the Province of Sarangani and not of Quezon City is final and conclusive upon
JUAN DOMINO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
FACTS: DOMINO filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of
Representative of the Lone Legislative District of the Province of Sarangani
indicating in item nine (9) of his certificate that he had resided in the
constituency where he seeks to be elected for one (1) year and two (2)
months immediately preceding the election. However, private respondents
Narciso Ra. Grafilo, Jr., Eddy B. Java, Juan P. Bayonito, Jr., Rosario Samson and
Dionisio P. Lim, Sr., filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Deny Due Course to
or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy 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.
Domino presented his COMMUNITY TAX CERTIFICATE he also maintains that
he had complied with the one-year residence requirement and that he has
been residing in Sarangani since January 1997. In support of the said
contention, DOMINO presented before the COMELEC the following exhibits,
to wit:
However, COMELEC 2nd Division promulgated a resolution declaring
DOMINO disqualified as candidate for the position of representative of the
lone district of Sarangani for lack of the one-year residence requirement and
likewise ordered the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy.
ISSUES:
a. Whether or not the judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City declaring petitioner as resident of Sarangani and
not of Quezon City is final, conclusive and binding upon the
whole world, including the Commission on Elections.
b. Whether or not petitioner herein has resided in the subject
congressional district for at least one (1) year immediately
preceding the May 11, 1998 elections; and
c. Whether or not respondent COMELEC has jurisdiction over the
petition a quo for the disqualification of petitioner.[12]
The first issue.
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 COMELEC cannot be sustained.
The COMELEC has jurisdiction as provided in Sec. 78, Art. IX of the
Omnibus Election Code, over a petition to deny due course to or cancel
certificate of candidacy. In the exercise of the said jurisdiction, it is within the
competence of the COMELEC to determine whether false representation as
to material facts was made in the certificate of candidacy, that will include,
among others, the residence of the candidate.
The determination of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City in the
exclusion proceedings as to the right of DOMINO 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 DOMINOs qualification
as a candidate, to pass upon the issue of compliance with the residency
requirement.
The proceedings for the exclusion or inclusion of voters in the list of
voters are summary in character. Thus, the factual findings of the trial court
and its resultant conclusions in the exclusion proceedings on matters other
than the right to vote in the precinct within its territorial jurisdiction are not
conclusive upon the COMELEC. Although the court in inclusion or exclusion
proceedings may pass upon any question necessary to decide the issue raised
including the questions of citizenship and residence of the challenged voter,
the authority to order the inclusion in or exclusion from the list of voters
necessarily caries with it the power to inquire into and settle all matters
essential to the exercise of said authority.
The trial court has no power to order the change or transfer of
registration from one place of residence to another for it is the function of the
election Registration Board as provided under Section 12 of R.A. No. 8189. The
only effect of the decision of the lower court excluding the challenged voter
from the list of voters, is for the Election Registration Board, upon receipt of
the final decision, to remove the voters registration record from the
corresponding book of voters, enter the order of exclusion therein, and
thereafter place the record in the inactive file.[18]
On issue of res judicata: In order that res judicata may exist the following
are necessary: (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of things; and (c) identity
of issues (Aquino vs. Director of Lands, 39 Phil. 850). And as in the case of
the petition for exclusion and in the present quo warranto proceeding, as
there is no identity of parties, or of things or litigious matter, or of issues or
causes of action, there is no res judicata.
The Second Issue.
Was DOMINO a resident of the Province of Sarangani for at least one
year immediately preceding the 11 May 1998 election as stated in his
certificate of candidacy?
We hold in the negative.
It is doctrinally settled that the term residence, as used in the law
prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, means the
same thing as domicile, which imports not only an intention to reside in a
fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence
to which, whenever absent for business, pleasure, or some other reasons,
one intends to return. Domicile is a question of intention and
circumstances. In the consideration of circumstances, three rules must be
borne in mind, namely: (1) that a man must have a residence or domicile
somewhere; (2) when once established it remains until a new one is acquired;
and (3) a man can have but one residence or domicile at a time.
