS MAY INTERVENE AND PRESENT HIS
EVIDENCE. THE ELECTION OFFICER SHALL, IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF
THE PERMANENT LIST OF VOTERS, FILE EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS WHEN NECESSARY,
AND VERIFY THE LIST OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS OF ANY PRECINCT BY REGULAR
MAIL OR HOUSE TO HOUSE CANVASS.
• ANY REGISTERED VOTER WHOSE REGISTRATION RECORD HAS NOT BEEN
OMITTED IN THE LIST OF VOTERS OR WHO HAS BEEN INCLUDED THEREIN
WITH A WRONG OR MISSPELLED NAME MAY FILE WITH THE BOARD AN
APPLICATION FOR INCLUSION OF HIS RECORD, OR REINSTATEMENT OR
CORRECTION OF HIS NAME, AS THE CASE MAY BE.
 JURISPRUDENCE

• DOMINO VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 134015. JULY 19, 1999.

• FACTS:

• PETITIONER DOMINO FILED HIS CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY FOR THE POSITION OF REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LONE LEGISLATIVE
DISTRICT OF THE PROVINCE OF SARANGANI INDICATING THAT HE HAS RESIDED IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE HE SEEKS TO BE ELECTED
FOR 1 YEAR AND 2 MONTHS. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS FILED A PETITION SEEKING TO CANCEL THE CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY OF DOMINO,
ALLEGING THAT DOMINO, CONTRARY TO HIS DECLARATION IN THE CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY, IS NOT A RESIDENT, MUCH LESS A
REGISTERED VOTER, OF THE PROVINCE OF SARANGANI WHERE HE SEEKS ELECTION. THEREAFTER, THE COMELEC PROMULGATED A
RESOLUTION DECLARING DOMINO DISQUALIFIED AS CANDIDATE FOR THE POSITION OF REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LONE DISTRICT OF
SARANGANI IN THE MAY 11, 1998 POLLS FOR LACK OF THE ONE-YEAR RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT AND LIKEWISE ORDERED THE CANCELLATION
OF HIS CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY BASED ON HIS OWN VOTER’S REGISTRATION RECORD AND HIS ADDRESS INDICATED AS 24 BONIFACIO ST.,
AYALA HTS., OLD BALARA, QUEZON CITY. THE CONTENTION OF DOMINO THAT THE DECISION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON
CITY IN THE EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS DECLARING HIM A RESIDENT OF THE PROVINCE OF SARANGANI AND NOT OF QUEZON CITY IS FINAL
AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE COMELEC CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. DOMINO’S CONTENTION THAT THE COMELEC HAS NO JURISDICTION IN THE
PRESENT PETITION IS BEREFT OF MERIT.
• ISSUE:
•

• WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTENTION OF PETITIONER THAT THE COMELEC IS

PRECLUDED IN DETERMINING HIS CANDIDACY?
•
• WHETHER OR NOT THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION IN
DECLARING THE CHALLENGED VOTER A RESIDENT OF ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY?

•
• RULINGS:
•
• NO, THE DETERMINATION OF A METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT IN THE EXCLUSION
PROCEEDINGS AS TO THE RIGHT OF A PERSON TO BE INCLUDED OR EXCLUDED
FROM THE LIST OF VOTERS IN THE PRECINCT WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE COMELEC, IN THE DETERMINATION OF
SUCH PERSON’S QUALIFICATION AS A CANDIDATE, TO PASS UPON THE ISSUE OF
COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
• NO, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE TRIAL COURT, IN EXCLUSION
PROCEEDINGS, TO DECLARE THE CHALLENGED VOTER A RESIDENT OF ANOTHER
MUNICIPALITY. THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IS LIMITED ONLY TO
DETERMINING THE RIGHT OF THE VOTER TO REMAIN IN THE LIST OF VOTERS OR
TO DECLARE THAT THE CHALLENGED VOTER IS NOT QUALIFIED TO VOTE IN THE
PRECINCT IN WHICH HE IS REGISTERED, SPECIFYING THE GROUND OF THE
VOTER’S DISQUALIFICATION.
 IN RE: PETITION FOR INCLUSION IN THE PERMANENT LIST OF QUALIFIED VOTERS. (MRS.)
ROSALIA TAN COHON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. THE ELECTION REGISTRAR, CLTY OF
CEBU, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE., 29 SCRA 244, AUGUST 29, 1969

