GR L 10783; (April, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10783; April 16, 1958
ESTRELLA O. ROCHA, protestant-appellant, vs. JUAN B. CORDIS, protestee-appellee.
FACTS
Estrella O. Rocha (protestant-appellant) and Juan B. Cordis (protestee-appellee) were candidates for mayor of Caramoan, Camarines Sur, in the November 8, 1955 elections. The canvass showed Cordis received 2,042 votes, Rocha 1,705 votes, and another candidate 356 votes. Cordis was proclaimed elected. Rocha filed a petition for quo warranto contesting the legality of Cordis’s election on the ground of ineligibility. She alleged Cordis was not a qualified voter in the municipality at the time of the election, as required by Article 2174 of the Revised Administrative Code, because his right to vote in Precinct No. 9 of Caramoan had been contested by Hermogenes P. Obias, and after a hearing, the court ordered the board of inspectors to strike out his name from the list of qualified voters. Cordis contended that to be qualified to run for mayor, it was not necessary to be a registered voter in the municipality. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur sustained Cordis’s contention and dismissed the petition.
ISSUE
Whether a candidate for an elective municipal office must be a registered voter in the municipality to be considered a “qualified voter” as required by Article 2174 of the Revised Administrative Code.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that Juan B. Cordis was eligible for the office of mayor. The Court ruled that to be a “qualified voter” under Article 2174 of the Revised Administrative Code, a candidate need not be a registered voter in the municipality. It is sufficient that the candidate possesses all the legal qualifications to be a voter and none of the disqualifications. Registration is merely a procedural step to exercise the right of suffrage; it does not confer the status of being a qualified voter. The Court cited its precedent in Yra vs. Abaño, 52 Phil. 380, which held that registration regulates the exercise of the right to vote but is not a qualification for that right. This interpretation was supported by the contemporaneous construction of the law by the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, Cordis, despite not being on the list of registered voters, was a qualified voter within the meaning of the law and eligible for the office. Costs were imposed on appellant.