Aportadera v. Sotto
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: In the general elections of November 1, 1959, Abelardo Aportadera and Manuel C. Sotto vied for the position of Vice-Governor of Davao. Sotto received more votes and was proclaimed the winner by the board of canvassers. Aportadera initiated a quo warranto proceeding, alleging that Sotto was not a qualified voter in Davao Province at the time of the election. 2. Procedural History: Aportadera's petition was filed in the Court of First Instance of Davao, asserting that Sotto was still registered as a voter in Manila and had failed to properly cancel this registration before registering in Davao. Furthermore, Aportadera claimed Sotto committed a felony by falsely stating in his Davao voter's affidavit that he was not registered elsewhere. The respondent, Sotto, moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action. The Court of First Instance granted this motion and dismissed the petition. Aportadera appealed this dismissal to the Supreme Court, raising only questions of law. 3. The Petition: The petitioner-appellant, Aportadera, argues that Sotto was ineligible to be Vice-Governor because he was not a qualified voter of Davao. This ineligibility stems from two main points: first, Sotto's alleged failure to properly cancel his Manila voter registration before registering in Davao, and second, his alleged commission of a felony by falsely swearing he was not registered elsewhere. Aportadera contends that these actions disqualify Sotto from holding the office. The appeal specifically challenges the lower court's dismissal of the quo warranto petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to cancel a prior voter registration before registering in a new precinct disqualifies a person from being a qualified voter. Whether the alleged commission of a felony in registering as a voter disqualifies a person from being a qualified voter and thus ineligible for public office.
Ruling
The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioner-appellant, Abelardo Aportadera.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of voter registration: The Court held that registration is essential to the exercise of the right of suffrage, not to the possession thereof. The right to vote must be possessed before registration, and registration does not confer the right. This principle was established in prior cases such as Yra vs. Abaño and Vivero vs. Murillo. The Court further clarified that Section 98 of the Revised Election Code, which mentions registration in a precinct, is for the purpose of voting in that specific precinct and does not add registration as a qualification to be a voter, as this would conflict with Article V of the Constitution. Therefore, even if Sotto had not been registered at all in Davao, it would not affect his status as a "qualified voter" if he met the constitutional and statutory requirements for suffrage and office eligibility. On the issue of disqualification due to felony: The Court noted that disqualifications to vote are enumerated in Section 99 of the Revised Election Code. The alleged offense of making a false statement in a voter's affidavit does not fall under subdivisions (a) or (b) of Section 99, which require a final judgment of conviction. Since no such final judgment was rendered against Sotto, he was not disqualified on this ground. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and affirmed the dismissal of the quo warranto petition.
Main Doctrine
Registration is essential to the exercise of the right of suffrage, not to the possession thereof. The right to vote must be possessed before registration, and registration does not confer the right. Disqualifications to vote require a final judgment of conviction.