• FACTS:
•
• FROM THE DECISION OF THE CITY COURT OF CEBU, DENYING HER PETITION FOR INCLUSION IN THE
REGISTRY OF VOTERS, THE PETITIONER APPEALED TO THIS COURT.
• "FROM THE FACTS ADDUCED DURING THE HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COURT, IT APPEARS THAT PETITIONER
WAS A CHINESE CITIZEN WHEN SHE MARRIED ANTONIO S. COHON IN 1952; THAT THE LATTER BECAME A FILIPINO
CITIZEN BY NATURALIZATION IN 1962. UPON HER PETITION, HER ALIEN REGISTRY IN THE BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION WAS CANCELLED. SHE WAS RECOGNIZED AS A FILIPINO CITIZEN AND WAS ALLOWED TO REGISTER
AS VOTER DURING THE ELECTIONS OF 1963 AND 1965. HOW EVER, ON NOVEMBER 4, 1967, SHE WAS INFORMED
BY THE ELECTION REGISTRAR THAT SHE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NEW REGISTRY LIST OF VOTERS BECAUSE
HER FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP HAS NOT BEEN DULY ESTABLISHED. THE PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THE ABOVE-
MENTIONED DECISION SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT AND SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO HER.
• WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED BEFORE THIS COURT, ATTY. ACHILLES V. MANIT,
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CONTESTED THE RIGHT OF
PETITIONER TO APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE CITY COURT. REPUBLIC ACT NO.
5178 PROVIDES THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT IN INCLUSION AND
'EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS ARE APPEALABLE TO THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE,
WHILE THE DECISIONS OF THE CITY COURT AND THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE SHALL
BE IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY AND SHALL BE FINAL AS TO QUESTIONS OF FACT. IT IS
CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT THE CITY COURT AND THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE HAVE
THE SAME JURISDICTION IN SO FAR AS INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS ARE
CONCERNED. APPEAL FROM THE DECISION IF THE CITY COURT ON THESE MATTERS TO
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND IT CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED.
HENCE THIS PETITION.
• ISSUE:
•
• WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER IS CORRECT THAT HER CASE IS CONSIDERED RES
JUDICATA?
•
• RULING:
•
• NO, THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT CONSIDERING THE SUMMARY CHARACTER OF AN
EXCLUSION CASE FOR PURPOSES OF REGISTRATION OF VOTERS UNDER R.A. 5178, THE
DECISION THAT A COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAY RENDER THEREON, EVEN IF FINAL AND
UNAPPEAL-ABLE, DOES NOT ACQUIRE THE NATURE OF RES ADJUDICATA AS TO BAR ANY
FUTURE ACTION THAT A PARTY MAY TAKE CONCERNING THE SUBJECT PASSED UPON IN THE
EXCLUSION CASE. A VOTER'S INCLUSION CANNOT BE USED AS A BACKDOOR TO GAIN THE
STATUS OF FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP BY JUDICIAL DECLARATION.
 THE ILLUSTRATION OF THE PRINCIPLE

• THE ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD PLAYS A VITAL ROLE IN OUR ELECTION SYSTEM AS A DEMOCRATIC
COUNTRY. WITHOUT WHICH, THE ELECTION SYSTEM AND THE RIGHTS OF SUFFRAGE WILL BE IN CHAOTIC
AND UNSYSTEMATIC. THE RA 8189 ALSO KNOWN AS THE VOTER’S ACT OF 1996 IMPOSED GUIDELINES
REGARDING REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS AND THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ELECTION
REGISTRATION BOARD. THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OR THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT HAS THE
JURISDICTION FOR INCLUSION, EXCLUSION AND CORRECTION OF NAMES OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS
PETITIONS. HOWEVER IT DOES NOT IMPLIED THAT THE COMMISSION OF ELECTION IS PRECLUDED IN
DETERMINING THE PERSON’S CANDIDACY. THE SAID COURTS ARE LIMITED ONLY TO DETERMINING THE
RIGHT OF THE VOTER TO REMAIN IN THE LIST OF VOTERS OR TO DECLARE THAT THE CHALLENGED
VOTER IS NOT QUALIFIED TO VOTE IN THE PRECINCT IN WHICH HE IS REGISTERED, SPECIFYING THE
GROUND OF THE VOTER’S DISQUALIFICATION AS HELD IN DOMINO’S CASE.