Records show that petitioners domicile of origin was Candon, Ilocos
Sur[24] and that sometime in 1991, he acquired a new domicile of choice at
24 Bonifacio St. Ayala Heights, Old Balara, Quezon City, as shown by his
certificate of candidacy for the position of representative of the 3rd District of
Quezon City in the May 1995 election. Petitioner is now claiming that he had
effectively abandoned his residence in Quezon City and has established a
new domicile of choice at the Province of Sarangani. A persons domicile once
established is considered to continue and will not be deemed lost until a new
one is established. To successfully effect a change of domicile one must
demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona
fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a
new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose. In other words,
there must basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non
revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for
an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and
the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.
It is the contention of petitioner that his actual physical presence in
Alabel, Sarangani since December 1996 was sufficiently established by the
lease of a house and lot located therein in January 1997 and by the affidavits
and certifications under oath of the residents of that place that they have seen
petitioner and his family residing in their locality.
While this may be so, actual and physical is not in itself sufficient to
show that from said date he had transferred his residence in that place. To
establish a new domicile of choice, personal presence in the place must be
coupled with conduct indicative of that intention. While residence simply
requires bodily presence in a given place, domicile requires not only such
bodily presence in that place but also a declared and probable intent to make
it ones fixed and permanent place of abode, ones home.
As a general rule, the principal elements of domicile, physical presence
in the locality involved and intention to adopt it as a domicile, must concur in
order to establish a new domicile. No change of domicile will result if either of
these elements is absent. Intention to acquire a domicile without actual
residence in the locality does not result in acquisition of domicile, nor does the
fact of physical presence without intention.
Dominos lack of intention to abandon his residence in Quezon City is
further strengthened by his act of registering as voter in one of the precincts
in Quezon City. While voting is not conclusive of residence, it does give rise
to a strong presumption of residence especially in this case where DOMINO
registered in his former barangay. Exercising the right of election franchise is
a deliberate public assertion of the fact of residence, and is said to have
decided preponderance is a doubtful case upon the place the elector claims
as, or believes to be, his residence.
The Third Issue.
DOMINOs contention that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction in the
present petition is bereft of merit.
 As previously mentioned, the COMELEC, under Sec. 78, Art. IX of the
Omnibus Election Code, has jurisdiction over a petition to deny due course to
or cancel certificate of candidacy. Such jurisdiction continues even after
election, if for any reason no final judgment of disqualification is rendered
before the election, and the candidate facing disqualification is voted for and
receives the highest number of votes, and provided further that the winning
candidate has not been proclaimed or has taken his oath of office.
It has been repeatedly held in a number of cases, that the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunals sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of
Congress as provided under Section 17 of Article VI of the Constitution begins
only after a candidate has become a member of the House of
Representatives.
Since he was yet proclaimed as the winner, the case was not within the
jusristiction of HRET.
Issue raised by INTERVENOR.
After finding that DOMINO is disqualified as candidate for the position
of representative of the province of Sarangani, may INTERVENOR, as the
candidate who received the next highest number of votes, be proclaimed as
the winning candidate?
It is now settled doctrine that the candidate who obtains the second
highest number of votes may not be proclaimed winner in case the winning
candidate is disqualified.
In every election, the peoples choice is the paramount consideration
and their expressed will must, at all times, be given effect. When the majority
speaks and elects into office a candidate by giving the highest number of
votes cast in the election for that office, no one can be declared elected in
his place.
DATU INOCENCIO C. SIAWAN vs. JUDGE AQUILINO A. INOPIQUEZ, JR
FACTS: This is a complaint filed by Datu Inocencio Siawan against Judge
Aquilino. A. Inopiquez, Jr. of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Kananga-
Matag-ob, Leyte, for gross ignorance of the law, gross abuse of power, and
misconduct in connection with the latter's handling of a criminal case and
two election cases for inclusion of voters.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petioner is correct.
RULINGS: The first case was a petition for inclusion of a voter in the voter's
list. Respondent judge admits that the petitioner, retired Judge Ponciano C.
Inopiquez, Sr., is his uncle.20 Nonetheless, he justifies his failure to recuse
himself on the ground that the petition of Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr. was
meritorious. Respondent claims that a hearing was conducted on February
28, 1992 during which Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr. testified to prove that he
was a resident of Brgy. Talisay, Matag-ob, Leyte.
The Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), as amended by P.D. No. 1896,
provides, however, that:
Sec. 139. Petition for inclusion of voters in the list. – Any person
whose application for registration has been disapproved by the
board of election inspectors or whose name has been stricken out
from the list may apply, within twenty days after the last
registration days, to the proper municipal or metropolitan trial
court, for an order directing the board of election inspectors to
include or reinstate his name in the list, together with the
certificate of the board of elections inspectors regarding his case
and proof of service of notice of his petition upon a member of the
board of election inspectors with indication of the time, place, and
court before which the petition is to be heard.
Thus, under the law, a petition for inclusion may be filed only by a person
(a) whose application for registration has been disapproved by the board of
election inspectors or (b) whose name has been stricken out from the list of
voters. No exception is provided by the law. The petition of former Judge
Ponciano C. Inopiquez does not fall within the coverage of the law, since he
was neither refused registration by the board nor his name ordered stricken
from the list of voters of Barangay Talisay, Matag-ob, Leyte. Whether or not
Ponciano Inopiquez had good reason for his failure to register as a voter
was irrelevant. Otherwise, every person who is unable to register for
whatever reason, i.e., he or she was working in another province or was out
of the country during the registration period, could simply file a petition for
inclusion in order to be able to vote.
The records show that neither of the petition in Election Case No. 33325 and
Election Case No. 29226 named the board of election inspectors a party to
the proceedings. Nor is there any showing that the board of election
inspectors was ever notified of hearings to be conducted on such inclusion
proceedings either by registered mail or by personal delivery, or by notice
posted in a conspicuous place in the city hall or municipal building and in
two other conspicuous places within the city or municipality at least 10 days
prior to the day set for the hearing as required in paragraph (b) of the
above provision.
The failure of respondent to observe the requirements of the Election Code
is inexcusable. As a judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court vested with
the jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for inclusion or exclusion of
voters, he is expected to be familiar with these requirements because it can
be assumed that these election cases were not the first cases he has
decided.
SULTAN USMAN SARANGANI vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Facts: A petition for annulment of several precincts and annulment of book
of voters in Madalum, Lanao Del Sur was filed with the COMELEC by, among
others, Hadji Oblais R. Omar thru counsel Atty. Nasib D. Yasin, herein
private respondents wherein the position answered. After the investigation,
it was
(2) finds Padian Torogan as ghost precinct and shall be
excluded from the special election to be conducted in
Madalum.
Which granted the petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in declaring Padian-Torogan as ghost precinct.[12]
RULING: Court finds that the COMELEC had exerted efforts to investigate
the facts and verified that there were no public or private buildings in the
said place, hence its conclusion that there were no inhabitants. If there
were no inhabitants, a fortiori, there can be no registered voters, or the
registered voters may have left the place. It is not impossible for a certain
barangay not to actually have inhabitants considering that people migrate.
A barangay may officially exist on record and the fact that nobody resides in
the place does not result in its automatic cessation as a unit of local
government. Under the Local Government Code of 1991, the abolition of a
local government unit (LGU) may be done by Congress in the case of a
province, city, municipality, or any other political subdivision.[15] In the case
of a barangay, except in Metropolitan Manila area and in cultural
communities, it may be done by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan or
Sangguniang Panglungsod concerned subject to the mandatory
requirement of a plebiscite[16]conducted for the purpose in the political
units affected.
The COMELEC has broad powers to ascertain the true results of an election
by means available to it. The assailed order having been issued pursuant to
COMELECs administrative powers and in the absence of any finding of grave
abuse of discretion in declaring a precinct as non-existent, said order shall
stand. Judicial interference is unnecessary and uncalled for.[18] No voter is
disenfranchised because no such voter exist. The sacred right of suffrage
guaranteed by the Constitution is not tampered when a list of fictitious
voters is excluded from an electoral exercise. Suffrage is conferred by the
Constitution only on citizens who are qualified to vote and are not
otherwise disqualified by law. On the contrary, such exclusion of non-
existent voters all the more protects the validity and credibility of the
electoral process as well as the right of suffrage because the "electoral will"
would not be rendered nugatory by the inclusion of some ghost votes.
Election laws should give effect to, rather than frustrate the will of the
people.
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY vs. ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW
LABOR PARTY GO! GO! PHILIPPINES
FACTS: With the onset of the 2001 elections, the Comelec received several
Petitions for registration filed by sectoral parties, organizations and political
parties. Thereafter, before the February 12, 2001 deadline prescribed under
Comelec Resolution No. 3426 dated December 22, 2000, the registered
parties and organizations filed their respective Manifestations, stating their
intention to participate in the party-list elections. Other sectoral and
political parties and organizations whose registrations were denied also
filed Motions for Reconsideration, together with Manifestations of their
intent to participate in the party-list elections. Still other registered parties
filed their Manifestations beyond the deadline.
On April 10, 2001, Akbayan Citizens Action Party filed before the Comelec a
Petition praying that "the names of [some of herein respondents] be
deleted from the 'Certified List of Political Parties/Sectoral
Parties/Organizations/Coalitions Participating in the Party List System for
the May 14, 2001 Elections' and that said certified list be accordingly
amended." It also asked, as an alternative, that the votes cast for the said
respondents not be counted or canvassed, and that the latter's nominees
not be proclaimed. 4 On April 11, 2001, Bayan Muna and Bayan Muna-Youth
also filed a Petition for Cancellation of Registration and Nomination against
some of herein respondents.
ISSUE: 1. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list
elections.
2. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to 'marginalized
and underrepresented' sectors and organizations.
RULING: The Petitions are partly meritorious.
Participation of Political Parties
Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents cannot be
disqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they
are political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that
members of the House of Representatives may "be elected through a party-
list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations." Indeed, the purpose of the party-list provision was to open
up the system, in order to give a chance to parties that consistently place
third or fourth in congressional district elections to win a seat in Congress.
For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also provides for "a party-list system of
registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
coalitions thereof, x x x." Section 3 expressly states that a "party" is "either a
political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties." More to the
point, the law defines "political party" as "an organized group of citizens
advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general
conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of
securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its
leaders and members as candidates for public office." Furthermore, Section
11 of RA 7941 leaves no doubt as to the participation of political parties in
the party-list system.
Marginalized and Underrepresented
That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not
mean, however, that any political party -- or any organization or group for
that matter -- may do so. The requisite character of these parties or
organizations must be consistent with the purpose of the party-list system,
as laid down in the Constitution and RA 7941. Section 5, Article VI of the
Constitution.
The foregoing provision on the party-list system is not self-executory. It is,
in fact, interspersed with phrases like "in accordance with law" or "as may
be provided by law"; it was thus up to Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty
objective of the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was enacted. It laid out the
statutory policy in this wise:
The Marginalized and Underrepresented to Become Lawmakers Themselves
The foregoing provision mandates a state policy of promoting proportional
representation by means of the Filipino-style party-list system, which will
"enable" the election to the House of Representatives of Filipino citizens,
1. who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties; and
2. who lack well-defined constituencies; but
3. who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.
The key words in this policy are "proportional representation,"
"marginalized and underrepresented," and "lack ofwell-defined
constituencies."
"Proportional representation" here does not refer to the number of people
in a particular district, because the party-list election is national in scope.
Neither does it allude to numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed
group. Rather, it refers to the representation of the "marginalized and
underrepresented" as exemplified by the enumeration in Section 5 of the
law; namely, "labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas
workers, and professionals."
However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim representation of the
marginalized and underrepresented, because representation is easy to
claim and to feign. The party-list organization or party must factually and
truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented constituencies
mentioned in Section 5. 36 Concurrently, the persons nominated by the
party-list candidate-organization must be "Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties."
Finally, "lack of well-defined constituenc[y] " refers to the absence of a
traditionally identifiable electoral group, like voters of a congressional
district or territorial unit of government. Rather, it points again to those
with disparate interests identified with the "marginalized or
underrepresented."
In the end, the role of the Comelec is to see to it that only those Filipinos
who are "marginalized and underrepresented" become members of
Congress under the party-list system, Filipino-style.
The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine power to the people,
not only by giving more law to those who have less in life, but more so by
enabling them to become veritable lawmakers themselves. Consistent with
this intent, the policy of the implementing law, we repeat, is likewise clear:
"to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented
sectors, organizations and parties, x x x, to become members of the House
of Representatives." Where the language of the law is clear, it must be
applied according to its express terms. 37
While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is
not exclusive, it demonstrates the clear intent of the law that not all sectors
can be represented under the party-list system. It is a fundamental principle
of statutory construction that words employed in a statute are interpreted
in connection with, and their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the
words and the phrases with which they are associated or related. Thus, the
meaning of a term in a statute may be limited, qualified or specialized by
those in immediate association. 38